8–11–03 Monday Vol. 68 No. 154 Aug. 11, 2003

Pages 47441–47834

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:26 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\11AUWS.LOC 11AUWS

1 II Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records PUBLIC Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 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. What’s NEW! The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table of established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, Contents in your e-mail every day. the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any document It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases in the issue. on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select: The online edition of the Federal Register www.access.gpo.gov/ Online mailing list archives nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the FEDREGTOC-L official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 Join or leave the list U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day Then follow the instructions. the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via email at [email protected]. What’s NEW! The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Special Values on Selected Volumes of the 2002 Code of Federal Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. Regulations The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $699, or $764 for a combined Federal Register, Federal Selected volumes of the 2002 Code of Federal Regulations are now Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) available for sale by the Government Printing Office at special prices. subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register Go to: http://bookstore.gpo.gov/values/cfr.html including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $264. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $10.00 for each issue, or $10.00 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 40% for foreign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; or call toll free 1-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, [email protected]. 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: 68 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:26 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\11AUWS.LOC 11AUWS

2 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Customs and Border Protection Bureau NOTICES RULES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Customs brokers: submissions, and approvals, 47579–47580 Customs business performance by parent and subsidiary corporations, 47455–47460 Agriculture Department Freedom of Information Act; implementation: See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Confidential commercial information, 47453–47455 See Farm Service Agency See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Education Department Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service submissions, and approvals, 47550–47553 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Postsecondary education— Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases, Secretary’s Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program, 47553– Advisory Committee, 47536 47555 Privacy Act: Systems of records, 47555–47557 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Energy Department submissions, and approvals, 47577–47580 See Energy Information Administration Grant and cooperative agreement awards: See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Association of Public Health Laboratories, 47580 Caribbean Regional Network of Persons Living with HIV/ Energy Information Administration AIDS, 47580–47581 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services submissions, and approvals, 47558 RULES Medicare: Environmental Protection Agency Hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and 2004 RULES FY rates Air quality implementation plans; approval and Correction, 47637 promulgation; various States: California, 47482–47485 Coast Guard Florida, 47468–47473 RULES Missouri, 47466–47468 Drawbridge operations: New Jersey, 47477–47482 Florida, 47462–47464 West Virginia, 47473–47477 Ports and waterways safety: PROPOSED RULES Chicago Captain of Port Zone, IL; safety zones, 47465 Air quality implementation plans; approval and Lake Michigan— promulgation; various States: Chicago, IL; safety zone, 47464–47465 California, 47533 PROPOSED RULES Florida, 47530–47531 Drawbridge operations: Missouri, 47530 Florida, 47520–47524 New Jersey, 47532 West Virginia, 47531–47532 Commerce Department Water supply: See Foreign-Trade Zones Board National primary drinking water regulations— See Industry and Security Bureau Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, See International Trade Administration 47639–47795 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Executive Office of the President Commodity Futures Trading Commission See Presidential Documents NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Farm Credit Administration submissions, and approvals, 47549–47550 PROPOSED RULES Farm credit system: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Loan policies and operations, etc.— NOTICES Other financial institutions and investments in Performance measurement indicators, 47635–47636 Farmers’ notes, 47502–47513

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:26 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\11AUCN.SGM 11AUCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Contents

Farm Service Agency Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 47565–47566 PROPOSED RULES Special programs: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Tree Assistance Program, 47499–47502 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47566 Federal Aviation Administration RULES Federal Trade Commission Air carrier certification and operations: RULES Incidents involving animals during air transport; reports Appliances, consumer; energy consumption and water use by carriers, 47797–47800 information in labeling and advertising: Airworthiness directives: Comparability ranges— MD Helicopters, Inc.; correction, 47447 Standard dishwashers, 47449–47453 Airworthiness standards: NOTICES Special conditions— Agency information collection activities; proposals, Dassault Model Falcon 10 Series airplanes, 47445– submissions, and approvals, 47566–47568 47447 Prohibited trade practices: Class E airspace, 47447–47449 Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s Association, 47568– Class E airspace; correction, 47637 47571 PROPOSED RULES Minnesota Transport Services Association, 47571–47576 Airworthiness directives: Boeing, 47513–47515 Fish and Wildlife Service Class E airspace, 47515–47519 NOTICES NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Advisory circulars; availablity, etc.: Double-crested cormorant management, 47603–47604 Amateur-built aircraft certification and operation, 47627 Agency information collection activities; proposals, Food and Drug Administration submissions, and approvals, 47627–47629 NOTICES Airport noise compatibility program: Human drugs: Noise exposure maps— New drug applications— Martin County Airport/Witham Field, FL, 47629–47630 Sankyo Pharma, Inc.; approval withdrawn, 47581 Meetings: Memorandums of understanding: RTCA, Inc., 47630 Mexico; fresh and frozen aquacultured molluscan Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: shellfish, 47581–47602 Wood County Airport Authority, WV, et al., 47631–47633 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Small airplanes; complex avionics systems and NOTICES component installation approvals; approved model Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: list, 47633 Texas Federal Communications Commission American Eurocopter LLC; helicopter parts NOTICES warehousing and distribution facilities, 47536 Common carrier services: Telecommunications carrier eligibility designation General Services Administration petitions— NOTICES Nextel Partners; Alabama service area, 47563–47564 Privacy Act: Wireline companies— Systems of records, 47576–47577 Non-rural carriers; high-cost support calculated by using updated line counts, 47564–47565 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration RULES Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Swine packer marketing contracts; contract library, 47801– NOTICES 47829 Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: NewCorp Resources Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al., Health and Human Services Department 47558–47559 See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry UniSource Energy Corp. et al., 47559–47561 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention United States Energy Department et al., 47561–47563 See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Meetings: See Food and Drug Administration Southwestern Gas Storage Technical Conference, 47563 See Health Resources and Services Administration Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: NOTICES Bridgeline Gas Distribution LLC, 47558 Federal claims; interest rates on overdue debts, 47577 Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES NOTICES Strategic Plan (2003-2008); update, 47602–47603 Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 47602 Federal Reserve System NOTICES Homeland Security Department Banks and bank holding companies: See Coast Guard Change in bank control, 47565 See Customs and Border Protection Bureau

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:26 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\11AUCN.SGM 11AUCN Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Contents V

Housing and Urban Development Department Meetings: See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council, 47634 Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Minerals Management Service Export transactions: NOTICES List of unverified persons in foreign countries, guidance Royalty management: to exporters as to ‘‘red flags’’ (Supplement No. 3 to Royalty-in-Kind eligible refiner program; Federal 15 CFR part 732); correction, 47637 Government royalty oil sales continuation; Need Determination Process, 47605–47606 Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service Mine Safety and Health Administration See Land Management Bureau NOTICES See Minerals Management Service Agency information collection activities; proposals, See National Park Service submissions, and approvals, 47617–47620

International Trade Administration National Credit Union Administration NOTICES NOTICES Antidumping: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Honey from— submissions, and approvals, 47620–47621 China, 47537–47538 Polyvinyl alcohol from— National Highway Traffic Safety Administration China, 47538–47540 RULES Korea, 47540–47543 Motor vehicle safety standards: Stainless steel bar from— Hydraulic and air brake systems— India, 47543–47546 Heavy vehicle anti-lock brake system (ABS); Countervailing duties: performance requirement, 47485–47497 Dynamic random access memory semiconductors from— NOTICES Korea, 47546–47547 Agency information collection activities; proposals, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); submissions, and approvals, 47634–47635 binational panel reviews: Carbon and alloy steel wire rod from— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mexico, 47547 RULES Fishery conservation and management: International Trade Commission Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— NOTICES Red snapper, 47498 Import investigations: NOTICES Bearings and packaging, 47606–47607 Marine mammals: Drams and dram modules from— Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— Korea, 47607 EnCana Oil & Gas, Inc.; steel drilling caisson move Electrolytic manganese dioxide from— through Beaufort Sea from Cross Island, McCovey Various countries, 47607–47608 Prospect to Herschel Island, Yukon Territory, Frozen fish fillets from— 47547–47549 Vietnam, 47608–47609 Polyethylene retail carrier bags from— National Park Service Various countries, 47609 PROPOSED RULES Truck bed ramps and components, 47609–47610 Special regulations: Canyonlands National Park, Salt Creek Canyon, UT; Justice Department motor vehicle prohibition, 47524–47527 PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; implementation, 47519–47520 NOTICES National Science Foundation Privacy Act: NOTICES Systems of records, 47610–47617 Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978; permit applications, etc., 47621 Labor Department See Mine Safety and Health Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Land Management Bureau Decommissioning plans; sites: NOTICES Fansteel, Inc., site, Muskogee, OK, 47621–47622 Meetings: Resource Advisory Councils— Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Front Range, 47604–47605 See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office

Maritime Administration Personnel Management Office NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 47633–47634 submissions, and approvals, 47622–47623

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:26 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\11AUCN.SGM 11AUCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Contents

Postal Service See Maritime Administration PROPOSED RULES See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Freedom of Information Act; implementation: PROPOSED RULES Organizational changes and fee structure, 47527–47530 Standard time zone boundaries: South Dakota, 47533–47535 Presidential Documents NOTICES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Aviation proceedings: Export control regulations; continuation of emergency Agreements filed; weekly receipts, 47627 (Notice of August 7, 2003), 47831–47833 Certificates of public convenience and necessity and International Criminal Court; waiving prohibition on foreign air carrier permits; weekly applications, United States military assistance to parties to the Rome 47627 Statute (Presidential Determination No. 2003-2 of July 29, 2003), 47441 Treasury Department West Bank and Gaza; availability of funds under the See Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (Presidential Determination No. 2003-29 of August 4, 2003), 47443 Separate Parts In This Issue

Securities and Exchange Commission Part II NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency, 47639–47795 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 47623–47624 Part III National Securities Clearing Corp., 47624–47625 Transportation Department, Federal Aviation Administration, 47797–47800 Small Business Administration NOTICES Part IV Disaster loan areas: Agriculture Department, Grain Inspection, Packers and Ohio, 47625 Stockyards Administration, 47801–47829 Texas, 47625 Part V State Department Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, RULES 47831–47833 Visas; nonimmigrant documentation: Classification table; two new symbols added, 47460– 47462 NOTICES Reader Aids Clean Diamond Trade Act; participating countries eligible Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for for trade in rough diamonds; list, 47626–47627 phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Agency To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Transportation Department archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change See Federal Aviation Administration settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:26 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\11AUCN.SGM 11AUCN Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / 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.

3 CFR 141...... 47640 142...... 47640 Executive Orders: 13222 (See: Notice of 42 CFR August 7, 2003) ...... 47833 412...... 47637 Administrative Orders: 49 CFR Notices: 571...... 47485 Notice of August 7, Proposed Rules: 2003 ...... 47833 71...... 47533 Presidential Determinations: 50 CFR No. 2003-28...... 47441 622...... 47498 No. 2003-29...... 47443 7 CFR Proposed Rules: 783...... 47499 9 CFR 206...... 47802 12 CFR Proposed Rules: 614...... 47502 615...... 47502 14 CFR 25...... 47445 39...... 47447 71 (4 documents) ...... 47447, 47448, 47449, 47637 119...... 47798 Proposed Rules: 39...... 47513 71 (3 documents) ...... 47515, 47516, 47518 16 CFR 305...... 47449 19 CFR 103...... 47453 111...... 47455 22 CFR 41...... 47460 28 CFR Proposed Rules: 16...... 47519 33 CFR 117...... 47462 165 (2 documents) ...... 47464, 47465 Proposed Rules: 117 (2 documents) ...... 47520, 47522 36 CFR Proposed Rules: 7...... 47524 39 CFR Proposed Rules: 224...... 47527 261...... 47527 262...... 47527 263...... 47527 264...... 47527 265...... 47527 266...... 47527 267...... 47527 268...... 47527 40 CFR 52 (5 documents) ...... 47466, 47468, 47473, 47477, 47482 Proposed Rules: 52 (5 documents) ...... 47530, 45731, 47532, 47533

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:31 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\11AULS.LOC 11AULS 47441

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

Title 3— Presidential Determination No. 2003–28 of July 29, 2003

The President Waiving Prohibition on United States Military Assistance to Parties to the Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (the ‘‘Act’’), title II of Public Law 107–206 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.), I hereby: • Determine that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Djibouti, Mauritius, and Zambia have each entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal Court from proceeding against U.S. personnel present in such countries; and • Waive the prohibition of section 2007(a) of the Act with respect to these countries for as long as such agreement remains in force. You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the Federal Register. W THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, July 29, 2003.

[FR Doc. 03–20503 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Billing code 4710–10–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\11AUO0.SGM 11AUO0 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Presidential Documents 47443 Presidential Documents

Presidential Determination No. 2003–29 of August 4, 2003

Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as Amended

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Consistent with section (2)(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1), I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest that up to $26 million be made available from the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for a contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Pal- estine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to meet unexpected, urgent refugee needs in the West Bank and Gaza. You are authorized and directed to inform the appropriate committees of the Congress of this determination and the obligation of funds under this authority, and to arrange for the publication of this memorandum in the Federal Register. W THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, August 4, 2003.

[FR Doc. 03–20504 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Billing code 4710–10–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:13 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\11AUO1.SGM 11AUO1 47445

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER address. All comments must be marked: proposal, include with your comments contains regulatory documents having general Docket No. NM260. Comments may be a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on applicability and legal effect, most of which inspected in the Rules Docket which the docket number appears. We are keyed to and codified in the Code of weekdays, except Federal holidays, will stamp the date on the postcard and Federal Regulations, which is published under between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. mail it back to you. 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Background The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport On May 3, 2003, Frederick A. new books are listed in the first FEDERAL Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Whitson, 7700 Ouray Road, REGISTER issue of each week. Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue Albuquerque, NM 87120, applied to the SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; FAA, Fort Worth Special Certification telephone (425) 227–2799; facsimile Office, for a supplemental type DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (425) 227–1149. certificate (STC) to modify certain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dassault Model Falcon 10 series Federal Aviation Administration airplanes. These airplanes are two- Comments Invited flightcrew, two-engine airplanes. The 14 CFR Part 25 The FAA has determined that notice proposed modification incorporates the [Docket No. NM260, Special Conditions No. and opportunity for prior public installation of an IS&S Digital Air Data 25–242–SC] comment are unnecessary in accordance System. This system replaces the with 14 CFR 11.38, because the FAA has equipment originally installed in these Special Conditions: Dassault Model provided previous opportunities to airplanes, which was not accurate Falcon 10 Series Airplanes; High enough for reduced vertical separation Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) comment on substantially identical special conditions and has fully minimum (RVSM) requirements. The AGENCY: Federal Aviation considered and addressed all the information presented by this Administration (FAA) DOT. substantive comments received. Based equipment is flight critical. The IS&S ACTION: Final special conditions; request on a review of the comment history and Digital Air Data System to be installed for comments. the comment resolution, the FAA is in this airplane has the potential to be satisfied that new comments are vulnerable to high-intensity radiated SUMMARY: These special conditions are unlikely. The FAA, therefore, finds that fields (HIRF) external to the airplane. issued for the Dassault Model Falcon 10 good cause exists for making these Type Certification Basis series airplanes. These airplanes, as special conditions effective upon modified by Frederick A. Whitson, will issuance. However, the FAA invites Under the provisions of 14 CFR have novel and unusual design features interested persons to participate in this 21.101, Frederick A. Whitson must when compared to the state of rulemaking by submitting comments, show that the modified Dassault Model technology envisioned in the data, or views. The most helpful Falcon 10 series airplanes, as changed, airworthiness standards for transport comments reference a specific portion of continue to meet the applicable category airplanes. The modification the special conditions, explain the provisions of the regulations incorporates the installation of the IS&S reason for any recommended change, incorporated by reference in Type Digital Air Data System. The applicable and include supporting data. We ask Certificate No. A33EU, or the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain that you send us two copies of written regulations in effect on the date of adequate or appropriate safety standards comments. application for the change. The for the protection of these systems from We will file in the docket all regulations incorporated by reference in the effects of high-intensity radiated comments we receive, as well as a the type certificate are commonly fields (HIRF). These special conditions report summarizing each substantive referred to as the ‘‘original type contain the additional safety standards public contact with FAA personnel certification basis.’’ that the Administrator considers concerning these special conditions. The regulations incorporated by necessary to establish a level of safety The docket is available for public reference in Type Certificate No. A33EU equivalent to that provided by the inspection before and after the comment include 14 CFR part 25 dated February existing airworthiness standards. closing date. If you wish to review the 1, 1964, including Amendments Nos. DATES: The effective date of these docket in person, go to the address in 25–1 through 25–20. Type Certificate special conditions is July 31, 2003. the ADDRESSES section of this preamble A33EU was issued September 20, 1973. Comments must be received on or between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday If the Administrator finds that the before September 10, 2003. through Friday, except Federal holidays. applicable airworthiness regulations ADDRESSES: Comments on these special We will consider all comments we (i.e., 14 CFR part 25, as amended) do not conditions may be mailed in duplicate receive on or before the closing date for contain adequate or appropriate safety to: Federal Aviation Administration, comments. We will consider comments standards for the modified Dassault Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: filed late if it is possible to do so Model Falcon 10 series airplanes, as Rules Docket (ANM–113), Docket No. without incurring expense or delay. We modified by Frederick A. Whitson, NM260, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., may change these special conditions in because of a novel or unusual design Renton, Washington, 98055–4056; or light of the comments we receive. feature, special conditions are delivered in duplicate to the Transport If you want the FAA to acknowledge prescribed under the provisions of Airplane Directorate at the above receipt of your comments on this § 21.16.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47446 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

In addition to the applicable the airplane, the immunity of critical Model Falcon 10 series airplanes airworthiness regulations and special digital avionics/electronics and modified by Frederick A. Whitson to conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon electrical systems to HIRF must be include an IS&S Digital Air Data 10 series airplanes must comply with established. System. Should Frederick A. Whitson the fuel vent and exhaust emission It is not possible to precisely define apply at a later date for a supplemental requirement of 14 CFR part 34 and the the HIRF to which the airplane will be type certificate to modify any other noise certification requirement of part exposed in service. There is also model already included on Type 36. uncertainty concerning the effectiveness Certificate No. A33EU to incorporate the Special conditions, as defined in 14 of airframe shielding for HIRF. same novel or unusual design feature, CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance Furthermore, coupling of these special conditions would apply to with § 11.38 and become part of the type electromagnetic energy to cockpit- that model as well under the provisions certification basis in accordance with installed equipment through the cockpit of 14 CFR 21.101(a)(1). § 21.101(b)(2). window apertures is undefined. Based Conclusion Special conditions are initially on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF applicable to the model for which they emitters, an adequate level of protection This action affects only certain design are issued. Should Frederick A. Whitson exists when compliance with the HIRF features on the Dassault Model Falcon apply at a later date for a supplemental protection special condition is shown 10 series airplanes. It is not a rule of type certificate to modify any other with either paragraph 1 or 2 below: general applicability and affects only model included on the same type 1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms the applicant who applied to the FAA certificate to incorporate the same novel (root-mean-square) per meter electric for approval of these features on the or unusual design feature, these special field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz. airplane. conditions would also apply to the other a. The threat must be applied to the The substance of the special model. system elements and their associated conditions for these airplanes has been wiring harnesses without the benefit of subjected to the notice and comment Novel or Unusual Design Features airframe shielding. procedure in several prior instances and The modified Falcon 10 will b. Demonstration of this level of has been derived without substantive incorporate new avionics/electronics protection is established through system change from those previously issued. and electrical systems that will perform tests and analysis. Because a delay would significantly critical functions. These systems may be 2. A threat external to the airframe of affect the certification of the airplane, vulnerable to HIRF external to the the field strengths indicated in the which is imminent, the FAA has airplane. The current airworthiness following table for the frequency ranges determined that prior public notice and standards (14 CFR part 25) do not indicated. Both peak and average field comment are unnecessary and contain adequate or appropriate safety strength components from the table are impracticable, and good cause exists for standards that address protecting this to be demonstrated. adopting these special conditions upon equipment from the adverse effects of issuance. The FAA is requesting HIRF. Accordingly, these instruments Field strength comments to allow interested persons to are considered to be a novel or unusual Frequency (volts per meter) submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior design feature. Peak Average opportunities for comment described Discussion 10 kHz-100 kHz ...... 50 50 above. There is no specific regulation that 100 kHz-500 kHz ...... 50 50 List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 addresses protection requirements for 500 kHz-2 MHz ...... 50 50 electrical and electronic systems from 2 MHz-30 MHz ...... 100 100 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting HIRF. Increased power levels from 30 MHz-70 MHz ...... 50 50 and recordkeeping requirements. ground-based radio transmitters and the 70 MHz-100 MHz ..... 50 50 100 MHz-200 MHz ... 100 100 The authority citation for these growing use of sensitive avionics/ 200 MHz-400 MHz ... 100 100 special conditions is as follows: electronics and electrical systems to 400 MHz-700 MHz ... 700 50 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, command and control airplanes have 700 MHz-1 GHz ...... 700 100 44702, 44704. made it necessary to provide adequate 1 GHz-2 GHz ...... 2000 200 protection. 2 GHz-4 GHz ...... 3000 200 The Special Conditions To ensure that a level of safety is 4 GHz-6 GHz ...... 3000 200 Accordingly, pursuant to the achieved equivalent to that intended by 6 GHz-8 GHz ...... 1000 200 authority delegated to me by the the regulations incorporated by 8 GHz-12 GHz ...... 3000 300 Administrator, the following special reference, special conditions are needed 12 GHz-18 GHz ...... 2000 200 conditions are issued as part of the 18 GHz-40 GHz ...... 600 200 for the Falcon 10. These special supplemental type certification basis for conditions require that new avionics/ The field strengths are expressed in terms Dassault Model Falcon 10 series electronics and electrical systems that of peak of the root-mean-square (rms) over airplanes modified by Frederick A. perform critical functions be designed the complete modulation period. Whitson: and installed to preclude component The threat levels identified above are 1. Protection From Unwanted Effects damage and interruption of function the result of an FAA review of existing of High-Intensity Radiated Fields due to both the direct and indirect studies on the subject of HIRF, in light (HIRF). Each electrical and electronic effects of HIRF. of the ongoing work of the system that performs critical functions Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization must be designed and installed to High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Working Group of the Aviation ensure that the operation and With the trend toward increased Rulemaking Advisory Committee. operational capability of these systems power levels from ground-based to perform critical functions are not transmitters, plus the advent of space Applicability adversely affected when the airplane is and satellite communications coupled As discussed above, these special exposed to high intensity radiated fields with electronic command and control of conditions are applicable to Dassault external to the airplane.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47447

2. For the purpose of these special Since no other part of the regulatory aircraft while executing two new SIAPs conditions, the following definition information has been revised, the final for the Igiugig Airport. The new applies: rule is not being republished. approaches are (1) Area Navigation- Critical Functions: Functions whose Global Positioning System (RNAV GPS) Correction of the Publication failure would contribute to or cause a Runway 05 original, and (2) RNAV failure condition that would prevent the ■ Accordingly, the publication on July 2, (GPS) Runway 23 original. Interested continued safe flight and landing of the 2003 of the final rule (AD 2003–08–51), parties were invited to participate in airplane. which was the subject of FR Doc. 03– this rulemaking proceeding by Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 16687, is corrected as follows: submitting written comments on the 2003. proposal to the FAA. No public § 39.13 [Corrected] Ali Bahrami, comments have been received, thus, the ■ On page 39451, in the second column, rule is adopted as proposed. Acting Manager, Transport Airplane The area will be depicted on Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. paragraph (c), the last part number, ‘‘500P3500–70,’’ in that paragraph is aeronautical charts for pilot reference. [FR Doc. 03–20400 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] corrected to read ‘‘500P3500–701’’. The coordinates for this airspace docket BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 1, are based on North American Datum 83. 2003. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Scott A. Horn, published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Certification Service. and Reporting Points, dated August 30, [FR Doc. 03–20237 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] 14 CFR Part 39 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P which is incorporated by reference in 14 [Docket No. 2003–SW–17–AD; Amendment CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will 39–13215; AD 2003–08–51] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION be revoked and revised subsequently in RIN 2120–AA64 Federal Aviation Administration the Order. The Rule Airworthiness Directives; MD 14 CFR Part 71 Helicopters, Inc. Model 369A, D, E, H, This revision to 14 CFR part 71 HE, HM, HS, F, and FF Helicopters; [Docket No. FAA–2003–14856; Airspace establishes Class E airspace at Iguigig, Docket No. 03–AAL–06] Correction Alaska. This additional Class E airspace is being created to accomodate aircraft AGENCY: Federal Aviation Establishment of Class E Airspace; executing new SIAPs and will be Administration, DOT. Igiugig, AK depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot ACTION: Final rule; correction. AGENCY: Federal Aviation reference. The intended effect of this Administration (FAA), DOT. rule is to provide adequate controlled SUMMARY: This document corrects airspace for IFR operations at Igiugig ACTION: Final rule. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003–08– Airport, Igiugig, Alaska. 51 for the specified MD Helicopters, Inc. SUMMARY: This action establishes Class The FAA has determined that this helicopters that was published in the E airspace at Igiugig, AK to provide regulation only involves an established Federal Register on July 2, 2003 (68 FR adequate controlled airspace to contain body of technical regulations for which 39449). The AD contains an incorrect aircraft executing two new Standard frequent and routine amendments are part number (P/N). In all other respects, Instrument Approach Procedures necessary to keep them operationally the original document remains the (SIAP). This rule results in new Class E current. It, therefore—(1) is not a same. airspace upward from 700 ft. above the ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under DATES: Effective July 17, 2003, to all ground at Igiugig, AK. Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT persons except those persons to whom EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 30, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 it was made immediately effective by 2003. Emergency AD 2003–08–51, issued on FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: does not warrant preparation of a April 15, 2003, which contained the Derril Bergt, AAL–531, Federal Aviation requirements of this amendment. regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, impact is so minimal. Since this a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; routine matter that will only affect air Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, telephone number (907) 271–2796; fax: traffic procedures and air navigation, it Los Angeles Aircraft Certification (907) 271–2850; email: is certified that this rule will not have Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 [email protected]. Internet address: a significant economic impact on a Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. substantial number of small entities 90712, telephone (562) 627–5232, fax SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: under the criteria of the Regulatory (562) 627–5210. Flexibility Act. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA History issued a final rule AD 2003–08–51, on On Monday, May 5, 2003, the FAA List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 June 3, 2003 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003). proposed to revise part 71 of the Federal Airspace, Incorporation by reference, The following correction is needed: Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to Navigation (air). The last P/N listed in paragraph (c) of create new Class E airspace upward Adoption of the Amendment the AD is incorrectly listed as from 700 ft. above the surface at Igiugig, 500P3500–70; the correct P/N is AK (68 FR 23625). The action was ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 500P3500–701. Therefore, the P/N proposed in order to add Class E Federal Aviation Administration needs correcting. airspace sufficient in size to contain amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47448 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND Derril Bergt, AAL–531, Federal Aviation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; does not warrant preparation of a POINTS telephone number (907) 271–2796; fax: regulatory evaluation as the anticipated (907) 271–2850; email: impact is so minimal. Since this a ■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR [email protected]. Internet address: routine matter that will only affect air part 71 continues to read as follows: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. traffic procedures and air navigation, it Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: is certified that this rule will not have 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– a significant economic impact on a 1963 Comp., p. 389. History On Monday, May 5, 2003, the FAA substantial number of small entities § 71.1 [Amended] proposed to revise part 71 of the Federal under the criteria of the Regulatory ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to Flexibility Act. CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation create new Class E airspace upward List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Administration Order 7400.9K, Airspace from 700 ft. above the surface at Nelson Designations and Reporting Points, Lagoon, AK (68 FR 23626). The action Airspace, Incorporation by reference, dated August 30, 2002, and effective was proposed in order to add Class E Navigation (air). September 16, 2002, is amended as airspace sufficient in size to contain follows: aircraft while executing two new SIAPs Adoption of the Amendment * * * * * and one new DP for the Nelson Lagoon In consideration of the foregoing, the Airport. The new approaches are (1) Federal Aviation Administration Area Navigation-Global Positioning Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: upward from 700 feet or more above the System (RNAV GPS) Runway 08 surface of the earth. original, and (2) RNAV (GPS) Runway PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, * * * * * 26 original and the new DP is the Binal CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND One RNAV Departure. Interested parties AAL AK E5 Igiugig, AK [New] CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; were invited to participate in this AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING Igiugig Airport, AK rulemaking proceeding by submitting ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ POINTS (Lat. 59 19 27 N., long. 155 54 06 W.) written comments on the proposal to the That airspace extending upward from 700 FAA. No public comments have been feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile received, thus, the rule is adopted as ■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR radius of the Igiugig Airport. proposed. part 71 continues to read as follows: * * * * * The area will be depicted on Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Issued in Anchorage, AK, on July 29, 2003. aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Judith G. Heckl, The coordinates for this airspace docket 1963 Comp., p. 389. Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan are based on North American Datum 83. § 71.1 [Amended] Region. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are [FR Doc. 03–20402 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] ■ published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation and Reporting Points, dated August 30, Administration Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 dated August 30, 2002, and effective Federal Aviation Administration CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace September 16, 2002, is amended as designation listed in this document will follows: 14 CFR Part 71 be revoked and revised subsequently in the Order. * * * * * [Docket No. FAA–2003–14854; Airspace The Rule Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending Docket No. 03–AAL–05] upward from 700 feet or more above the This revision to 14 CFR part 71 surface of the earth. Establishment of Class E Airspace; establishes Class E airspace at Nelson * * * * * Nelson Lagoon, AK Lagoon, Alaska. This additional Class E airspace is being created to accomodate AAL AK E5 Nelson Lagoon, AK [New] AGENCY: Federal Aviation aircraft executing new SIAPs and will Nelson Lagoon Airport, AK Administration (FAA), DOT. be depicted on aeronautical charts for (lat. 56°00′27″ N., long. 161°09′37″ W.) ACTION: Final rule. pilot reference. The intended effect of That airspace extending upward from 700 this rule is to provide adequate feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile SUMMARY: This action establishes Class controlled airspace for IFR operations at radius of the Nelson Lagoon Airport. E airspace at Nelson Lagoon, AK to Nelson Lagoon Airport, Nelson Lagoon, provide adequate controlled airspace to Alaska. * * * * * contain aircraft executing two new The FAA has determined that this Issued in Anchorage, AK, on July 29, 2003. Standard Instrument Approach regulation only involves an established Judith G. Heckl, Procedures (SIAP) and one Departure body of technical regulations for which Procedure (DP). This rule results in new Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan frequent and routine amendments are Region. Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. necessary to keep them operationally [FR Doc. 03–20403 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] above the ground at Nelson Lagoon, AK. current. It, therefore—(1) is not a EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 30, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 2003. Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47449

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, September 16, 2002, is amended as which is incorporated by reference in 14 follows: Federal Aviation Administration CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will * * * * * 14 CFR Part 71 be revoked and revised subsequently in Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending the Order. upward from 700 feet or more above the [Docket No. FAA–2003–14855; Airspace surface of the earth. Docket No. 03–AAL–04] The Rule * * * * * Establishment of Class E Airspace; This revision to 14 CFR part 71 AAL AK E5 Pilot Point, AK [New] Pilot Point, AK establishes Class E airspace at Pilot Pilot Point Airport, AK Point, Alaska. This additional Class E ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ AGENCY: (Lat. 57 34 49 N., long. 157 74 03 W.) Federal Aviation airspace is being created to accomodate Administration (FAA), DOT. That airspace extending upward from 700 aircraft executing new SIAPs and will feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile ACTION: Final rule. be depicted on aeronautical charts for radius of the Pilot Point Airport and that pilot reference. The intended effect of airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet SUMMARY: This action establishes Class this rule is to provide adequate above the surface within an area bounded by E airspace at Pilot Point, AK to provide ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ controlled airspace for IFR operations at lat. 57 51 00 N. long. 158 03 00 W., to lat. adequate controlled airspace to contain ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ Pilot Point Airport, Pilot Point, Alaska. 57 51 00 N. long. 157 05 00 W., to lat. aircraft executing two new Standard 57°24′45″N. long. 157°05′00″W., to lat. Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) The FAA has determined that this 57°24′45″N. long. 158°03′00″W., to the point and one Departure Procedure (DP). This regulation only involves an established of beginning. rule results in new Class E airspace body of technical regulations for which * * * * * frequent and routine amendments are upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above Issued in Anchorage, AK, on July 29, 2003. the ground at Pilot Point, AK. necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a Judith G. Heckl, EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 30, Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan 2003. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Region. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT [FR Doc. 03–20404 Filed 8–8–01; 8:45 am Derril Bergt, AAL–531, Federal Aviation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; does not warrant preparation of a telephone number (907) 271–2796; fax: regulatory evaluation as the anticipated FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (907) 271–2850; email: impact is so minimal. Since this a [email protected]. Internet address: routine matter that will only affect air 16 CFR Part 305 http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at . traffic procedures and air navigation, it SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: is certified that this rule will not have Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and History a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities Water Use of Certain Home Appliances On Monday, May 5, 2003, the FAA under the criteria of the Regulatory and Other Products Required Under proposed to revise part 71 of the Federal Flexibility Act. the Energy Policy and Conservation Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to Act (‘‘Appliance Labeling Rule’’) create new Class E airspace upward List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 from 700 ft. above the surface at Pilot AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Point, AK (68 FR 23624). The action was ACTION: Final rule. Navigation (air). proposed in order to add Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain Adoption of the Amendment SUMMARY: The Federal Trade aircraft while executing two new SIAPs Commission (‘‘Commission’’) amends and one new DP for the Pilot Point ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the its Appliance Labeling Rule (‘‘Rule’’) by Airport. The new approaches are (1) Federal Aviation Administration publishing new ranges of comparability Area Navigation-Global Positioning amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: to be used on required labels for System (RNAV GPS) Runway 25 standard dishwashers. The Commission original, and (2) RNAV (GPS) Runway PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, also announces that the current ranges 07 original and the new DP is the Zilko CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND of comparability for compact One RNAV Departure. Interested parties CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; dishwashers, central air conditioners, were invited to participate in this AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING and heat pumps will remain in effect rulemaking proceeding by submitting POINTS until further notice. Finally, the written comments on the proposal to the Commission amends the portions of ■ FAA. No public comments have been 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Appendices H (Cooling Performance received, thus, the rule is adopted as part 71 continues to read as follows: and Cost for Central Air Conditioners) proposed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, and I (Heating Performance and Cost for The area will be depicted on 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Central Air Conditioners) to reflect the aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 1963 Comp., p. 389. current (2003) Representative Average Unit Cost of Electricity. The coordinates for this airspace docket § 71.1 [Amended] are based on North American Datum 83. EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments The Class E airspace areas designated as ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 announced in this document will 700/1200 foot transition areas are CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation become effective November 10, 2003. published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Administration Order 7400.9K, Airspace FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations Designations and Reporting Points, Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division and Reporting Points, dated August 30, dated August 30, 2002, and effective of Enforcement, Federal Trade

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:24 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47450 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Commission, Washington, DC 20580 will publish a statement that the prior IV. Administrative Procedure Act (202–326–2889). ranges remain in effect for the next year. The amendments published in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rule I. 2003 Dishwasher Ranges notice involve routine, technical and was issued by the Commission in 1979, minor, or conforming changes to the The Commission has analyzed the 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979), in labeling requirements in the Rule. These annual data submissions for response to a directive in the Energy technical amendments merely provide a dishwashers. The data submissions Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 routine change to the range and cost show a significant change in the low (‘‘EPCA’’).1 The Rule covers several information required on EnergyGuide and high ends of the range of categories of major household labels and fact sheets. Accordingly, the comparability scale for standard Commission finds for good cause that appliances including dishwashers. 3 models. Accordingly, the Commission public comment for these technical, The Rule requires manufacturers of all is publishing a new range of procedural amendments is impractical covered appliances to disclose specific comparability for standard dishwashers and unnecessary (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)(B) energy consumption or efficiency in Appendix C2 of the Rule. The range and (d)). information (derived from the DOE test for compact dishwashers has not procedures) at the point of sale in the changed significantly. The new range of V. Regulatory Flexibility Act form of an ‘‘EnergyGuide’’ label and in comparability for standard dishwashers The provisions of the Regulatory catalogs. The Rule requires supersedes the current range, which was Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory manufacturers to include, on labels and published on July 19, 2002 (67 FR Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603– fact sheets, an energy consumption or 47443). Manufacturers of these 604) are not applicable to this efficiency figure and a ‘‘range of dishwashers must base the disclosures proceeding because the amendments do comparability.’’ This range shows the of estimated annual operating cost not impose any new obligations on highest and lowest energy consumption required at the bottom of EnergyGuide entities regulated by the Appliance or efficiencies for all comparable labels for standard-sized dishwashers on Labeling Rule. These technical appliance models so consumers can the 2003 Representative Average Unit amendments merely provide a routine compare the energy consumption or Costs of Energy for electricity (8.41 change to the range information efficiency of other models (perhaps cents per kiloWatt-hour) and natural gas required on EnergyGuide labels. Thus, competing brands) similar to the labeled (81.6 cents per therm) that were the amendments will not have a model. The Rule also requires published by DOE on April 9, 2003 (68 ‘‘significant economic impact on a manufacturers to include, on labels for FR 17361) and by the Commission on substantial number of small entities.’’ 5 some products, a secondary energy May 5, 2003 (68 FR 23584). U.S.C. 605. The Commission has usage disclosure in the form of an II. 2003 Central Air Conditioner and concluded, therefore, that a regulatory estimated annual operating cost based Heat Pump Information flexibility analysis is not necessary, and on a specified DOE national average cost certifies, under Section 605 of the for the fuel the appliance uses. The annual submissions of data for Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Section 305.8(b) of the Rule requires central air conditioners and heat pumps 605(b)), that the amendments manufacturers, after filing an initial have been made to the Commission. The announced today will not have a report, to report certain information ranges of comparability for central air significant economic impact on a annually to the Commission by conditioners and heat pumps have not substantial number of small entities. 2 changed by more than 15% from the specified dates for each product type. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act These reports, which are to assist the current ranges for these products. Commission in preparing the ranges of Therefore, the current ranges for these In a June 13, 1988 notice (53 FR comparability, contain the estimated products, which were published on 22106), the Commission stated that the annual energy consumption or energy September 16, 1996 (61 FR 48620), will Rule contains disclosure and reporting efficiency ratings for the appliances remain in effect until further notice. requirements that constitute ‘‘information collection requirements’’ derived from tests performed pursuant III. Cost Figures for Central Air as defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c), the to the DOE test procedures. Because Conditioner and Heat Pump Fact Sheets manufacturers regularly add new regulation that implements the 4 models to their lines, improve existing The Commission is amending the cost Paperwork Reduction Act. The models, and drop others, the data base calculation formulas in Appendices H Commission noted that the Rule had from which the ranges of comparability and I to Part 305 that manufacturers of been reviewed and approved in 1984 by are calculated is constantly changing. central air conditioners and heat pumps the Office of Management and Budget To keep the required information on must include on fact sheets and in (‘‘OMB’’) and assigned OMB Control No. labels consistent with these changes, the directories to reflect this year’s energy 3084–0068. OMB has reviewed the Rule Commission will publish new ranges if costs figures published by DOE. These and extended its approval for its an analysis of the new information routine amendments will become recordkeeping and reporting indicates that the upper or lower limits effective November 10, 2003. requirements until September 30, 2004. of the ranges have changed by more The amendments now being adopted do than 15%. Otherwise, the Commission 3 The Commission’s classification of ‘‘Standard’’ not change the substance or frequency and ‘‘Compact’’ dishwashers is based on internal of the recordkeeping, disclosure, or load capacity. Appendix C of the Commission’s reporting requirements and, therefore, 1 42 U.S.C. 6294. The statute also requires the Rule defines ‘‘Compact’’ as including countertop Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to develop test dishwasher models with a capacity of fewer than do not require further OMB clearance. procedures that measure how much energy the eight (8) place settings and ‘‘Standard’’ as including List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 appliances use, and to determine the representative portable or built-in dishwasher models with a average cost a consumer pays for the different types capacity of eight (8) or more place settings. The Advertising, Energy conservation, of energy available. Rule requires that place settings be determined in Household appliances, Labeling, 2 Reports for dishwashers are due June 1. Reports accordance with appendix C to 10 CFR part 430, for central air conditioners and heat pumps are due subpart B, of DOE’s energy conservation standards July 1. program. 4 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47451

Reporting and recordkeeping part 430, subpart B. Load patterns shall therm), and the text below the box must requirements. conform to the operating normal for the identify the costs as such. model being tested. ■ Accordingly, 16 CFR Part 305 is ■ 3. Section 2 of Appendix H of Part 305 amended as follows: Range of esti- is amended as follows: mated annual ■ a. By removing the figure ‘‘8.28¢’’ PART 305—[AMENDED] energy con- wherever it appears and by adding, in its Capacity sumption ■ (kWh/yr.) place, the figure ‘‘8.41¢’’. 1. The authority citation for Part 305 ■ continues to read as follows: b. By removing the figure ‘‘12.42¢’’ Low High wherever it appears and by adding, in its Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. place, the figure ‘‘12.62¢’’ in the Standard ...... 222 653 ■ 2. Appendix C2 to Part 305 is revised Example after the formula. ■ 4. In section 2 of Appendix H of Part to read as follows: Cost Information 305 the second formula is removed and Appendix C2 to Part 305—Standard When the above ranges of comparability the first and third formulas are revised to Dishwashers are used on EnergyGuide labels for standard- read as follows: sized dishwashers, the estimated annual Range Information operating cost disclosure appearing in the Appendix H to Part 305—Cooling ‘‘Standard’’ includes portable or built-in box at the bottom of the labels must be Performance and Cost for Central Air dishwasher models with a capacity of eight derived using the 2003 Representative Conditioners (8) or more place settings. Place settings shall Average Unit Costs for electricity (8.41¢ per be in accordance with appendix C to 10 CFR kiloWatt-hour) and natural gas (81.6¢ per * * * * *

Your cooling Your electrical rate Listed average annual load hours ** in cents per KWH Your estimated cost = ×× operating cost * 1, 000 8 .41¢

* * * * * figure ‘‘12.42¢’’ wherever it appears and Appendix I to Part 305—Heating ■ 5. In section 2 of Appendix I of Part by adding, in its place, the figure Performance and Cost for Central Air 305, the text is amended by removing the ‘‘12.62¢’’. Conditioners figure ‘‘8.28¢’’ wherever it appears and ■ 6. In section 2 of Appendix I of Part by adding, in its place, the figure * * * * * 305, the formula is revised to read as ‘‘8.41¢’’. In addition, the Examples and formulas are amended by removing the follows in both places that it appears:

Your electrical cost in cents per KWH Your estimated cost = Listed annual heating cost * × 8.41¢

* * * * * ■ 7. Appendix L is amended by revising Sample Label 4 of part 305 to read as follows: * * * * * BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 ER11AU03.041 ER11AU03.042 47452 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 ER11AU03.040 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47453

* * * * * Background exemption 4 of the FOIA. (Exemption 4 By direction of the Commission. The regulations of the Bureau of of the FOIA protects trade secrets and Donald S. Clark, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), commercial or financial information Secretary. regarding information requested that is privileged or confidential.) The regulations go on to say that, before [FR Doc. 03–20372 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] pursuant to the Freedom of Information business information will be released, BILLING CODE 6750–01–C Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, are set forth in part 103 of Chapter I of notice will be provided to business Title 19 of the Code of Federal submitters whenever (1) a FOIA request DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Regulations (19 CFR part 103). These is made that seeks the business SECURITY regulations were the regulations of the information that has been designated in former U.S. Customs Service (Customs). good-faith as confidential, or (2) the Bureau of Customs and Border As a component of the Department of DHS component agency has reason to Protection the Treasury, Customs supplemented its believe the information may be regulations with the Department of the protected from disclosure. When notice 19 CFR Part 103 Treasury regulations (found at 31 CFR is provided, the submitter will be part 1) regarding public access to RIN 1515–AD29 required to submit a detailed written records. Section 1.6 of the Department statement specifying the grounds for [CBP Decision 03–02] of the Treasury regulations (31 CFR 1.6) withholding any portion of the concerns the treatment of information information and must show why the Confidentiality of Commercial denominated as ‘‘business information’’. information is a trade secret or Information This section provides that such commercial or financial information information provided to the Department AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, that is privileged or confidential. of the Treasury by a ‘‘business Department of Homeland Security. submitter’’ shall not be disclosed Customs, in accordance with the ACTION: Interim rule; solicitation of pursuant to a FOIA request except in Treasury Regulations (31 CFR 1.6), had comments. accordance with the provisions of the not required business submitters to SUMMARY: This document amends section. Part 103 of 19 CFR does not designate information as protected from Chapter I of Title 19 of the Code of have a similar provision and Customs disclosure as privileged or confidential Federal Regulations on an interim basis followed the Department of the under exemption 4 of the FOIA for the regarding the disclosure procedures that Treasury’s disclosure procedure set agency to not disclose ‘‘commercial the Bureau of Customs and Border forth in 31 CFR 1.6 since it was information’’, defined as trade secret, Protection (CBP) follows when promulgated in 1987. commercial, or financial information commercial information is provided to Section 1.6 was promulgated in obtained from a person. The Treasury CBP by a business submitter. The accordance with Executive Order 12600 regulations provide that a component of predecessor of CBP—the U.S. Customs of June 23, 1987, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR the Treasury Department can determine Service—as a component of the part 1987, 235, 23 Weekly Comp.Pres. for itself that information it receives Treasury Department, had followed Doc. 727. Executive Order 12600 from business submitters will not be these procedures consistent with a ordered the head of each Executive disclosed pursuant to a FOIA request. If department to issue a predisclosure Department of the Treasury regulation the agency determines the information notification procedure for FOIA requests that implemented an Executive Order is confidential, it can protect the concerning confidential commercial setting forth the procedure for the information as confidential without treatment of commercial information. information. On March 1, 2003, Customs was notifying the business submitter that a As CBP is now a component of the FOIA request has been received. Department of Homeland Security, CBP transferred from the Treasury is setting forth this established policy in Department to the new Department of For example, Customs routinely its own regulations. Homeland Security (DHS). Pub. L. 107– considered commercial information 296, 6 U.S.C. 133, 116 Stat. 2135. DHS appearing on entry documents as DATES: This interim rule is effective published procedures for the public on August 11, 2003. Comments must be confidential and privileged under how to obtain information from DHS in received on or before October 10, 2003. exemption 4 of the FOIA. Customs did an interim rule published in the Federal not require business submitters to ADDRESSES: Written comments may be Register (68 FR 4055) on January 27, designate that information as addressed to the Customs and Border 2003. Under this rule, established at 6 confidential and did not require the Protection Bureau, Office of Regulations CFR, Chapter I, part 5, the DHS FOIA and Rulings, Attention: Regulations business submitters to respond to a provisions apply to all Department notice from Customs with a written Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, components transferred to the DHS, NW., Washington, DC 20229. Submitted detailed statement specifying the except to the extent that such reasons for the claim of confidentiality. comments may be inspected at Customs component has adopted separate and Border Protection Bureau, 799 9th guidance under the FOIA (6 CFR Accordingly, CBP is issuing this Street, NW., Washington, DC during 5.1(a)(2)). document to assure the trading regular business hours. Arrangements to The DHS FOIA regulation at 6 CFR community that the transfer of Customs inspect submitted comments should be 5.8(c) provides that a submitter of from Treasury to DHS will not affect the made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph business information will use good-faith treatment of commercial information Clark at (202) 572–8768. efforts to designate, by appropriate which business submitters provide to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: markings, either at the time of CBP. In this document CBP is amending Joanne Roman Stump, Chief, Disclosure submission or at a reasonable time its regulations on an interim basis to set Law Branch, Office of Regulations and thereafter, any portions of its forth the established policy it had been Rulings, (202) 572–8720. submission that it considers to be following pursuant to the Treasury SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: protected from disclosure under regulations.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47454 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Discussion of Interim Amendments Inapplicability of Prior Notice and person. Commercial information Concerning the Disclosure of Delayed Effective Date Requirements provided to CBP by a business submitter Commercial Information CBP has determined, pursuant to 5 will be treated as privileged or CBP is adding a new § 103.35 to its U.S.C 553(b)(B), that it would be confidential and will not be disclosed regulations to set forth its policy under contrary to the public interest to issue pursuant to a Freedom of Information the FOIA for the disclosure of this rule with prior notice because the Act (FOIA) request or otherwise made known in any manner except as confidential commercial information. rule sets forth an established treatment provided in this section. The text will provide that ‘‘commercial of commercial information and seeks to (b) Notice to business submitters of information’’, defined as ‘‘trade secret, assure the trade community that such FOIA requests for disclosure. Except as commercial, or financial information submissions will continue to be treated provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this obtained from a person’’, that has been the same by CBP in the Department of section, CBP will provide business provided to CBP by a business submitter Homeland Security as the information submitters with prompt written notice will be considered privileged or was treated when Customs was under of receipt of FOIA requests or appeals confidential and will not be disclosed the Department of the Treasury. For that encompass their commercial except as provided in the section. This these reasons, and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. information. The written notice will section will explain the various notice 553(d)(3), good cause exists to make this describe either the exact nature of the requirements CBP must give to the rule effective immediately without a 30- commercial information requested, or business submitter whose commercial day delayed effective date. However, as enclose copies of the records or those information is the subject of a FOIA previously stated, CBP invites portions of the records that contain the request for information, the procedure a comments before determining whether commercial information. The written business submitter must follow to object to adopt these interim regulations as a notice also will advise the business to the proposed disclosure, the notice of final rule. submitter of its right to file a disclosure intent to disclose provisions that CBP The Regulatory Flexibility Act, and objection statement as provided under must follow when it decides to disclose Executive Order 12866 paragraph (c)(1) of this section. CBP will requested commercial information, and provide notice to business submitters of Because no notice of proposed exceptions to the notice requirements. FOIA requests for the business rulemaking is required for interim There is no affirmative requirement of submitter’s commercial information for regulations, the provisions of the business submitters to designate a period of not more than 10 years after Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 information as privileged or the date the business submitter provides et seq.), do not apply. Further, this confidential. CBP with the information, unless the document does not meet the criteria for It is noted that the new section does business submitter requests, and a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as allow for a business submitter to provides acceptable justification for, a specified in E.O. 12866. designate information as confidential in specific notice period of greater § 103.35(b)(1)(i). Business submitters List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 103 duration. may avail themselves of this option (1) When notice is required. CBP will Administrative practice and when such a designation is feasible, as provide business submitters with notice procedure, Confidential commercial when submitting a ruling request. of receipt of a FOIA request or appeal information, Freedom of information, However, in situations when there is no whenever: method by which to designate Reporting and recordkeeping (i) The business submitter has in good information as confidential, such as on requirements. faith designated the information as entry documentation, it is CBP’s Amendments to the Regulations commercially- or financially-sensitive position that the commercial information. The business submitter’s information will not be disclosed as a ■ For the reasons set forth above, CBP claim of confidentiality should be matter of policy. See § 103.35(b)(2)(i). amends part 103 of Title 19 of the Code supported by a statement by an of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 103), Comments authorized representative of the as set forth below: business entity providing specific Before adopting these interim justification that the information in PART 103—AVAILABILITY OF regulations as a final rule, consideration question is considered confidential INFORMATION will be given to any written comments commercial or financial information and timely submitted to CBP, including ■ 1. The general authority citation for that the information has not been comments on the clarity of this interim part 103 continues, and a specific disclosed to the public; or rule and how it may be made easier to authority citation for § 103.35 is added, (ii) CBP has reason to believe that understand. Comments submitted will to read as follows: disclosure of the commercial be available for public inspection in information could reasonably be accordance with the Freedom of Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1431, 1624, 1628; 31 U.S.C. 9701. expected to cause substantial Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and competitive harm. § 103.11(b) of the Title 19 of the Code * * * * * (2) When notice is not required. The of Federal Regulations (19 CFR Section 103.35 also issued under E.O. notice requirements of this section will 12600 of June 23, 1987. 103.11(b)), on regular business days not apply if: between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 ■ 2. Section 103.35 is added to subpart (i) CBP determines that the p.m. at the Regulations Branch, Office of C to read as follows: commercial information will not be Regulations and Rulings, Customs and disclosed; Border Protection Bureau, 799 9th § 103.35 Confidential commercial (ii) The commercial information has Street, NW., Washington, DC. information; exempt. been lawfully published or otherwise Arrangements to inspect submitted (a) In general. For purposes of this made available to the public; or comments should be made in advance section, ‘‘commercial information’’ is (iii) Disclosure of the information is by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 572– defined as trade secret, commercial, or required by law (other than 5 U.S.C. 8768. financial information obtained from a 552).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47455

(c) Procedure when notice given.—(1) notice of intent to disclose to the FOIA issuance of broker’s licenses and Opportunity for business submitter to requester at the same time. permits, provides for disciplinary action object to disclosure. A business (e) Notice of FOIA lawsuit. Whenever against brokers in the form of submitter receiving written notice from a FOIA requester brings suit seeking to suspension or revocation of such CBP of receipt of a FOIA request or compel the disclosure of commercial licenses and permits or assessment of appeal encompassing its commercial information covered by paragraph (b)(1) monetary penalties, and provides for the information may object to any of this section, CBP will promptly notify assessment of monetary penalties disclosure of the commercial the business submitter in writing. against other persons for conducting information by providing CBP with a Dated: June 20, 2003. customs business without the required detailed statement of reasons within 10 broker’s license. Section 641 also Robert C. Bonner, days of the date of the notice (exclusive provides for the issuance of rules and of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public Commissioner, Customs and Border regulations relating to the customs Protection. holidays). The statement should specify business of brokers as may be necessary all the grounds for withholding any of [FR Doc. 03–20328 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] to protect importers and the revenue of the commercial information under any BILLING CODE 4820–02–P the United States and to carry out the exemption of the FOIA and, in the case provisions of section 641. of Exemption 4, should demonstrate The regulations issued under the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND why the information is considered to be authority of section 641 are set forth in SECURITY a trade secret or commercial or financial part 111 of the Customs Regulations (19 information that is privileged or Bureau of Customs and Border CFR part 111). Part 111 includes confidential. The disclosure objection Protection detailed rules regarding the licensing of, information provided by a person and granting of permits to, persons pursuant to this paragraph may be 19 CFR Part 111 desiring to transact customs business as subject to disclosure under the FOIA. customs brokers, including the (2) Notice to FOIA requester. When [CBP Dec. 03–15] qualifications required of applicants and notice is given to a business submitter the procedures for applying for licenses RIN 1515–AD14 under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and permits. Part 111 also prescribes notice will also be given to the FOIA Performance of Customs Business by recordkeeping and other duties and requester that the business submitter Parent and Subsidiary Corporations responsibilities of brokers, sets forth in has been given an opportunity to object detail the grounds and procedures for to any disclosure of the requested AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, the revocation or suspension of broker commercial information. The requester Department of Homeland Security. licenses and permits and for the will be further advised that a delay in ACTION: Final rule. assessment of monetary penalties, and responding to the request may be sets forth fee payment requirements considered a denial of access to records SUMMARY: This document adopts as a applicable to brokers under section 641 and that the requester may proceed with final rule, with some changes, proposed and 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(7). an administrative appeal or seek judicial amendments to Customs Regulations to Section 111.1 of the Customs review, if appropriate. The notice will provide that corporate compliance Regulations (19 CFR 111.1) sets forth also invite the FOIA requester to agree activity engaged in by related business definitions that apply for purposes of to a voluntary extension(s) of time so entities for the purpose of exercising part 111 and includes the following that CBP may review the business ‘‘reasonable care’’ is not customs definition of ‘‘customs business:’’ submitter’s disclosure objection business and therefore is not subject to ‘‘Customs business’’ means those activities statement. the customs broker licensing involving transactions with Customs (d) Notice of intent to disclose. CBP requirements. The amendments make concerning the entry and admissibility of will consider carefully a business clear that this corporate compliance merchandise, its classification and valuation, submitter’s objections and specific activity concept does not extend to the payment of duties, taxes, or other charges grounds for nondisclosure prior to document preparation and filing, which assessed or collected by Customs on determining whether to disclose is customs business subject to licensing merchandise by reason of its importation, and the refund, rebate, or drawback of those commercial information. Whenever CBP requirements. The amendments will decides to disclose the requested duties, taxes, or other charges. ‘‘Customs improve the operational efficiency of business’’ also includes the preparation, and commercial information over the the affected business entities and, activities relating to the preparation, of objection of the business submitter, CBP thereby, enhance their ability to ensure documents in any format and the electronic will provide written notice to the compliance with applicable customs transmission of documents and parts of business submitter of CBP’s intent to laws and regulations. documents intended to be filed with Customs disclose, which will include: in furtherance of any other customs business EFFECTIVE DATE: Final rule effective (1) A statement of the reasons for activity, whether or not signed or filed by the September 10, 2003. which the business submitter’s preparer. However, ‘‘customs business’’ does disclosure objections were not FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina not include the mere electronic transmission of data received for transmission to Customs. sustained; Grier, Office of Regulations and Rulings (2) A description of the commercial (202–572–8730). Section 111.2 of the Customs information to be disclosed; and, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations (19 CFR 111.2) sets forth the (3) A specified disclosure date which basic rules regarding when a person will not be less than 10 days (exclusive Background (that is, an individual, partnership, of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, association, or corporation) must obtain holidays) after the notice of intent to as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), provides a customs broker license and permit. disclose the requested information has that a person must hold a valid customs Paragraph (a)(2) of § 111.2 specifies been issued to the business submitter. broker’s license and permit in order to several exceptions to the license Except as otherwise prohibited by law, transact customs business on behalf of requirement including, in subparagraph CBP will also provide a copy of the others, sets forth standards for the (i), an exception for an importer or

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47456 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

exporter (and his authorized regular individual customs transaction or Response: CBP agrees in principle employees or officers acting only for groups of transactions. They believed with the general nature of these him) transacting customs business that this was an impediment to their comments which reflect the purpose solely on his own account and in no ensuring that reasonable care is behind the regulatory proposal. sense on behalf of another. Section exercised by all corporate affiliates for Comment: The goal of this proposal, 111.4 of the Customs Regulations (19 purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1484. which is to enable related companies to CFR 111.4) provides that any person In response to the concerns expressed engage in corporate compliance activity who intentionally transacts customs by the trade, Customs on October 15, on behalf of one another, could best be business, other than as provided in 2002, published in the Federal Register achieved through the modification or § 111.2(a)(2), without holding a valid (67 FR 63576) a notice setting forth revocation of the rulings which created broker’s license, will be liable for a proposed amendments to the Customs the controversy in the first place. monetary penalty for each such Regulations that would expand the Response: CBP considered but transaction as well as for each violation permissible use of in-house experts by rejected that option because a of any other provision of section 641. corporations and their affiliates to modification or revocation of those The scope of ‘‘customs business’’ and include activity that is intended to meet rulings might give rise to a false the broker licensing requirement took the corporation’s ‘‘reasonable care’’ premise, that is, that the rulings were on added importance as a result of the obligations under 19 U.S.C. 1484 and not legally correct when they were amendments made in 1993 by the that would not fall within the definition originally issued. To the extent that the Customs Modernization Act (the Mod of ‘‘customs business’’ in 19 U.S.C. rulings in question are inconsistent with Act) provisions of the North American 1641. The proposed amendments the Part 111 texts as amended by this Free Trade Agreement Implementation involved the addition of a new § 111.1 final rule document, those rulings will be considered to be modified or revoked Act (Pub. L. 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057). definition for the term ‘‘corporate without further action on the part of Those Mod Act amendments included a compliance activity’’ to describe the CBP—see § 177.12(d)(1)(vi) of the revision of section 484 of the Tariff Act permissible activities (and with a Customs Regulations (19 CFR of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484) to, among other specific exclusion for document 177.12(d)(1)(vi)) which was adopted in things, add a requirement that an preparation and filing); the addition of T.D. 02–49, published in the Federal importer of record exercise ‘‘reasonable language at the end of the existing Register (67 FR 53483) on August 16, care’’ in connection with the entry § 111.1 definition of ‘‘customs business’’ 2002. requirements under that section. In stating that it does not include a order to foster compliance with the Comment: The proposed new corporate compliance activity; and the customs laws and regulations under this definition of ‘‘corporate compliance addition of a new paragraph (a)(2)(vii) to added statutory responsibility, many activity’’ in § 111.1 is imprecise and will § 111.2 to clarify that a company importer groups consisting of a parent only create confusion. By seeming to performing a corporate compliance corporation and one or more subsidiary allow all activities that do not involve activity is not required to be licensed as corporations chose to centralize their in- the preparation or filing of documents, a broker. house customs experts into one the proposed amendment raises corporate entity and to make the The October 15, 2002, notice invited concerns that other inter-corporate services of those experts available to the the submission of public comments on activities set forth in the definition of group as a whole. the proposed regulatory changes, and ‘‘customs business’’ will be allowed. However, when requested to issue an the public comment period closed on Response: CBP does not agree that the administrative ruling on the issue, the December 16, 2002. A total of 28 definition is imprecise and will create U.S. Customs Service (Customs, the commenters responded to the confusion. The commenter has correctly predecessor agency to the current solicitation of comments in the notice. understood the effect of the proposed Bureau of Customs and Border The comments submitted are regulatory amendment, that is, that Protection, referred to hereafter in this summarized and responded to below. related companies will be permitted to document as CBP) consistently took the Discussion of Comments conduct any activities mentioned in the position that many of the activities definition of ‘‘customs business,’’ other performed under this type of Comment: The proposed amendments than the actual preparation and filing of arrangement would involve the will benefit the importing community documents, so long as those activities transaction of ‘‘customs business,’’ for several different reasons. For fall within the definition of ‘‘corporate which would require a broker license example, divisions and sister compliance activity.’’ under § 111.2(a)(1). This conclusion was subsidiaries will be better able to meet Comment: It is improper for CBP to based on the reasoning that (1) the the standards of reasonable care. include corporate compliance activities parent corporation and each subsidiary Similarly, subsidiaries will be able to in 19 CFR 111.2(a)(2) as an exception to corporation is a separate legal ‘‘person,’’ better leverage and benchmark best the requirement that a license is and (2) therefore, the parent or practices from within the parent required, since it has already been made subsidiary corporation in which the company and subsidiaries, thereby clear that these activities do not fall customs expertise resides would be improving the compliance activities of within the definition of ‘‘customs transacting customs business not solely the entire corporation. Under the business.’’ on its own account as provided under proposed rule, centralized corporate or Response: On further consideration of § 111.2(a)(2)(i) but rather on behalf of affiliate groups can be more flexible in this matter, CBP agrees with the point another ‘‘person.’’ their ability to hire qualified people to made by this commenter, because the Members of the trade community on provide common expertise for definition of ‘‘customs business’’ in 19 a number of occasions had indicated to subsidiary companies that small CFR 111.1 is being amended specifically Customs that the result reached in the divisions may not be able to afford or to exclude corporate compliance administrative rulings described above justify by themselves. The commenter activity from customs business, making was unsatisfactory because it did not provided a number of other examples of an exception to the license requirement afford importers sufficient opportunity the beneficial aspects of this proposed redundant. Accordingly, the regulatory to address multiple related aspects of an rule. changes adopted in this final rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47457

document do not include the addition of which provides that a broker who did perform for each other. Listing some but proposed new paragraph (a)(2)(vii) to not file the entry, but who is appointed not others would potentially create § 111.2. by the importer of record to make confusion or uncertainty as regards Comment: CBP needs to narrow the written or oral representations to CBP activities not listed. Some of the definition of ‘‘customs business’’ and after entry summary acceptance, must responses to comments in this final rule broaden the definition of ‘‘corporate have a national permit if the broker does document may provide guidance on compliance activity.’’ Specifically, the not have a district permit where the which activities are or are not latter definition should not exclude representations will be made. permissible. For example, it has already document preparation and filing. Comment: While the proposed been explained above that advisory Response: Document preparation is amendment will be beneficial both to activities will be allowed, while written specifically mentioned as one of the the industry and to CBP, it does not communications with Customs in most activities falling within the statutory make clear whether related parties can circumstances would not be permitted. and regulatory meaning of ‘‘customs assist each other in responding to Importers with questions on a particular business.’’ The filing with CBP of those Customs Form 28 Requests for activity may request that the matter be prepared documents is the logical next Information or Customs Form 29 resolved through the binding ruling step and involves direct representations Notices of Action, or in preparing or process. to the Government agency responsible filing Post Entry Amendments, Comment: It is common for for administering the matters to which Supplementary Information Letters, corporations to establish subsidiaries those documents pertain. These documents relating to compliance that have their own boards of directors considerations formed the basis for audits or assessments, or certificates of and officers, but no employees. An excluding document preparation and origin. example would be a sales or filing from the definition of ‘‘corporate Response: The prohibition against procurement subsidiary. In such cases, compliance activity.’’ In defining preparing and filing documents under the parent may be preparing the ‘‘corporate compliance activity,’’ CBP the broker statute and regulations subsidiary’s documentation. The endeavored to strike a balance between applies not just to the entry and entry proposed regulations, with their an importer’s obligation to exercise summary, but to all other documents for restrictions on document preparation, reasonable care and the licensing which preparation and filing constitutes are problematic in this regard. requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1641. This ‘‘customs business’’ or for which no Response: The preparation of balance is achieved by allowing related explicit allowance is made by statute or documents under the corporate companies to provide advice while at regulation for preparation or filing by an organizational scenario described by the same time precluding them from ‘‘authorized agent.’’ Examples of this commenter would constitute the preparing and filing documentation. documents for which there is an explicit Comment: The prohibition against allowance for action by an authorized performance of customs business in document preparation and filing should agent are protests, ruling requests, and violation of the broker statute. Adoption be lifted if steps are taken to ensure that certain drawback documents. Since the of the proposed regulatory amendments the importer of record remains liable. proposed definition of ‘‘corporate would not alter that fact. The purpose Response: By focusing on the liability compliance activity’’ contained no of this rulemaking initiative is to of the importer of record, this comment limitation or exception regarding the facilitate the exercise of reasonable care, appears to misconstrue CBP’s primary scope of document preparation and not to facilitate circumvention of the focus in this matter, which was the filing, the prohibition would apply to statutory obligation to seek the customs broker statute and regulations. those specific examples mentioned by assistance of a licensed broker when a The exception regarding document this commenter to the extent that they company, for its own business reasons, preparation and filing by a related involve a customs business activity. chooses not to have employees who can company was included in the definition However, a determination on whether a prepare and file documents with CBP. of ‘‘corporate compliance activity’’ only specific action constitutes a customs Comment: CBP needs to further define in recognition of the explicit terms of 19 business activity can only be made on what constitutes ‘‘preparation’’ within U.S.C. 1641 and not in order to suggest a case-by-case basis, for example the context of a corporate compliance that an importer of record’s liability through the binding ruling process. activity. Does the gathering and would cease if the documents were Comment: Certain activities should be organization of information fall within prepared and filed by a related specifically authorized in the regulatory the definition? Does it include the company. The legal obligations of text (for example, classifying and preparation of background importers of record, whether contractual valuing goods, providing advice on documentation whose contents will be under their bonds or otherwise imposed origin marking requirements, providing reflected on the entry? by other statutes or regulations, will training to related companies, preparing Response: The proposed definition of remain undisturbed by this amendment responses to marking and penalty ‘‘corporate compliance activity,’’ which to the customs broker regulations. notices and prior disclosures, and precludes the ‘‘actual preparation or Comment: The regulations pertaining representing companies before CBP in filing of the documents or their to ‘‘corporate compliance activity’’ an audit). Alternatively, the definition electronic equivalents,’’ in effect should restrict document preparation of ‘‘corporate compliance activity’’ addresses the issue raised in this and filing to those entry documents that should be amended to include offering comment. The word ‘‘actual’’ is are required to be filed under 19 U.S.C. specific advice on the classification, intended to emphasize that the 1484. valuation, or admissibility of documents in question are those that Response: CBP disagrees, because the merchandise. will be filed with CBP. Therefore, any document preparation and filing aspect Response: CBP does not believe that work performed in anticipation of of ‘‘customs business’’ extends to it would be advisable to include specific document preparation, including the preparation and filing activities authorized activities within the gathering and organizing of information performed after the filing of the entry regulations, because it would be and its recordation on background and entry summary. This rule is impractical to list every conceivable paperwork, will be allowed under this reflected in 19 CFR 111.2(b)(2)(i)(D), activity that related companies may provision.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47458 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: It is unclear whether mere providing of advice to a related change in the corporation’s SOPs as employees of a corporate compliance company may present no problem, if a regards compliance activities. office will be able to discuss with CBP corporation wishes to transact customs Although the Mod Act amended 19 issues concerning a related company’s business (for example, prepare and file U.S.C. 1484 by imposing a reasonable import transactions. documents) for others, it must obtain a care responsibility on importers of Response: Discussions with CBP corporate license of its own. This record, it did not eliminate or modify regarding import transactions may requirement does not disappear simply the requirement in 19 U.S.C. 1641 that amount to the transaction of customs because the corporation has a person on a person have a broker’s license to business given that the statutory its payroll who is individually licensed, conduct customs business on behalf of definition of ‘‘customs business’’ because the employee’s licensed status others. The Mod Act also made no includes ‘‘those activities involving does not confer a similar status on the changes to the identity of the persons transactions with the Customs Service employer. Furthermore, the actions of who, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1484, have ***’’ However, CBP recognizes that the employee performed during the the right to make entry. Those persons preventing communication between regular course of his employment will are the owner or purchaser of the corporate compliance offices and CBP be attributed to his employer, not to him imported merchandise, or a licensed would frustrate the primary purpose of individually. An analogy may be drawn broker who has been appointed by the such an office, that is, to provide to the situation in which an insurance owner, purchaser or consignee. accurate advice to the related company. company hires an attorney to work in its Consequently, CBP in defining In another example of making an policy underwriting department: the ‘‘corporate compliance activity’’ had to accommodation between broker employment of the attorney does not take into account the requirements of licensing and reasonable care entitle the insurance company to the broker and entry statutes. By requirements, CBP has determined that practice law. proposing the addition of an explicit representatives of corporate compliance Comment: Most corporations with provision allowing related companies to offices may communicate directly with centralized customs compliance have centralized compliance CBP on behalf of related companies functions have put into place standard departments whose role would be regarding the activities performed by the operating procedures (‘‘SOPs’’) for advisory in nature, CBP attempted to corporate compliance office to ensure responding to CBP inquiries, submitting strike a balance between an importer’s that reasonable care was used in documents to CBP, and working with reasonable care obligations and the connection with preparation and filing their various customs brokers. If CBP proscription regarding the performance of Customs documents. However, they takes a strict approach to what of customs business on behalf of others should be prepared to demonstrate their constitutes the actual preparation and without a broker’s license. It is the authority to represent the interests of filing of documents, corporations will position of CBP that the proposed the related companies by presentation of be forced to redesign their SOPs to limit amendments are not restrictive in their a power of attorney or other letter of their compliance activities. Such effect and that they will foster authorization. changes would probably include a compliance with importers’ reasonable Comment: It is unclear whether there restructuring of the corporation’s care obligations. would be a violation of the proposed relationship with its customs brokers to Comment: The development of the rule if a corporate compliance office ensure that in-house customs Automated Commercial Environment were to supply specific tariff compliance personnel only provide (ACE), and the possibility that future information in writing to a related information to customs brokers and, entries will be filed over the Internet, company. This needs to be clarified, as perhaps, review any documents to be provides the perfect opportunity for do questions arising over whether filed with CBP. Restricting the in-house CBP to look at changing practices. ACE related companies can file ruling compliance activities in this manner will allow all parties to a customs requests or protests on behalf of each does not advance the policy goal of transaction the ability to input other. fostering reasonable care under the Mod information about the transaction. It is Response: No violation would occur if Act. out of step for CBP to restrict these the compliance office were simply Response: A reference to document activities to independent customs supplying the specific tariff information ‘‘preparation’’ was added to the brokers. to the related company. The related definition of ‘‘customs business’’ in the Response: The proposed regulations company importer could then use the broker statute by section 648 of the Mod would enhance, not restrict, the ability information to fill out the Act, and this statutory change has been of related companies (including those documentation to be filed with CBP, or in effect since December 8, 1993. The that have in-house brokers) to engage in turn it over to a broker for that purpose. proposed regulatory changes at issue certain activities that previously under On the issue of ruling requests and here did not attempt to impose a change the broker regulations were restricted to protests, 19 CFR 177.1(c) and 19 CFR in the meaning of document importers or their appointed brokers. 174.12(a)(6), respectively, permit an preparation. Moreover, as already The liberalization in the proposed ‘‘authorized agent’’ to file those pointed out in this comment discussion, regulatory changes had to stop at documents. the reference to ‘‘actual’’ preparation in document preparation and filing in Comment: Please explain why the proposed regulatory text was order to ensure the most appropriate companies that employ in-house intended to clarify that permissible balance between reasonable care customs brokers cannot provide advice, corporate compliance activities include obligations and the terms of the broker or prepare and file documents, on behalf activities leading up to, but not in fact statute. of related companies. Such directly involving, document Comment: CBP has recognized that centralization would help to achieve preparation. Therefore, to the extent that the effectiveness of its new security high compliance rates. a corporation has been in compliance measures (for example, C-TPAT, Response: The broker statute makes with the statutory standard since the Account Management, Importer Self- provision for various types of broker’s adoption of the Mod Act amendment in Assessment) are enhanced by corporate licenses: individual, corporate, 1993, the proposed regulatory centralization of customs functions, yet association, or partnership. While the amendments would not require any the proposed rule limits the ability of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47459

companies to effectively centralize limited exceptions when interpreting under common control with, any import operations. the definition. person.’’ According to a notice entitled Response: As stated throughout this Response: CBP also considered this ‘‘Transfer Pricing; Related Party comment discussion, both CBP and option when formulating the regulatory Transactions’’ published in the Federal importers must operate within the proposals. However, for essentially the Register (58 FR 5445) on January 21, confines of existing law. In this case due same reasons stated in the preceding 1993, determinations of ‘‘control’’ must regard must be given to the entry and comment response for not changing the be made on a case by case basis within broker provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1484 and definition of a ‘‘person,’’ CBP decided the context of the administrative review 1641. CBP believes that the proposed not to adopt this approach. procedures available to the importing regulatory changes will enhance, rather Comment: The proposed rule does not public under parts 174 and 177 of the than limit, the ability of related clarify the distinction between the Customs Regulations. The adoption of a companies to centralize their import assigning of a Harmonized Tariff definition that requires the issuance of operations. To the extent that the Schedule number to inbound items for a protest review decision or a ruling to proposed amendments may not go as far entry submission to CBP and the review determine if a party qualifies would be as the commenter would like, that is a of internal classification databases. The difficult to administer, and, as such, function of the limits imposed by the former is a part of the entry process, and would not be appropriate in the present statutory provisions in question. is thus customs business, while the regulatory context. Comment: As an alternative to the latter is merely a corporate compliance Comment: As an alternative to the 50 suggested changes, the definition of activity. percent ownership requirement, the rule ‘‘person’’ in 19 CFR 111.1 could be Response: While CBP agrees that the should allow ownership of some equity changed so that the parenthetical phrase tariff classification of items to be or voting shares coupled with proof of ‘‘(including subsidiaries and sister entered may constitute a customs the retention of substantive management companies)’’ is added after the word business activity depending on the rights, such as the right to designate ‘‘corporation.’’ With a definition such as context in which it is done, this officers or directors. Such a standard this, corporations could conduct the regulatory initiative also recognizes that would take into account modern forms same activities for subsidiaries as they some accommodation must be made to of corporate organization while also do for themselves. enable companies to meet their assuring that only those entities exerting Response: CBP examined but rejected reasonable care obligations. To this end, control were engaged in permissible this approach when drafting the the proposed regulations would allow a compliance activity. proposed regulations. Altering the compliance department to provide tariff Response: Receiving accurate definition of ‘‘person’’ in such a manner classification advice to a sister or parent information from importers is crucial to that subsidiaries are considered to be entity for all purposes, including advice CBP’s mission. The agency fosters the same person as their parent would regarding the assigning of tariff numbers accuracy through the issuance of have consequences that go beyond the for placement on an entry. However, informed compliance publications and corporate compliance issue at hand. that compliance department may not binding rulings and by offering outreach This is because the new definition will prepare the actual entry document. programs to the importing community. apply to everything that takes place Comment: The proposed definitions It also makes use of the procedures that under part 111 of the Customs of eligible related parties are clear and enable it to seek redress against persons Regulations, not just to corporate do not create any particular problems. who file inaccurate or incomplete entry compliance activities. Since a person Response: CBP agrees that the documentation. Among its options in must obtain a license to conduct definitions are clear. However, as this regard, CBP can assess liquidated customs business as a broker, questions indicated later in this comment damages against an importer of record would inevitably arise whenever a discussion, some adjustments to the for a breach of the basic importation parent or subsidiary corporation applied proposed text are made in this final rule bond, or discipline licensed brokers for a license. For example, would a document in response to concerns pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641. Corporate license granted to a parent also cover its raised in other comments. compliance offices under this new subsidiaries, since by definition they Comment: CBP should replace the regulatory scheme will not be subject to would be one and the same person? Or proposed related party definition with similar actions by CBP, because they would a subsidiary even have the right the related party standard employed for will not be importers of record or, in to apply for a license in its own name, customs valuation purposes. One most cases, licensed brokers. Absent given that its identity had been commenter specifically suggested that some assurance of accountability, CBP subsumed into that of the parent? CBP should resort to the more limited would be reluctant to allow an Furthermore, the legal separation related party definition as expressed in unlicensed third party to participate in between parent and subsidiary 19 U.S.C. 1401a(g)(1)(G). the entry process, because the accuracy corporations is recognized elsewhere in Response: CBP believes that the of the information generated by that the Customs Regulations, and thus the related party definition used generally third party may be questionable. CBP, in elimination of that separation from the for valuation purposes is too broad for imposing a substantial ownership broker regulations would not only create application in the context under review standard (that is, more than 50 percent a legal inconsistency but would also here. For example, the valuation of the voting shares), seeks to establish have the potential to create confusion in definition includes relationships what might be best described as other regulatory contexts. between family members. Its wholesale cascading accountability by ensuring Comment: A better approach would adoption would thus be inappropriate. that entities offering compliance be to change the definition of ‘‘for one’s The narrower suggestion, that CBP services are accountable to importers own account’’ to clearly encompass the use the more limited related party who are, in turn, accountable to CBP. transaction of customs business on definition as set forth in 19 U.S.C. Accordingly, the proposed standard is behalf of subsidiary companies. In this 1401a(g)(1)(G), is also unacceptable. retained in the final rule. With regard to manner, the definition of ‘‘customs That provision confers a relationship on the point concerning modern forms of business’’ could remain unchanged, and ‘‘[t]wo or more persons directly or corporate organization, see the response it would be unnecessary to carve out indirectly controlling, controlled by, or to the next comment, which also

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47460 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

discusses the replacement of the proposed regulatory amendments appropriate alphabetical order to read as reference to ‘‘voting shares.’’ should be adopted as a final rule with follows: Comment: The proposed definition of the changes discussed above. related parties only refers to voting § 111.1 Definitions. shares of corporations and does not Executive Order 12866 * * * * * address other voting interests such as This document does not meet the Corporate compliance activity. joint ventures, partnerships, limited criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory ‘‘Corporate compliance activity’’ means partnerships, limited liability action’’ as specified in E.O. 12866. activity performed by a business entity companies, or any other legal structure to ensure that documents for a related now or hereafter existing. Such Regulatory Flexibility Act business entity or entities are prepared situations should be considered, and all Pursuant to the provisions of the and filed with Customs using possible business entities should be Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 ‘‘reasonable care’’, but such activity addressed, by the regulations. et seq.), it is certified that the does not extend to the actual Response: Even though CBP believes amendments will not have a significant preparation or filing of the documents that the 50 percent ownership standard economic impact on a substantial or their electronic equivalents. For should be retained as stated above, CBP number of small entities. CBP believes purposes of this definition, a ‘‘business also recognizes that in today’s business that the amendments will have only a entity’’ is an entity that is registered or environment relationships may be minimal impact on overall customs otherwise on record with an appropriate forged between companies that fall broker operations because they do not governmental authority for business outside of the traditional corporate authorize the preparation of documents licensing, taxation, or other legal parent/subsidiary structure. and the filing of documents with CBP, purposes, and the term ‘‘related Accordingly, in the regulatory text which constitute the bulk of customs business entity or entities’’ encompasses adopted in this final rule document, business services provided by brokers. a business entity that has more than a references to parent, subsidiary, and CBP also believes that the amendments 50 percent ownership interest in sister corporations are replaced with the will provide positive economic and another business entity, a business more generic terms ‘‘business entity’’ related benefits to other members of the entity in which another business entity and ‘‘related business entity or entities,’’ import community. Accordingly, the has more than a 50 percent ownership with ‘‘business entity’’ defined as ‘‘an amendments are not subject to the interest, and two or more business entity that is registered or otherwise on regulatory analysis or other entities in which the same business record with an appropriate requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. entity has more than a 50 percent governmental authority for business ownership interest. Drafting Information licensing, taxation, or other legal * * * * * purposes.’’ In addition, because voting The principal author of this document shares are not the exclusive basis for was Francis W. Foote, Office of Robert C. Bonner, determining the ownership level in a Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Commissioner, Customs and Border business, the references to ‘‘more than Customs and Border Protection. Protection. 50 percent of the voting shares’’ have However, personnel from other offices [FR Doc. 03–20327 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] been replaced in the final regulatory text participated in its development. BILLING CODE 4820–02–P with more general references to ‘‘more than a 50 percent ownership interest.’’ List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 111 Comment: CBP should adopt a Administrative practice and DEPARTMENT OF STATE regulation to allow those entities procedure, Brokers, Customs duties and transacting customs business on behalf inspection, Imports, Licensing, 22 CFR Part 41 of related affiliates to certify to CBP, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping upon request, that the entity exercises requirements. [Public Notice 4439] ‘‘responsible supervision and control’’ over the affiliate’s customs activity. Amendments to the Regulations Visas: Documentation of Response: CBP is uncertain as to the ■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration purpose behind this suggestion. The part 111 of the Customs Regulations (19 and Nationality Act exercise of responsible supervision and CFR part 111) is amended as set forth control is a concept that applies to AGENCY: Department of State below. licensed customs brokers, upon whom ACTION: Final rule. that duty falls whenever they engage in PART 111—CUSTOMS BROKERS customs brokerage activities. A broker SUMMARY: The Department is amending can be sanctioned by CBP for failing to ■ 1. The general authority citation for its regulations to add two new exercise responsible supervision and Part 111 continues to read as follows: nonimmigrant symbols to the nonimmigrant classification table. The control. Since compliance departments Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General will not be required to have broker Note 23, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the amendments are necessary to licenses in cases covered by this new United States), 1624, 1641. implement recently enacted legislation. regulatory provision, the suggestion of On November 2, 2002, the President this commenter does not appear to be * * * * * signed into law the ‘‘Border Commuter relevant to the present exercise. For this ■ 2. In § 111.1: Student Act of 2002’’. This legislation reason, CBP declines to adopt the ■ a. The definition of ‘‘customs creates two new nonimmigrant visa suggested certification procedure. business’’ is amended by adding at the classifications (F3 and M3) for citizens end of the last sentence before the period and residents of Mexico or Canada who Conclusion the words ‘‘and does not include a seek to commute into the United States Based on the comments received and corporate compliance activity’’; and for the purpose of attending an the analysis of those comments as set ■ b. A new definition of ‘‘corporate approved F or M school. This rule adds forth above, CBP believes that the compliance activity’’ is added in these new classifications to the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47461

Department’s regulatory list of cause’’ exceptions established by 5 Executive Order 12866 nonimmigrant visa classifications. U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). The DATES: Effective date: This rule takes Department has determined that since The Department of State does not effect August 11, 2003. the new nonimmigrant classifications consider this rule to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam became effective upon enactment of the Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Chavez, Legislation and Regulations Border CommuterStudent Act of 2002 Division, Visa Services, Department of and since there is substantial immediate Planning and Review. In addition, the State, Washington, DC 20522–0106, benefit to many aliens, there is not Department is exempt from Executive 202–663–1206. sufficient reason to delay its Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: implementation. Additionally, this rule does not make changes in current policy conjunction with a domestic agency that What Is the Background for These New with respect to the admission of border are significant regulatory actions. The Visa Classifications? commuter students, but provides for a Department has nevertheless reviewed Prior to the September 11 terrorist proper classification for such students. the regulation to ensure its consistency attacks on the United States, Canadian The Department has determined that with the regulatory philosophy and and Mexican citizens living in their adherence to the notice and comment principles set forth in that Executive home countries, but traveling back and period normally required under 5 U.C. Order. forth across the border to take part-time 553(b) would cause disruption in the Executive Order 13132 classes in the United States were studies of these students. admitted into the country as visitors. Regulatory Flexibility Act This regulation will not have However, due to security concerns in substantial direct effects on the States, the aftermath of the attacks, the Pursuant to section 605 of the on the relationship between the national Immigration and Naturalization Service Regulatory Flexibility Act, the government and the States, or on the (INS), now the Department of Homeland Department has assessed the potential distribution of power and Security (DHS), stopped admitting these impact of this rule, and the Department responsibilities among the various part-time students as DHS held that they of State hereby certifies that it is not levels of government. Therefore, in were not eligible for admittance to the expected to have a significant economic accordance with section 6 of United States as visitors, since their impact on a substantial number of small ExecutiveOrder 13132, it is determined purpose was to attend class. They also entities. that this rule does not have sufficient were not eligible for either F1 federalism implications to require Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (academic) or M1 (non-academic or consultations or warrant the preparation vocational) visas because these This rule will not result in the of a federalism summary impact classifications require students to attend statement. class on a full-time basis. expenditure by State, local, and tribal The ‘‘Border Commuter Student Act governments, in the aggregate, or by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002’’, Public Law 107–274, creates private sector, of $100 million in any new visa classifications for Canadian year and it will not significantly or This rule does not impose any new and Mexican citizens and residents who uniquely affect small governments. reporting or record-keeping seek to commute to the United States for Therefore, no actions were deemed requirements subject to the Paperwork the purpose of full-time or part-time necessary under the provisions of the Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of study at a DHS-approved school. These List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41 students (classified F3 and M3) are 1995. permitted to study on either a full-time Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Aliens, Nonimmigrants, Passports and or part-time basis. The family members Fairness Act of 1996 visas. of border commuter students are not entitled to derivative F2 or M2 status. This rule is not a major rule as PART 41—[AMENDED] defined by section 804 of the Small How Is the Department Amending Its Regulations? Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 41 1996. This rule will not result in an continues to read as follows:8 U.S.C. The rule amends the nonimmigrant annual effect on the economy of $100 1104, Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681– visa classification table at 22 CFR 41.12 million or more; a major increase in 795 through 2681–801. by adding new classifications: F3 and costs or prices; or significant adverse M3. effects on competition, employment, ■ 2. Amend the table in § 41.12 by Regulatory Analysis and Notices investment, productivity, innovation, or adding new categories F3 and M3 in on the ability of United States-based alpha-numeric order to read as follows: Administrative Procedure Act companies to compete with foreign- The implementation of this rule as a based companies in domestic and § 41.12 Classification symbols. final rule is based upon the ‘‘good export markets. * * * * *

NONIMMIGRANTS

Symbol Class Section of law

******* F–3 ...... Canadian or Mexican national commuter student ...... 101(a)(15)(F)(iii).

******* M–3 ...... Canadian or Mexican national commuter student (Vocational student or other nonacademic student) ... 101(a)(15)(M)(iii).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47462 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

NONIMMIGRANTS—Continued

Symbol Class Section of law

*******

Dated: July 22, 2003. comments and related material. If you Background and Purpose Maura Harty, do so, please include your name and The Main Street Bridge, mile 24.7 at Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, address, identify the docket number for Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, has Department of State. this rulemaking (CGD07–03–131), a vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean [FR Doc. 03–20390 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] indicate the specific section of this high water and a horizontal clearance of BILLING CODE 4710–06–P document to which each comment 350 feet between the fender systems. applies, and give the reason for each The existing operating regulations in 33 comment. Please submit all comments CFR 117.325 require the bridge to open DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND and related material in an unbound on signal except that, from 7 a.m. to 8:30 SECURITY format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday suitable for copying. If you would like through Saturday, except Federal Coast Guard to know they reached us, please enclose holidays, the draw need not open for the a stamped, self-addressed postcard or passage of vessels. The draw opens at 33 CFR Part 117 envelope. We will consider all any time for vessels in an emergency [CGD07–03–131] comments and material received. The involving life or property. Royal Bridge, Inc., contractors RIN 1625–AA09 Coast Guard may amend this temporary final rule based on comments received. notified the Coast Guard on July 7, 2003, Drawbridge Operation Regulations; St. that work on the vertical lift is Regulatory Information Johns River, Mile 24.7 at Jacksonville, scheduled from August 18, 2003, to Duval County, FL We did not publish a notice of October 30, 2003. For safety reasons, proposed rulemaking (NRPM) for this there will be a 5-foot reduction in AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. vertical clearance. The contractors regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the ACTION: Temporary final rule; request for request that the bridge not open from 8 Coast Guard finds that good cause exists comments. p.m. until 6 a.m. during the repair for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing period. This temporary rule is necessary SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is an NPRM was impracticable and to provide for worker safety during temporarily changing the regulations contrary to the public interest, because repairs to the bridge and does not governing the operation of the Main the rule was needed to allow the significantly hinder navigation, as Street Bridge, mile 24.7, Jacksonville, contractor to provide for worker safety openings will be provided throughout Florida. Under this temporary rule, the while repairing the bridge. The repair the remainder of the day. bridge need not open from 8 p.m. to 6 work is required before the winter a.m., August 18, 2003 until October 30, season when there will be increased Discussion of Rule 2003. This temporary rule is required to boating and vehicular traffic in the area. Under this temporary rule, the bridge allow the bridge owner to provide for Also, since the temporary rule provides need not open from 8 p.m. until 6 a.m., worker safety while completing repairs for bridge openings during the majority August 18, 2003, to October 3, 2003. to the bridge. Due to the repair work, the of the day, during daytime hours when There will also be a reduction in vertical vertical clearance of the bridge will be the area is most heavily traveled, vessel clearance of 5 feet. This action is reduced by 5 feet. traffic will not be unduly disrupted necessary for worker safety during DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m., during the repair process. repairs to the bridge and does not August 18, 2003, until 6 a.m., October significantly hinder navigation. 30, 2003. Comments must be received Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast by September 19, 2003. Guard finds that good cause exists for Regulatory Evaluation making this rule effective less than 30 ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this This rule is not a ‘‘significant days after Federal Register publication. preamble as being available in the regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of docket are part of docket CGD07–03– Though the contractor submitted a letter Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 131 and are available for inspection or on May 29, 2003, requesting a change to Planning and Review, and does not copying at Commander (obr), Seventh the bridge’s operating schedule to effect require an assessment of potential costs Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st repairs, that request was incorrectly and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL 33131, addressed and did not reach the Bridge Order. The Office of Management and between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday Branch until faxed there on July 7, 2003. Budget has not reviewed it under that through Friday, except Federal holidays. The repair work to the bridge needs to Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. be done before the busy winter season. regulatory policies and procedures of Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Accordingly, there was insufficient time the Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at remaining to either publish an NPRM or (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the (305) 415–6743. delay the effective date of the rule. This economic impact of this rule to be so SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: temporary rule provides for a reduction minimal that a full Regulatory in bridge openings so as to allow the Evaluation is unnecessary. The Request for Comments contractor to safely repair the bridge temporary rule will impact vessels of We encourage you to participate in while providing for the reasonable greater than 35 feet in height because of this rulemaking by submitting needs of navigation. the reduction in vertical clearance. The

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47463

temporary rule, however, will only Collection of Information responsibilities between the Federal affect a small percentage of vessel traffic Government and Indian tribes. This rule calls for no new collection through the bridge, because it is not yet of information under the Paperwork Energy Effects the winter season when there would be Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– substantially greater use of the bridge. We have analyzed this rule under 3520). Executive Order 13211, Actions Small Entities Federalism Concerning Regulations That Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Significantly Affect Energy Supply, A rule has implications for federalism Distribution, or Use. We have (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered under Executive Order 13132, whether this temporary rule would have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant Federalism, if it has a substantial direct energy action’’ under that order, because a significant economic impact on a effect on State or local governments and it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ substantial number of small entities. would either preempt State law or under Executive Order 12866 and is not The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises impose a substantial direct cost of likely to have a significant adverse effect small businesses, not-for-profit compliance on them. We have analyzed on the supply, distribution, or use of organizations that are independently this rule under that Order and have energy. The Administrator of the Office owned and operated and are not determined that it does not have of Information and Regulatory Affairs dominant in their fields, and implications for federalism. has not designated it as a significant governmental jurisdictions with energy action. Therefore, it does not populations of less than 50,000. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act require a statement of Energy Effects The Coast Guard certifies under 5 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act under Executive Order 13211. U.S.C. 605(b) that this temporary rule of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires would not have a significant economic Federal agencies to assess the effects of Environment impact on a substantial number of small their discretionary regulatory actions. In We have analyzed this rule under entities, because the regulations will particular, the Act addresses actions Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, affect only a limited amount of marine that may result in the expenditure by a which guides the Coast Guard in traffic and will still provide for State, local, or tribal government, in the complying with the National navigation needs by opening on signal aggregate, or by the private sector of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 from 6:01 a.m. to 7:59 p.m. $100,000,000 or more in any one year. (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and If you think that your business, Though this rule would not result in have concluded that there are no factors organization, or governmental such an expenditure, we do discuss the in this case that would limit the use of jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity effects of this rule elsewhere in the a categorical exclusion under section and that this temporary rule would have preamble. 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under a significant economic impact on it, Taking of Private Property please submit a comment (see figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it This rule will not effect a taking of Instruction, from further environmental qualifies and how and to what degree private property or otherwise have documentation. Under figure 2–1, this rule would economically affect it. taking implications under Executive paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an Order 12630, Governmental Actions and ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ Assistance for Small Entities Interference with Constitutionally and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Protected Property Rights. Determination’’ are not required for this Under section 213(a) of the Small rule. Business Regulatory Enforcement Civil Justice Reform Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), This rule meets applicable standards List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 we want to assist small entities in in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Bridges. understanding this temporary rule so Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to that they can better evaluate its effects For the reasons discussed in the minimize litigation, eliminate preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 on them and comment if necessary. If ambiguity, and reduce burden. this temporary rule would affect your CFR part 117 as follows: small business, organization, or Protection of Children PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE governmental jurisdiction and you have We have analyzed this rule under OPERATION REGULATIONS questions concerning its provisions or Executive Order 13045, Protection of options for compliance, please contact Children from Environmental Health ■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 the person listed in FOR FURTHER Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not continues to read as follows: INFORMATION CONTACT. an economically significant rule and Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Small businesses may send comments would not create an environmental risk Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 on the actions of Federal employees to health or risk to safety that might CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued who enforce, or otherwise determine disproportionately affect children. under authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. compliance with, Federal regulations to 5039. Indian Tribal Governments the Small Business and Agriculture ■ 2. From 8 p.m. on August 18, 2003, Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman This rule does not have tribal until 6 a.m. on October 30, 2003, in and the Regional Small Business implications under Executive Order § 117.325, paragraph (a) is suspended Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 13175, Consultation and Coordination and a new paragraph (d), is added to read Ombudsman evaluates these actions with Indian Tribal Governments, as follows: annually and rates each agency’s because it does not have a substantial responsiveness to small business. If you direct effect on one or more Indian § 117.325 St. Johns River. wish to comment on actions by tribes, on the relationship between the * * * * * employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– Federal Government and Indian tribes, (d) The draw of the Main Street 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). or on the distribution of power and (US17) Bridge, mile 24.7 at Jacksonville,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47464 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

shall open on signal, except that from 8 time to publish an NPRM followed by The Coast Guard certifies under p.m. until 6 a.m., the draw need not a final rule before the effective date. section 605 (b) of the Regulatory open for the passage of vessels. The Delaying this rule would be contrary to Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.601–612) that draw shall open at any time for vessels the public interest of ensuring the safety this temporary final rule will not have in an emergency involving life or of spectators and vessels during this a significant economic impact on a property. event and immediate action is necessary substantial number of small entities. to prevent possible loss of life or Dated: July 28, 2003. Assistance for Small Entities F.M. Rosa, property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative In accordance with Section 213(a) of Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander, the Small Business Regulatory Seventh Coast Guard District. comments previously with regard to this event. Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. [FR Doc. 03–20334 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] L. 104–121), the Coast Guard offered to BILLING CODE 4910–15–P Background and Purpose assist small entities in understanding A temporary safety zone is necessary this rule so that they can better evaluate to ensure the safety of participants and its effectiveness and participate in the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND spectators from the hazards associated rulemaking process. Small businesses SECURITY with launching human powered flying may send comments on the actions of Coast Guard machines. All persons and vessels shall Federal employees who enforce, or comply with the directions of the Coast otherwise determine compliance with, 33 CFR Part 165 Guard Captain of the Port or the Federal regulations to the Small designated on-scene patrol Business and Agriculture Regulatory [CGD09–03–253] representative. Entry into, transiting, or Enforcement Ombudsman and the RIN 1625–AA00 anchoring within the safety zone is Regional Small Business Regulatory prohibited unless authorized by the Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman Safety Zone; Red Bull Flugtag, Lake Captain of the Port Chicago or his evaluates these actions annually and Michigan, Chicago, IL designated on-scene representative and rates each agency’s responsiveness to may be reached via VHF radio channel small business. If you wish to comment AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 16. on actions, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1– ACTION: Temporary final rule. Discussion of Rule 888–734–3247). SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is The safety zone will encompass all Collection of Information establishing a temporary safety zone for waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake This rule contains no information the Red Bull Flugtag Chicago. The safety Michigan beginning at a point of collection requirements under the zone is necessary to protect participants 41°52′56″N, 087°36′55″ W; then south to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 and spectators during the event. This 41°52′54″ N, 087°36′55″ W; then east to U.S.C. 3501–3520). safety zone is intended to restrict 41°52′54″ N, 087°36′48″ W; then west to vessels from a portion of Lake Michigan. 41°52′56″ N, 087°36′48″ W. These Federalism DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 coordinates are based upon North The Coast Guard has analyzed this a.m. (local) until 7 p.m. (local) on American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983). rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has determined that August 9, 2003. Regulatory Evaluation ADDRESSES: Comments and material this rule does not have implications This temporary rule is not a received from the public, as well as under that Order. significant regulatory action under documents indicated in this preamble as section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act being available in the docket, are part of and does not require an assessment of docket [CGD09–03–253] and are The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act potential costs and benefits under available for inspection or copying at of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office Marine Safety Office Chicago, 215 W. Federal agencies to assess the effects of of Management and Budget has not 83rd Street, Suite D, Burr Ridge, Illinois their discretionary regulatory actions. In reviewed it under that Order. It is not 60527, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., particular, the Act addresses actions significant under the regulatory policies Monday through Friday, except Federal that may result in the expenditure by a and procedures of the Department of holidays. State, local, or tribal government, in the Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast aggregate, or by the private sector of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guard expects the economic impact of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. MST2 Kenneth Brockhouse, U.S. Coast this proposal to be so minimal that a full Though this rule would not result in Guard Marine Safety Office Chicago, at Regulatory Evaluation under the such an expenditure, we do discuss the (630) 986–2155. regulatory policies and procedures of effects of this rule elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DHS is unnecessary. preamble. Regulatory Information Small Entities Taking of Private Property We did not publish a notice of Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule will not effect a taking of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard private property or otherwise have regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the considered whether this rule will have taking implications under Executive Coast Guard finds that good cause exists a significant impact on a substantial Order 12630, Governmental Actions and for not publishing an NPRM. Under 5 number of small businesses and not-for- Interference with Constitutionally U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds profit organizations that are Protected Property Rights. that good cause exists for making this independently owned and operated are rule effective less than 30 days after not dominant in their respective fields, Civil Justice Reform publication in the Federal Register. The and governmental jurisdictions with This rule meets applicable standards permit application was not received in populations less than 50,000. in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47465

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION DATES: Effective from 12:01 a.m. (Local) minimize litigation, eliminate AREAS AND LIMITITED ACCESS on August 1, 2003 to 11:59 p.m. (Local) ambiguity, and reduce burden. AREAS. on August 31, 2003. Protection of Children ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Coast Guard has analyzed this continues to read as follows: MST2 Kenneth Brockhouse, U.S. Coast rule under Executive Order 13045, Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Guard Marine Safety Office Chicago, IL Protection of Children from Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR at (630) 986–2155. 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. Environmental Health Risks and Safety SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Risks. This rule is not an economically 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Guard is implementing the permanent significant rule and does not create an ■ safety zones in 33 CFR 165.918(a)(13), environmental risk to health or risk to 2. A new § 165.T09–253 is added to read as follows: (a)(8), (a)(10), and (a)(12) (68 FR 27466, safety that may disproportionately affect May 20, 2003), for fireworks displays children. § 165.T09–253 Safety Zone; Lake and other significant marine events in Indian Tribal Governments Michigan, Chicago, IL. the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone (a) Location. The following is a safety during August 2003. The following This rule does not have tribal zone: all waters and adjacent shoreline safety zones are in effect for fireworks implications under Executive Order of Lake Michigan beginning at a point 13175, Consultation and Coordination ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ displays and other significant marine of 41 52 56 N, 087 36 556 W; then events occurring in the month of August with Indian Tribal Governments, south to 41°52′54″ N, 087°36′55″ W; 2003: because it does not have a substantial then east 41°52′54″ N, 087°36′48″ W; direct effect on one or more Indian then west to 41°52′56″ N, 087°36′48″ W; Navy Pier Summer Fireworks, Lake tribes, on the relationship between the then back to the point of origin (NAD Michigan, Chicago, IL. This safety zone Federal Government and Indian tribes, 83). will be enforced every Wednesday and or on the distribution of power and (b) Enforcement period. This section Saturday evening from 9 p.m. (local) responsibilities between the Federal will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. (local) until termination of the display. Government and Indian tribes. until 7 p.m. (local) on August 9, 2003. Venetian Night Fireworks Monroe (c) Regulations. In accordance with Environment Street Harbor Chicago, IL. This safety § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone zone will be enforced on August 2, 2003 We have considered the is prohibited unless authorized by the environmental impact of this rule and Coast Guard Captain of the Port, from sunset until termination of the concluded that under figure 2–1, Chicago, or the designated on scene display. paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant representative. Section 165.23 also YMCA Lake Michigan Swim Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is contains other general requirements. Ferrysburg, MI. This safety zone will be categorically excluded from further Dated: July 28, 2003. enforced on August 16, 2003 from 8 a.m. environmental documentation. A Terrence W. Carter, (local) until the end of event. ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ Chicago River Flat Water Classic, is available in the docket for inspection Captain, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Chicago. Chicago River, Chicago, IL. This safety or copying where indicated under [FR Doc. 03–20331 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] zone will be enforced on August 10, ADDRESSES. BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 2003 from 9 a.m. (local) until 3:30 p.m. Energy Effects (local). In order to ensure the safety of We have analyzed this rule under DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND spectators and transiting vessels, these Executive Order 13211, Actions SECURITY Concerning Regulations That safety zones will be in effect for the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Coast Guard duration of the events. In cases where Distribution, or Use. We have shipping is affected, commercial vessels determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 33 CFR Part 165 may request permission from the energy action’’ under that Order because Captain of the Port Chicago to transit the [CGD09–03–248] it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ safety zone. Approval will be made on under Executive Order 12866 and is not RIN 1625–AA00 a case-by case basis. Requests must be likely to have a significant adverse effect made in advance and approved by the on the supply, distribution, or use of Safety Zone; Captain of the Port Captain of Port before transits will be Chicago Zone energy. It has not been designated by the authorized. The Captain of the Port may Administrator of the Office of AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. be contacted by calling (630) 986–2155. Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it ACTION: Notice of implementation of Dated: July 28, 2003. does not require a Statement of Energy regulation. Terrence W. Carter, Effects under Executive Order 13211. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is Captain, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 implementing safety zones for annual Chicago. fireworks displays and other significant [FR Doc. 03–20332 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation marine events in the Captain of the Port BILLING CODE 4910–15–P (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Chicago Zone during August 2003. This requirements, Security measures, action is necessary to provide for the Vessels, Waterways. safety of life and property on navigable ■ For the reasons discussed in the waters during these events. These zones preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 will restrict vessel traffic from a portion CFR part 165 as follows: of the Captain of the Port Chicago Zone.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47466 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION What Is Being Addressed in This approved a given state regulation with AGENCY Document? a specific effective date. Have the Requirements for Approval of a 40 CFR Part 52 SIP Revision Been Met? What Does Federal Approval of a State What Action Is EPA Taking? Regulation Mean to Me? [MO 188–1188a; FRL–7542–3] Enforcement of the state regulation What Is a SIP? Approval and Promulgation of before and after it is incorporated into Implementation Plans; State of MO Section 110 of the Clean Air Act the Federally-approved SIP is primarily (CAA) requires states to develop air a state responsibility. However, after the AGENCY: Environmental Protection pollution regulations and control regulation is Federally approved, we are Agency (EPA). strategies to ensure that state air quality authorized to take enforcement action ACTION: Direct final rule. meets the national ambient air quality against violators. Citizens are also standards established by EPA. These offered legal recourse to address SUMMARY: EPA is announcing it is violations as described in section 304 of approving a revision to the Missouri ambient standards are established under the CAA. State Implementation Plan (SIP) which section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. establishes a state-wide air emissions What Is Being Addressed in This These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, banking and trading program. Approval Document? of this revision will ensure consistency nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, between the state and Federally- particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 10 CSR 10–6.410 Emissions Banking approved rules, and ensure Federal Each state must submit these and Trading enforceability of the current state rules. regulations and control strategies to us In order to fulfill the requirements of DATES: This direct final rule will be for approval and incorporation into the Section 643.220 of the Revised Statutes effective October 10, 2003, unless EPA Federally-enforceable SIP. of Missouri, the Missouri Department of receives adverse comments by Each Federally-approved SIP protects Natural Resources (MDNR) proposed September 10, 2003. If adverse air quality primarily by addressing air and adopted a new emissions banking comments are received, EPA will pollution at its point of origin. These and trading rule, 10 CSR 10–6.410. This publish a timely withdrawal of the SIPs can be extensive, containing state rule became effective on April 30, 2003. direct final rule in the Federal Register regulations or other enforceable Banking and trading programs are a informing the public that the rule will documents and supporting information market-based approach to improving air not take effect. such as emission inventories, quality. The basic unit for transactions ADDRESSES: Comments may be monitoring networks, and modeling in this program is the emission submitted either by mail or demonstrations. reduction credit (ERC), which is a electronically. Written comments What Is the Federal Approval Process certified, permanent emission reduction should be submitted to Wayne Kaiser, for a SIP? equal to one ton per year of a criteria Environmental Protection Agency, Air pollutant or precursor. A facility Planning and Development Branch, 901 In order for state regulations to be generates ERCs by voluntarily emitting North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas incorporated into the Federally- below applicable requirements. As this 66101. Electronic comments should be enforceable SIP, states must formally new, lower emission level is sent either to [email protected]. or adopt the regulations and control incorporated into the facility’s operating to http://www.regulations.gov, which is strategies consistent with state and permit, this reduction is permanent. an alternative method for submitting Federal requirements. This process These credits can be traded, sold, or electronic comments to EPA. To submit generally includes a public notice, banked for later use. Another facility comments, please follow the detailed public hearing, public comment period, can purchase these credits and use them instructions described in ‘‘What action and a formal adoption by a state- to offset emissions from expansion of is EPA taking’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY authorized rulemaking body. existing facilities or construction of new INFORMATION section. Once a state rule, regulation, or facilities. ERCs cannot be used to avoid Copies of documents relative to this control strategy is adopted, the state New Source Review (NSR) applicability action are available for public submits it to us for inclusion into the or requirements for technology-based inspection during normal business SIP. We must provide public notice and standards such as lowest achievable hours at the above-listed Region 7 seek additional public comment emission rate, best available control location. The interested persons regarding the proposed Federal action technology or reasonably available wanting to examine these documents on the state submission. If adverse control technology. Credits can also be should make an appointment with the comments are received, they must be purchased to be retired, thereby office at least 24 hours in advance. addressed prior to any final Federal reducing potential emissions in an area. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: action by us. Missouri’s emissions banking and Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603, or by All state regulations and supporting trading program contains a number of e-mail at [email protected]. information approved by EPA under measures to ensure that air quality is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: section 110 of the CAA are incorporated protected. First of all, ERCs must be Throughout this document whenever into the Federally-approved SIP. real, properly quantified, permanent ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean Records of such SIP actions are and surplus (not already relied upon or EPA. This section provides additional maintained in the Code of Federal required by the SIP, a state or local law, information by addressing the following Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, ordinance or regulation, the Clean Air questions: entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Act or other Federal law or regulation, Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state an enforcement action, or a consent What Is a SIP? What Is the Federal Approval Process for regulations which are approved are not decree). Second, ERCs may only be used a SIP? reproduced in their entirety in the CFR in the same maintenance area, What Does Federal Approval of a State outright but are ‘‘incorporated by nonattainment area or modeling domain Regulation Mean to Me? reference,’’ which means that we have in which they were generated. ERCs

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47467

may be used to offset only emissions of comments. Please note that if EPA other contact information unless you the same criteria pollutant or precursor receives adverse comment on part of provide it in the body of your comment. as were reduced to generate them. For this rule and if that part can be severed 2. By Mail. Written comments should example, volatile organic compound from the remainder of the rule, EPA may be sent to the name and address listed (VOC) reductions may only be used to adopt as final those parts of the rule that in the ADDRESSES section of this offset VOC emissions. If credits are to be are not the subject of an adverse document. used in an area subject to an offset ratio, comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews enough credits must be purchased to You may submit comments either compensate for emissions plus the electronically or by mail. To ensure Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR area’s offset ratio. These credits are proper receipt by EPA, identify the 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is permanently retired. Also, the available appropriate rulemaking identification not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and emissions credits in an area are reduced number, MO 188–1188a, in the subject therefore is not subject to review by the by an annual three per cent (3%) from line on the first page of your comment. Office of Management and Budget. For the pool of banked credits. Finally, Please ensure that your comments are this reason, this action is also not nothing in the rule is intended to limit submitted within the specified comment subject to Executive Order 13211, the authority of the Missouri Air period. Comments received after the ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Conservation Commission to terminate close of the comment period will be Significantly Affect Energy Supply, or limit a facility’s authorization to emit. marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May We note, in particular, that the new consider these late comments. 22, 2001). This action merely approves rule merely provides a mechanism for 1. Electronically. If you submit an state law as meeting Federal tracking ERCs. It does not in any way electronic comment as prescribed requirements and imposes no additional impact how ERCs may be used under below, EPA recommends that you requirements beyond those imposed by rules such as Missouri’s prevention of include your name, mailing address, state law. Accordingly, the significant deterioration and and an e-mail address or other contact Administrator certifies that this rule nonattainment new source review information in the body of your will not have a significant economic programs (10 CSR 10–6.410(3)(B)5). comment. This ensures that you can be impact on a substantial number of small The management of the emissions identified as the submitter of the entities under the Regulatory Flexibility banking and trading program will be comment and allows EPA to contact you Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this handled by the Air Pollution Control in case EPA cannot read your comment rule approves pre-existing requirements Program (APCP) of the MDNR. due to technical difficulties or needs under state law and does not impose further information on the substance of any additional enforceable duty beyond 10 CSR 10–6.060 Construction Permits your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA that required by state law, it does not Required will not edit your comment, and any contain any unfunded mandate or The offset and banking provisions of identifying or contact information significantly or uniquely affect small this rule were deleted since these provided in the body of a comment will governments, as described in the provisions were incorporated into the be included as part of the comment that Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 new emissions banking and trading rule. is placed in the official public docket. (Pub. L. 104–4). Specifically, Appendix C, Offsets, and If EPA cannot read your comment due This rule also does not have tribal Appendix D, Banking, were deleted. to technical difficulties and cannot implications because it will not have a Additionally, references to these contact you for clarification, EPA may substantial direct effect on one or more appendices were deleted and references not be able to consider your comment. Indian tribes, on the relationship to the new banking and trading rule a. Electronic mail. Comments may be between the Federal Government and were added in sections (7)(B), (8)(C), sent by e-mail to [email protected]. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of and (8)(E). This revision became Please include identification number, power and responsibilities between the effective April 30, 2003. MO 188–1188a, in the subject line. Federal Government and Indian tribes, The state submittal has met the public EPA’s e-mail system is not an as specified by Executive Order 13175 notice requirements for SIP submissions ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The send an e-mail comment directly action also does not have Federalism submittal also satisfied the without going through Regulations.gov, implications because it does not have completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, EPA’s e-mail system automatically substantial direct effects on the States, appendix V. In addition, as explained captures your e-mail address. E-mail on the relationship between the national above and in more detail in the addresses that are automatically government and the States, or on the technical support document which is captured by EPA’s e-mail system are distribution of power and part of this document, the revision included as part of the comment that is responsibilities among the various meets the substantive SIP requirements placed in the official public docket. levels of government, as specified in of the CAA, including section 110 and b. Regulations.gov. Your use of Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, implementing regulations. Regulations.gov is an alternative method August 10, 1999). This action merely of submitting electronic comments to approves a state rule implementing a What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA. Go directly to http:// Federal standard, and does not alter the We are approving as an amendment to www.regulations.gov, click on ‘‘To relationship or the distribution of power the Missouri SIP a revision to rule 10 Search for Regulations,’’ then select and responsibilities established in the CSR 10–6.060 and new rule 10 CSR 10– Environmental Protection Agency and CAA. This rule also is not subject to 6.410, which were effective in the state use the ‘‘go’’ button. The list of current Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of on April 30, 2003. EPA actions available for comment will Children from Environmental Health We are processing this action as a be listed. Please follow the online Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, final action because the revisions make instructions for submitting comments. April 23, 1997), because it is not routine changes to the existing rules The system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ economically significant. which are noncontroversial. Therefore, system, which means EPA will not In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s we do not anticipate any adverse know your identity, e-mail address, or role is to approve state choices,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47468 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

provided that they meet the criteria of report containing this rule and other Incorporation by reference, the CAA. In this context, in the absence required information to the U.S. Senate, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen of a prior existing requirement for the the U.S. House of Representatives, and dioxide, Particulate matter, Ozone, State to use voluntary consensus the Comptroller General of the United Reporting and recordkeeping standards (VCS), EPA has no authority States prior to publication of the rule in requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile to disapprove a SIP submission for the Federal Register. A major rule organic compounds. failure to use VCS. It would thus be cannot take effect until 60 days after it Dated: July 31, 2003. is published in the Federal Register. inconsistent with applicable law for William Rice, This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. to use VCS in place of a SIP submission defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). that otherwise satisfies the provisions of Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, ■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of petitions for judicial review of this Federal Regulations is amended as section 12(d) of the National action must be filed in the United States follows: Technology Transfer and Advancement Court of Appeals for the appropriate Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not circuit by October 10, 2003. Filing a PART 52—[AMENDED] apply. This rule does not impose an petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 information collection burden under the continues to read as follows: provisions of the Paperwork Reduction affect the finality of this rule for the Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). purposes of judicial review nor does it Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. extend the time within which a petition The Congressional Review Act, 5 for judicial review may be filed, and Subpart AA—Missouri U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small shall not postpone the effectiveness of Business Regulatory Enforcement such rule or action. This action may not ■ 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides be challenged later in proceedings to under chapter 6 by revising the entry for that before a rule may take effect, the enforce its requirements. (See section 10–6.060 and adding a new entry for 10– agency promulgating the rule must 307(b)(2).) 6.410 to read as follows: submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 § 52.1320 Identification of plan. Congress and to the Comptroller General Environmental protection, Air * * * * * of the United States. EPA will submit a pollution control, Carbon monoxide, (c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

State effective Missouri citation Title date EPA approval date Explanation

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri

*******

10–6.060 ...... Construction Permits Re- 4/30/03 August 11, 2003 and [FR Section 9, pertaining to haz- quired. page citation]. ardous air pollutants, is not SIP approved.

*******

10–6.410 ...... Emissions Banking and Trad- 4/30/03 August 11, 2003 and [FR ing. page citation].

*******

* * * * * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a [FR Doc. 03–20300 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] AGENCY revision to the Florida State BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 40 CFR Part 52 August 14, 1998, with the exception of [FL–078–200335(a); FRL–7541–9] one state regulation pertaining to triggers. The revision contains the Approval and Promulgation of transportation conformity rule pursuant Implementation Plans Revisions to to the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 Florida State Implementation Plan: (Act), including detailed consultation Transportation Conformity Rule procedures for implementing the transportation conformity rule. The AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). transportation conformity rule assures that projected emissions from ACTION: Direct final rule. transportation plans, improvement

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47469

programs and projects in air quality include Confidential Business subject line on the first page of your nonattainment or maintenance areas Information (CBI) or other information comment. Please ensure that your stay within the motor vehicle emissions whose disclosure is restricted by statute. comments are submitted within the ceiling contained in the SIP. The The official public rulemaking file is the specified comment period. Comments transportation conformity SIP revision collection of materials that is available received after the close of the comment enables the State to implement and for public viewing at the Regulatory period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not enforce the Federal transportation Development Section, Air Planning required to consider these late conformity requirement at the state Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics comments. level. This action streamlines the Management Division, U.S. 1. Electronically. If you submit an conformity process to allow direct Environmental Protection Agency electronic comment as prescribed consultation among agencies at the local Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., below, EPA recommends that you level. This final approval action is Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA include your name, mailing address, limited to requirements for requests that if at all possible, you and an e-mail address or other contact transportation conformity. contact the contact listed in the For information in the body of your DATES: This direct final rule is effective Further Information Contact section to comment. Also include this contact October 10, 2003 without further notice, schedule your inspection. The Regional information on the outside of any disk unless EPA receives adverse comment Office’s official hours of business are or CD ROM you submit, and in any by September 10, 2003. If adverse Monday through Friday, 9 to 3:30 cover letter accompanying the disk or comment is received, EPA will publish excluding Federal holidays. CD ROM. This ensures that you can be a timely withdrawal of the direct final 2. Copies of the State submittal and identified as the submitter of the rule in the Federal Register and inform EPA’s technical support document are comment and allows EPA to contact you the public that the rule will not take also available for public inspection in case EPA cannot read your comment effect. during normal business hours, by due to technical difficulties or needs appointment at the State Air Agency. further information on the substance of ADDRESSES: Comments may be Florida Department of Environmental your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA submitted by mail to: Matt Laurita, Air Protection, Division of Air Resources will not edit your comment, and any Quality Modeling and Transportation Management, Twin Towers Office identifying or contact information Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, provided in the body of a comment will Pesticides and Toxics Management Tallahassee, Florida 32399–2400. be included as part of the comment that Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 3. Electronic Access. You may access is placed in the official public docket. Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, this Federal Register document If EPA cannot read your comment due SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. electronically through the to technical difficulties and cannot Comments may also be submitted Regulation.gov Web site located at http:/ contact you for clarification, EPA may electronically, or through hand /www.regulations.gov where you can not be able to consider your comment. delivery/courier, please follow the find, review, and submit comments on i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by detailed instructions described in [Part Federal rules that have been published electronic mail (e-mail) to (I)(B)(1)(i) though (iii)] of the in the Federal Register, the [email protected], please SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Government’s legal newspaper, and are including the text ‘‘Public comment on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt open for comment. proposed rulemaking FL–078.’’ in the Laurita, Air Quality Modeling and For public commenters, it is subject line. EPA’s e-mail system is not Transportation Section, Air Planning important to note that EPA’s policy is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics that public comments, whether send an e-mail comment directly Management Division, U.S. submitted electronically or in paper, without going through Regulations.gov, Environmental Protection Agency will be made available for public EPA’s e-mail system automatically Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as captures your e-mail address. E-mail Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The EPA receives them and without change, addresses that are automatically telephone number is (404) 562–9044. unless the comment contains captured by EPA’s e-mail system are Mr. Laurita can also be reached via copyrighted material, CBI, or other included as part of the comment that is electronic mail at information whose disclosure is placed in the official public docket. [email protected]. restricted by statute. When EPA ii. Regulation.gov. Your use of identifies a comment containing Regulation.gov is an alternative method SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: copyrighted material, EPA will provide of submitting electronic comments to I. General Information a reference to that material in the EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov at version of the comment that is placed in http://www.regulations.gov, then select A. How Can I Get Copies Of This the official public rulemaking file. The Environmental Protection Agency at the Document and Other Related entire printed comment, including the top of the page and use the go button. Information? copyrighted material, will be available The list of current EPA actions available 1. The Regional Office has established at the Regional Office for public for comment will be listed. Please an official public rulemaking file inspection. follow the online instructions for available for inspection at the Regional submitting comments. The system is an Office. EPA has established an official B. How and to Whom Do I Submit ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which public rulemaking file for this action Comments? means EPA will not know your identity, under FL–078–200335. The official You may submit comments e-mail address, or other contact public file consists of the documents electronically, by mail, or through hand information unless you provide it in the specifically referenced in this action, delivery/courier. To ensure proper body of your comment. any public comments received, and receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit other information related to this action. rulemaking identification number by comments on a disk or CD ROM that Although a part of the official docket, including the text ‘‘Public comment on you mail to the mailing address the public rulemaking file does not proposed rulemaking FL–078.’’ in the identified in Section 2, directly below.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47470 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

These electronic submissions will be D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare Once a state rule, regulation, or accepted in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII My Comments for EPA? control strategy is adopted, the state will file format. Avoid the use of special You may find the following send these provisions to EPA for characters and any form of encryption. suggestions helpful for preparing your inclusion in the Federally enforceable 2. By Mail. Send your comments to: comments: SIP. EPA must then determine the appropriate Federal action, provide Matt Laurita, Air Quality Modeling and 1. Explain your views as clearly as public notice, and request additional Transportation Section, Air Planning possible. public comment on the action. The Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. possible Federal actions include Management Division, U.S. approval, disapproval, conditional Environmental Protection Agency 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your approval and limited approval/ Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., views. disapproval. If adverse comments are Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Please 4. If you estimate potential burden or received, EPA must consider and include the text ‘‘Public comment on costs, explain how you arrived at your address the comments before taking proposed rulemaking FL–078–200335.’’ estimate. final action. in the subject line on the first page of 5. Provide specific examples to EPA incorporates state regulations your comment. illustrate your concerns. and supporting information (sent under 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. 6. Offer alternatives. section 110 of the Act) into the Deliver your comments to: Matt Laurita, 7. Make sure to submit your Federally approved SIP through the Air Quality Modeling and comments by the comment period approval action. EPA maintains records Transportation Section, Air Planning deadline identified. of all such SIP actions in the CFR at Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, Title 40, part 52, entitled ‘‘Approval and identify the appropriate regional file/ Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Promulgation of Implementation Plans.’’ rulemaking identification number in the Environmental Protection Agency The EPA does not reproduce the text of subject line on the first page of your Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., the Federally approved state regulations response. It would also be helpful if you in the CFR. They are ‘‘incorporated by Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such provided the name, date, and Federal deliveries are only accepted during the reference,’’ which means that the Register citation related to your specific state regulation is cited in the Regional Office’s normal hours of comments. CFR and is considered a part of the CFR operation. The Regional Office’s official the same as if the text were fully printed hours of business are Monday through II. Background in the CFR. Friday, 9 to 3:30 excluding Federal A. What Is A SIP? holidays. C. What Is Transportation Conformity? The states, under section 110 of the C. How Should I Submit Confidential Act, must develop air pollution Conformity first appeared as a Business Information (CBI) to the regulations and control strategies to requirement in the Act’s 1977 Agency? ensure that state air quality meets amendments (Pub. L. 95–95). Although National Ambient Air Quality Standards the Act did not define conformity, it Do not submit information that you (NAAQS) established by EPA. The Act, stated that no Federal department could consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. under section 109, established these engage in, support in any way or You may claim information that you NAAQS which currently address six provide financial assistance for, license submit to EPA as CBI by marking any criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: or permit, or approve any activity which part or all of that information as CBI (if carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, did not conform to a SIP which has been you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and approved or promulgated. mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM sulfur dioxide. The 1990 Amendments to the Act as CBI and then identify electronically Each state must send these regulations expanded the scope and content of the within the disk or CD ROM the specific and control strategies to EPA for conformity concept by defining information that is CBI). Information so approval and incorporation into the conformity to a SIP. Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as marked will not be disclosed except in Federally enforceable SIP, which conformity to the SIP’s purpose of accordance with procedures set forth in protects air quality and contains eliminating or reducing the severity and 40 CFR part 2. emission control plans for NAAQS nonattainment areas. These SIPs can be number of violations of the NAAQS and In addition to one complete version of extensive, containing state regulations achieving expeditious attainment of the comment that includes any or other enforceable documents and such standards. Also, the Act states information claimed as CBI, a copy of supporting information such as ‘‘that no Federal activity will: (1) Cause the comment that does not contain the emission inventories, monitoring or contribute to any new violation of information claimed as CBI must be networks, and modeling any standard in any area, (2) increase submitted for inclusion in the official demonstrations. the frequency or severity of any existing public regional rulemaking file. If you violation of any standard in any area, or submit the copy that does not contain B. What Is the Federal Approval Process (3) delay timely attainment of any CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the For a SIP? standard or any required interim outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly The states must formally adopt the emission reductions or other milestones that it does not contain CBI. Information regulations and control strategies in any area.’’ The requirements of not marked as CBI will be included in consistent with state and Federal laws section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act the public file and available for public for incorporating the state regulations apply to all departments, agencies and inspection without prior notice. If you into the Federally enforceable SIP. This instrumentalities of the Federal have any questions about CBI or the process generally includes a public government. Transportation conformity procedures for claiming CBI, please notice, public comment period, public refers only to the conformity of consult the person identified in the FOR hearing, and a formal adoption by a transportation plans, programs and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. state-authorized rulemaking body. projects that are funded or approved

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47471

under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal conformity. The MOA includes the B. What Is EPA Approving Today and Transit Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). detailed consultation procedures Why? D. Why Must the State Submit A developed for that particular area. The MOAs are enforceable through the EPA is approving the Florida Transportation Conformity SIP? transportation conformity rule signature of all the transportation and submitted to the EPA Region 4 office on A transportation conformity SIP is a air quality agencies, including the August 14, 1998, by the Secretary of the plan which contains criteria and Federal Highway Administration Florida Department of Environmental procedures for the State Department of (FHWA), Federal Transit Protection with one exception. EPA Transportation (DOT), Metropolitan Administration (FTA) and EPA. Planning Organizations (MPOs), and amended 40 CFR part 93, section 104(e) other state or local agencies to assess the E. How Does Transportation Conformity in August 2002, changing the starting conformity of transportation plans, Work? point for 18-month clock trigger for programs and projects to ensure that conformity from the date of the SIP they do not cause or contribute to new The Federal or state transportation submittal to the date of the motor violations of a NAAQS in the area conformity rule applies to all NAAQS vehicle emissions budget adequacy substantially affected by the project, nonattainment and maintenance areas determination. This change was made increase the frequency or severity of in the state. The MPO, the DOT (in after the State’s public adoption process, existing violations of a standard in such absence of a MPO), State and local Air and therefore the State has not adopted area or delay timely attainment. 40 CFR Quality Agencies , U.S. Environmental the most current version of 93.104(e). part 51.390, subpart T requires states to Protection Agency and U.S. Department Therefore, EPA is not taking action on submit a SIP that establishes criteria for of Transportation (USDOT) are involved the portion of the Florida rule conformity to EPA. 40 CFR part 93, in the process of making conformity incorporating 93.104(e) by reference, subpart A, provides the criteria the SIP determinations. Conformity and the Federal rule applies in its place. must meet to satisfy 40 CFR part 51.390. determinations are made on programs Refer to the August 6, 2002, final rule EPA was required to issue criteria and and plans such as transportation (67 FR 50808) for more details. procedures for determining conformity improvement programs (TIP), Furthermore, Florida’s incorporation of transportation plans, programs, and transportation plans, and projects. The by reference of the conformity rule did projects to a SIP by section 176(c) of the MPOs calculate the projected emissions not include portions of the regulations Act. The Act also required the that will result from implementation of affected by the Federal court decision in procedure to include a requirement that the transportation plans and programs Environmental Defense Fund v. each state submit a revision to its SIP and compare those calculated emissions Environmental Protection Agency, 167 including conformity criteria and to the motor vehicle emissions budget F.3d 641 (DC Cir. 1999) and Sierra Club procedures. EPA published the first established in the SIP. The calculated v. EPA, et. al., 129 F. 3d 137 (DC Cir. transportation conformity rule in the emissions must be equal to or smaller 1997). These include the following November 24, 1993, Federal Register than the Federally approved motor sections: 93.102(c)(1), 93.102(d), (FR), and it was codified at 40 CFR part vehicle emissions budget in order for 93.118(e)(1), 93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1) 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, USDOT to make a positive conformity and 93.124(b). For all those portions not subpart A. The transportation incorporated by reference, the Federal conformity rule required the states to determination with respect to the SIP. transportation conformity rule will take adopt and submit a transportation III. Analysis of State’s Submittal precedence. conformity SIP revision to the appropriate EPA Regional Office by A. What Did the State Submit? EPA has evaluated this SIP revision November 25, 1994. The State of Florida and determined that the SIP The State of Florida chose to address submitted a transportation conformity requirements of the Federal the transportation conformity SIP SIP to the EPA Region 4 on November transportation conformity rule, as 15, 1994. EPA did not take action on requirements using State rules that described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart T this SIP because the Agency was in the incorporate by reference portions of the and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A, have process of revising the transportation Federal conformity rule and a been met. Therefore, EPA is approving conformity requirements. EPA revised Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that this revision to the Florida SIP. provides the procedures for interagency the transportation conformity rule on C. How Did the State Satisfy the August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), consultation. The Transportation conformity rule, part 93, section 105, Interagency Consultation Process (40 November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), and CFR 93.105)? August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780), and requires the state to develop specific codified the revisions under 40 CFR part procedures for consultation, resolution EPA’s rule requires the states to 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, of conflict and public consultation. On develop their own processes and subpart A—Conformity to State or August 14, 1998, the State of Florida, procedures for interagency consultation Federal Implementation Plans of through the Department of among Federal, state, and local agencies Transportation Plans, Programs, and Environmental Protection (DEP), and resolution of conflicts meeting the Projects Developed, Funded or submitted the rules for transportation criteria of 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. of the conformity. DEP gave notice of rule- revision must include the process and Federal Transit Laws (62 FR 43780). making proceedings to the public on procedures to be followed by the MPOs, EPA’s action of August 15, 1997, July 3, 1998, held a public hearing on DOT, FHWA, FTA, local transit required the states to change their rules August 5, 1998 and the rules were operators, the state and local air quality and submit a SIP revision to EPA by approved by the Department of agencies and EPA before making August 15, 1998. Environmental Protection on August 6, conformity determinations. The States may choose to develop in place 1998. These amendments to the Florida transportation conformity SIP revision of regulations, a memorandum of Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62– must also include processes and agreement (MOA) which establishes the 204.500, filed on August 12, 1998, procedures for the state and local air roles and procedures for transportation became effective August 31, 1998. quality agencies and EPA to coordinate

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47472 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

the development of applicable SIPs with this rule and if that provision may be In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s MPOs, state DOTs, FHWA and FTA. severed from the remainder of the rule, role is to approve state choices, The State of Florida developed its we may adopt as final those provisions provided that they meet the criteria of statewide consultation rule based on a of the rule that are not the subject of an the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adverse comment. absence of a prior existing requirement signed by Broward County, the Broward for the State to use voluntary consensus County MPO, FHWA–FL, FTA, Florida V. Statutory and Executive Order standards (VCS), EPA has no authority Department of Transportation, Florida Reviews to disapprove a SIP submission for Department of Environmental Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR failure to use VCS. It would thus be Protection, Hillsborough Area Regional 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is inconsistent with applicable law for Transit Authority, the Environmental not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, Protection Commission of Hillsborough therefore is not subject to review by the to use VCS in place of a SIP submission County, the Hillsborough County MPO, Office of Management and Budget. For that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the MPO for the Jacksonville Urbanized this reason, this action is also not the Clean Air Act. Thus, the Area, the City of Jacksonville, Miami- subject to Executive Order 13211, requirements of section 12(d) of the Dade County, the MPO of Palm Beach ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That National Technology Transfer and County, Palm Beach County, Pinellas Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. County, the Pinellas County MPO, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 272 note) do not apply. This rule does Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, the 22, 2001). This action merely approves not impose an information collection Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, state law as meeting Federal burden under the provisions of the and the U.S. Environmental Protection requirements and imposes no additional Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Agency Region 4. The consultation requirements beyond those imposed by U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). process developed by the Florida state law. Accordingly, the The Congressional Review Act, 5 Department of Environmental Protection Administrator certifies that this rule U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by is unique to the State of Florida and is will not have a significant economic the Small Business Regulatory enforceable, effective August 31, 1998. impact on a substantial number of small Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule IV. Final Action entities under the Regulatory Flexibility may take effect, the agency EPA is approving the aforementioned Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements promulgating the rule must submit a changes to the Florida SIP, with the rule report, which includes a copy of exception of the incorporation of under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond the rule, to each House of the Congress reference to 40 CFR part 93.104(e) in and to the Comptroller General of the 62–204.500 which requires the State to that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or United States. EPA will submit a report comply with outdated conformity rule containing this rule and other required significantly or uniquely affect small trigger provisions, because the State information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. governments, as described in the adopted this regulation prior to EPA’s House of Representatives, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 rulemaking amendment on August 6, Comptroller General of the United (Pub. L. 104–4). 2002. States prior to publication of the rule in The EPA is publishing this rule This rule also does not have tribal the Federal Register. A major rule without prior proposal because the implications because it will not have a cannot take effect until 60 days after it Agency views this as a noncontroversial substantial direct effect on one or more is published in the Federal Register. submittal and anticipates no adverse Indian tribes, on the relationship This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as comments. However, in the proposed between the Federal Government and defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). rules section of this Federal Register Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean publication, EPA is publishing a power and responsibilities between the Air Act, petitions for judicial review of separate document that will serve as the Federal Government and Indian tribes, this action must be filed in the United proposal to approve the SIP revision as specified by Executive Order 13175 States Court of Appeals for the should adverse comments be filed. This (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This appropriate circuit by October 10, 2003. rule will be effective October 10, 2003 action also does not have Federalism Filing a petition for reconsideration by without further notice unless the implications because it does not have the Administrator of this final rule does Agency receives adverse comments by substantial direct effects on the States, not affect the finality of this rule for the September 10, 2003. on the relationship between the national purposes of judicial review nor does it If the EPA receives such comments, government and the States, or on the extend the time within which a petition then EPA will publish a document distribution of power and for judicial review may be filed, and withdrawing the final rule and responsibilities among the various shall not postpone the effectiveness of informing the public that the rule will levels of government, as specified in such rule or action. This action may not not take effect. All public comments Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, be challenged later in proceedings to received will then be addressed in a August 10, 1999). This action merely enforce its requirements. (See section subsequent final rule based on the approves a state rule implementing a 307(b)(2).) proposed rule. The EPA will not Federal standard, and does not alter the Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean institute a second comment period. relationship or the distribution of power Air Act, petitions for judicial review of Parties interested in commenting should and responsibilities established in the this action must be filed in the United do so at this time. If no such comments Clean Air Act. This rule also is not States Court of Appeals for the are received, the public is advised that subject to Executive Order 13045 appropriate circuit by October 10, 2003. this rule will be effective on October 10, ‘‘Protection of Children from Filing a petition for reconsideration by 2003 and no further action will be taken Environmental Health Risks and Safety the Administrator of this final rule does on the proposed rule. Please note that if Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), not affect the finality of this rule for the we receive adverse comment on an because it is not economically purposes of judicial review nor does it amendment, paragraph, or section of significant. extend the time within which a petition

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47473

for judicial review may be filed, and requirements, Volatile organic Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. shall not postpone the effectiveness of compounds. Subpart K—Florida such rule or action. This action may not Dated: July 31, 2003. be challenged later in proceedings to A. Stanley Meiburg, enforce its requirements. (See section ■ 2. In § 52.520(c) the table is amended 307(b)(2).) Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. by adding in numerical order an entry for ■ ‘‘62–204.500’’ to read as follows: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: Environmental protection, Air § 52.520 Identification of plan. pollution control, Carbon monoxide, PART 52—[AMENDED] * * * * * Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen (c) * * * dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Reporting and recordkeeping continues to read as follows:

EPA APPROVED FLORIDA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation

***** * Section 62–204.500 ...... Conformity ...... 08/31/98 ...... 08/11/03 [Insert citation Except for the incorpora- of publication]. tion by reference of 40 CFR 93.104(e) of the Transportation Con- formity Rule. ***** *

* * * * * Quality Planning Branch, 3AP21, U.S. State Implementation Plan (SIP). The [FR Doc. 03–20302 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency, first SIP revision went to public hearing BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Region III, 1650 Arch Street, on November 29, 1994 and became Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. effective on May 1, 1995. The second Electronic comments should be sent SIP revision went to public hearing on ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION either to [email protected] or to July 19, 1999 and became effective on AGENCY http://www.regulations.gov, which is an August 31, 2000. These SIP revisions alternative method for submitting update definitions, clarify and 40 CFR Part 52 electronic comments to EPA. To submit streamline the opacity standards for [WV041/046–6015a; FRL–7525–2] comments, please follow the detailed visible emissions for soot blowing instructions described in Part III of the operations, streamline monitoring, Approval and Promulgation of Air Supplementary Information section. reporting and recordkeeping Quality Implementation Plans; West Copies of the documents relevant to this requirements and provide for alternative Virginia; Regulation To Prevent and action are available for public limitations for visible emissions. Since Control Particulate Air Pollution From inspection during normal business the most recent of the two SIP revisions Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat hours at the Air Protection Division, incorporates all of the changes from the Exchangers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, earlier SIP revision, EPA will Region III, 1650 Arch Street, incorporate by reference the version of AGENCY: Environmental Protection Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the 45CSR2 submitted to EPA on September Agency (EPA). Air and Radiation Docket and 21, 2000 into the SIP. ACTION: Direct final rule. Information Center, U.S. Environmental II. Summary of SIP Revision Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final The following summary discusses the action to approve a revision to the West Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC 20460; and West Virginia substantive revisions to West Virginia’s Virginia State Implementation Plan regulation 45CSR2 since the SIP was (SIP). The SIP revision is a regulation to Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 7012 revised on August 14, 1983. A detailed prevent and control particulate air summary and discussion of all of the pollution from combustion of fuel in MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, WV 25304–2943. revisions are contained in a Technical indirect heat exchangers such as boilers. Support Document (TSD) prepared for EPA is approving these revisions in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: this rulemaking action and will not be accordance with the requirements of the Kathleen Anderson, (215) 814–2173, or restated here. A copy of the TSD is Clean Air Act. by e-mail at available, upon request, from the EPA DATES: This rule is effective on October [email protected]. Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES 10, 2003 without further notice, unless SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: section of this document. EPA receives adverse written comment (A) The following definitions were by September 10, 2003. If EPA receives I. Background revised: (1) Definitions of such comments, it will publish a timely On March 29, 1996 and September 21, ‘‘Commission’’, ‘‘Ringelmann Smoke withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 2000, West Virginia submitted revisions Chart’’, and ‘‘Kanawha Valley Air Federal Register and inform the public to a regulation (45CSR2) to prevent and Basin’’, were deleted, (2) ‘‘Director’’ was that the rule will not take effect. control particulate matter air pollution modified to include persons delegated ADDRESSES: Written comments should from combustion of fuel in indirect heat authority by the Director; (3) ‘‘Person’’ be mailed to Makeba Morris, Chief, Air exchangers as formal revisions to its was modified to include the State of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47474 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

West Virginia and the United States, (C) The SIP revision substantially should be applied based on and (4) Definitions for ‘‘ASTM’’, revises and enhances the testing, ‘‘information available to the Director’’, ‘‘Control Equipment’’, ‘‘Discharge monitoring, recordkeeping and which includes, but is not limited to Point’’, ‘‘Heat Input’’, ‘‘Laboratory reporting requirements of 45CSR2. The monitoring results, visible emissions Official’’, ‘‘Malfunction’’, ‘‘Normal regulation now requires that testing be observations, review of operating and Operation’’, ‘‘Owner or Operator’’, conducted using EPA-approved maintenance procedures and inspection ‘‘Prefilter’’, ‘‘Primary Filter’’, ‘‘Probe’’, methods and requires sources to submit of the source. Failure of a source to ‘‘Sampling Plane’’, ‘‘Shutdown’’, ‘‘Start- monitoring plans for each emission unit provide documentation that it has up’’, ‘‘Test Team Supervisor’’, that includes how emissions are to be conducted maintenance operations in a ‘‘Distillate Oil’’, ‘‘Indirect Heat measured, monitoring of pollution manner consistent with good air Exchanger’’, ‘‘Natural Gas’’, ‘‘Opacity’’, control equipment and parametric pollution control practices should not ‘‘Process Heater’’, ‘‘Residual Oil’’, monitoring as appropriate. Sources prevent either the State or EPA from ‘‘Shipment’’, ‘‘Wet Scrubber System’’ using continuous opacity monitoring exercising its enforcement authority. and ‘‘Wood’’ were added. systems (COMS) presumptively meet Specifically with respect to the (B) In general, West Virginia made the requirement for a monitoring plan. malfunction exemption, EPA interprets revisions to the visible emissions The revised regulation also provides West Virginia’s regulation to mean that standard that substantially strengthened that excursions outside of the operating the source has the burden to prove that and clarified opacity limitations. Visible parameters associated with control the malfunction was caused by emissions from fuel burning units must equipment and established in a circumstances beyond the control of the be no greater than ten percent opacity monitoring plan will not necessarily source and that it could not have been on a six minute block average. An constitute a violation. On March 19, prevented through the installation of exemption from this standard is 2003, the WVDEP submitted a letter to proper control equipment or proper provided during soot blowing EPA outlining the manner in which the operation and maintenance. operations and fire box cleaning where State will implement 45CSR2, including Furthermore, the source must be able to a source can demonstrate that this provision. It states that ‘‘WVDEP demonstrate that the malfunction was compliance cannot be practically interprets this provision to mean that not the result of an activity that could achieved. In no event, however, may the the source has the burden of proof in have been foreseen and avoided. With opacity be greater than 30 percent for a demonstrating that an excursion of an respect to high opacity measurements operating parameter is not a violation of during start-up and shutdown total of six, six minute time periods in the visible emission standards under operations, the source has the same a calendar day. EPA interprets these section 3 of 45CSR2. Visible emissions burden to prove that the violation could exemption provisions to place the monitoring plans involving primarily not have been avoided through burden on the source to document that the recording of parametric data require installation of the proper control the exemption applies. Absent a formal visible emissions observations to be equipment or proper operation and determination from the Director that is made and recorded when an excursion maintenance. For all exemptions based on information provided by the of any operating parameter exceeds one claimed by a source, the WVDEP and source, the exemption cannot be hour as detailed in interpretative rule EPA each have the authority to applied. 45CSR2A * * * Such opacity tests may determine whether or not an exemption West Virginia’s regulation 45CSR2 be used to show that the parametric applies under a SIP approved also provides a process for sources to excursion did not result in opacity regulation. request alternative visible emission violations or may serve to verify that West Virginia’s regulation 45CSR2 standards where it is technologically or opacity violations actually occurred. also states that a malfunction constitutes economically infeasible for the source to WVDEP or EPA could enforce against an affirmative defense for any action comply with the presumptive standard. the observed opacity violations in brought for noncompliance with the In no event, however, may a fuel conjunction with the parametric weight emissions standard (particulate burning unit exceed 20 percent opacity. excursion.’’ This letter is included in matter standard) if the owner/operator Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act the administrative record for this can demonstrate that it has met the (CAA) requires SIPs to include federally rulemaking action. requirement to maintain and operate the enforceable emission limitations. West (D) The revisions to West Virginia’s fuel burning unit(s), including Virginia’s provisions for alternative regulation 45CSR2 include revised associated air pollution control visible emission standards meets this exemptions to the presumptive visible equipment, in a manner consistent with requirement only to the extent that the emissions standard during periods of good air pollution control practices for regulation sets an upper limit on all start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. In minimizing emissions. Although this alternative standards. However, the order to qualify for an exemption during provision does not exempt fuel burning West Virginia Department of these periods, the source must units from the particulate matter Environmental Protection (WVDEP) demonstrate that the fuel burning unit standard during a malfunction, it does submitted a letter to EPA on March 19, and associated air pollution control attempt to define the State’s 2003, clarifying that all alternative equipment have been maintained and enforcement discretion when a visible emission standards will be operated in a manner consistent with malfunction occurs. EPA agrees that established as specific conditions of good air pollution control practices for enforcement discretion may be permits issued in accordance with minimizing emissions. appropriate for events such as a federally enforceable permitting Generally, EPA requires that sources malfunction, where EPA concurs that a programs. The letter states that prior to meet, without interruption, applicable malfunction has occurred. However, issuing such permits, the WVDEP shall limitations and control requirements. EPA’s approval of this rule as a SIP submit them to EPA for review. This Where exemptions are allowed, the revision does not constitute advance letter has been included in the source must prove that an exemption approval of any exemptions, including administrative record for this action and applies and that the violation could not malfunctions, or advance enforcement provides certainty of EPA review of have been prevented. The Director may discretion which may be claimed under alternative emission standards. determine whether or not the exemption West Virginia’s regulations. EPA may

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47475

take independent enforcement action to amendment, paragraph, or section of ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which the extent allowed by section 113 of the this rule and if that provision may be means EPA will not know your identity, CAA and any other applicable severed from the remainder of the rule, e-mail address, or other contact provisions of the CAA, notwithstanding EPA may adopt as final those provisions information unless you provide it in the the issuance of an exemption or the of the rule that are not the subject of an body of your comment. exercise of enforcement authority by the adverse comment. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit State. You may submit comments either comments on a disk or CD ROM that (E) Variances from the visible electronically or by mail. To ensure you mail to the mailing address emissions standards are provided by proper receipt by EPA, identify the identified in the ADDRESSES section of West Virginia’s regulation 45CSR2 in appropriate rulemaking identification this document. These electronic the event of unavoidable fuel shortages number WV041/046–6015a in the submissions will be accepted in of fuel having the characteristics needed subject line on the first page of your WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. to comply with the visible emissions comment. Please ensure that your Avoid the use of special characters and standards, for emergency situations that comments are submitted within the any form of encryption. pose a threat to public health and specified comment period. Comments 2. By Mail. Written comments should welfare and to fuel burning units that received after the close of the comment be addressed to the EPA Regional office use a flue gas desulphurization system period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not listed in the ADDRESSES section of this when the latter system must be required to consider these late document. bypassed for planned or unplanned comments. For public commenters, it is maintenance. The variance is limited in 1. Electronically. If you submit an important to note that EPA’s policy is that it sets an alternative limit on electronic comment as prescribed that public comments, whether opacity and, in the case of emergency below, EPA recommends that you submitted electronically or in paper, situations, requires a demonstration that include your name, mailing address, will be made available for public the particulate matter standards are not and an e-mail address or other contact viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as exceeded. information in the body of your EPA receives them and without change, (F) A new section titled comment. Also include this contact unless the comment contains ‘‘Inconsistency Between Rules’’ allows information on the outside of any disk copyrighted material, confidential the Director to determine applicability or CD ROM you submit, and in any business information (CBI), or other of conflicting rules based on imposing cover letter accompanying the disk or information whose disclosure is the more stringent provisions. CD ROM. This ensures that you can be restricted by statute. When EPA These revisions strengthen the SIP by identified as the submitter of the identifies a comment containing clarifying and updating definitions and comment and allows EPA to contact you copyrighted material, EPA will provide updating opacity standards. The in case EPA cannot read your comment a reference to that material in the revisions also require EPA review of due to technical difficulties or needs version of the comment that is placed in alternative emission limits and establish further information on the substance of the official public rulemaking file. The acceptable periods when emission your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA entire printed comment, including the standards do not apply. will not edit your comment, and any copyrighted material, will be available III. Final Action identifying or contact information at the Regional Office for public provided in the body of a comment will inspection. EPA is approving the revisions to be included as part of the comment that Submittal of CBI Comments 45CSR2, ‘‘To Prevent and Control is placed in the official public docket. Particulate Air Pollution from If EPA cannot read your comment due Do not submit information that you Combustion of Fuel in Direct Heat to technical difficulties and cannot consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. Exchangers’’, submitted by West contact you for clarification, EPA may You may claim information that you Virginia on September 21, 2000. EPA is not be able to consider your comment. submit to EPA as CBI by marking any publishing this rule without prior i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by part or all of that information as CBI (if proposal because the Agency views this electronic mail (e-mail) to you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, as a noncontroversial amendment and [email protected], attention mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM anticipates no adverse comment. WV041/046–6015a. EPA’s e-mail system as CBI and then identify electronically However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If within the disk or CD ROM the specific section of today’s Federal Register, EPA you send an e-mail comment directly information that is CBI). Information so is publishing a separate document that without going through Regulations.gov , marked will not be disclosed except in will serve as the proposal to approve the EPA’s e-mail system automatically accordance with procedures set forth in SIP revision if adverse comments are captures your e-mail address. E-mail 40 CFR part 2. filed. This rule will be effective on addresses that are automatically In addition to one complete version of October 10, 2003 without further notice captured by EPA’s e-mail system are the comment that includes any unless EPA receives adverse comment included as part of the comment that is information claimed as CBI, a copy of by September 10, 2003. If EPA receives placed in the official public docket. the comment that does not contain the adverse comment, EPA will publish a ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of information claimed as CBI must be timely withdrawal in the Federal Regulation.gov is an alternative method submitted for inclusion in the official Register informing the public that the of submitting electronic comments to public regional rulemaking file. If you rule will not take effect. EPA will EPA. Go directly to http:// submit the copy that does not contain address all public comments in a www.regulations.gov, then select CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the subsequent final rule based on the ‘‘Environmental Protection Agency’’ at outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly proposed rule. EPA will not institute a the top of the page and use the ‘‘go’’ that it does not contain CBI. Information second comment period on this action. button. The list of current EPA actions not marked as CBI will be included in Any parties interested in commenting available for comment will be listed. the public file and available for public must do so at this time. Please note that Please follow the online instructions for inspection without prior notice. If you if EPA receives adverse comment on an submitting comments. The system is an have any questions about CBI or the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47476 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

procedures for claiming CBI, please one or more Indian tribes, on the the Federal Register. This rule is not a consult the person identified in the FOR relationship between the Federal ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Government and Indian tribes, or on the 804(2). distribution of power and Considerations When Preparing C. Petitions for Judicial Review responsibilities between the Federal Comments to EPA Government and Indian tribes, as Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean You may find the following specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Air Act, petitions for judicial review of suggestions helpful for preparing your FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This this action must be filed in the United comments: action also does not have Federalism States Court of Appeals for the 1. Explain your views as clearly as implications because it does not have appropriate circuit by October 10, 2003. possible. substantial direct effects on the States, Filing a petition for reconsideration by 2. Describe any assumptions that you on the relationship between the national the Administrator of this final rule does used. government and the States, or on the not affect the finality of this rule for the 3. Provide any technical information distribution of power and purposes of judicial review nor does it and/or data you used that support your responsibilities among the various extend the time within which a petition views. levels of government, as specified in for judicial review may be filed, and 4. If you estimate potential burden or Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, shall not postpone the effectiveness of costs, explain how you arrived at your August 10, 1999). This action merely such rule or action. This action, to estimate. approves a state rule implementing a approve West Virginia’s Regulation 5. Provide specific examples to Federal standard, and does not alter the 45CSR2, may not be challenged later in illustrate your concerns. relationship or the distribution of power proceedings to enforce its requirements. 6. Offer alternatives. and responsibilities established in the (See section 307(b)(2).) 7. Make sure to submit your Clean Air Act. This rule also is not List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 comments by the comment period subject to Executive Order 13045 deadline identified. ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental protection, Air 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, Environmental Health Risks and Safety pollution control, Incorporation by identify the appropriate regional file/ Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), reference, Intergovernmental relations, rulemaking identification number in the because it is not economically Particulate matter, Reporting and subject line on the first page of your significant. recordkeeping requirements. response. It would also be helpful if you In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s Dated: June 30, 2003. role is to approve state choices, provided the name, date, and Federal Thomas Voltaggio, provided that they meet the criteria of Register citation related to your Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. comments. the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement ■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: IV. Regulatory Assessment for the State to use voluntary consensus Requirements standards (VCS), EPA has no authority PART 52—[AMENDED] to disapprove a SIP submission for A. General Requirements ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 failure to use VCS. It would thus be continues to read as follows: Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR inconsistent with applicable law for 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and to use VCS in place of a SIP submission therefore is not subject to review by the that otherwise satisfies the provisions of Subpart XX—West Virginia Office of Management and Budget. For the Clean Air Act. Thus, the ■ 2. Section 52.2520 is amended by this reason, this action is also not requirements of section 12(d) of the subject to Executive Order 13211, adding paragraph (c)(56) to read as National Technology Transfer and follows: ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 272 note) do not apply. This rule does § 52.2520 Identification of plan. Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May not impose an information collection * * * * * 22, 2001). This action merely approves burden under the provisions of the (c) * * * state law as meeting Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 (56) Revisions to West Virginia’s requirements and imposes no additional U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Regulations to prevent and control requirements beyond those imposed by particulate air pollution from state law. Accordingly, the B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General combustion of fuel in indirect heat Administrator certifies that this rule exchangers, submitted on September 21, will not have a significant economic The Congressional Review Act, 5 2000 by the West Virginia Division of impact on a substantial number of small U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Environmental Protection: entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Business Regulatory Enforcement (i) Incorporation by reference. Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides (A) Letter of September 21, 2000 from rule approves pre-existing requirements that before a rule may take effect, the the West Virginia Division of under state law and does not impose agency promulgating the rule must Environmental Protection. any additional enforceable duty beyond submit a rule report, which includes a (B) Revisions to Title 45, Series 2, 45 that required by state law, it does not copy of the rule, to each House of the CSR2, To Prevent and Control contain any unfunded mandate or Congress and to the Comptroller General Particulate Air Pollution from significantly or uniquely affect small of the United States. EPA will submit a Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat governments, as described in the report containing this rule and other Exchangers, effective August 31, 2000. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 required information to the U.S. Senate, (ii) Additional Material. (Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not the U.S. House of Representatives, and (A) Letter of March 19, 2003 from the have tribal implications because it will the Comptroller General of the United West Virginia Division of not have a substantial direct effect on States prior to publication of the rule in Environmental Protection to EPA

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47477

providing clarification on the ADDRESSES: Comments may be VI. What is the Procedural History of State interpretation and implementation of submitted either by mail or Submittals? certain regulations on air pollution electronically. Written comments VII. What is EPA’s Conclusion? control. should be mailed to Raymond Werner, VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews (B) Letter of March 29, 1996 from the Chief, Air Programs Branch, I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection to EPA Region II Office, 290 Broadway, New EPA is approving revisions to New transmitting the regulation to prevent York, New York 10007–1866. Electronic Jersey’s ozone SIP submitted on January and control particulate air pollution comments could be sent either to 21, 1998, June 12, 1998 and April 26, from combustion of fuel in indirect heat [email protected] or to http:// 1999. Seven specific sources are exchangers. www.regulations.gov, which is an addressed in these SIP revisions. New (C) Remainder of the State submittals alternative method for submitting Jersey revised and submitted these pertaining to the revisions listed in electronic comments to EPA. Go directly revisions in response to a Clean Air Act paragraph (c)(56)(i) of this section. to http://www.regulations.gov, then (CAA) requirement that States require Reasonably Available Control [FR Doc. 03–20304 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] select ‘‘Environmental Protection Agency’’ at the top of the page and use Technology (RACT) at all major BILLING CODE 6560–50–P the ‘‘go’’ button. Please follow the on- stationary sources of NOX. The seven line instructions for submitting sources addressed are: American Ref- comments. Fuel Company/Essex County Resource ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Recovery Facility; Co-Steel Corporation AGENCY Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for of Sayreville (formerly New Jersey Steel Corporation); Co-Steel Raritan 40 CFR Part 52 inspection during normal business hours: Corporation; Homasote Company; [Region 2 Docket No. NJ56–250a, FRL– Milford Power Limited Partnership; 7527–5] Environmental Protection Agency, University of Medicine and Dentistry of Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, Newark, and Roche Vitamins, Inc. Approval and Promulgation of 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, Additionally, on February 21, 2001, in Implementation Plans; Reasonably New York 10007–1866; a letter to EPA, New Jersey indicated Available Control Technology for New Jersey Department of that with regard to the Township of Oxides of Nitrogen for Specific Environmental Protection, Office of Wayne, in accordance with a previously Sources in the State of New Jersey Air Quality Management, Bureau of submitted and approved SIP revision Air Pollution Control, 401 East State the State had changed the permitted AGENCY: Environmental Protection Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey NOX limit to a more stringent limit. The Agency (EPA). 08625; previously approved SIP revision for ACTION: Direct final rule. Environmental Protection Agency, Air this source indicated that the emission and Radiation Docket and Information limits may be revised to reflect results SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing Center, Air Docket (6102T), 1301 from required stack testing. The permit approval of revisions to the State Constitution Avenue, NW., required tests had been completed and Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone Washington, DC 20460. New Jersey has established a new, more submitted by the State of New Jersey. stringent emission limit based upon the These revisions consist of source- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Air Programs results of these tests. This new limit is specific reasonably available control also being incorporated into the SIP. technology (RACT) determinations for Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New controlling oxides of nitrogen (NOX) II. What Are EPA’s Findings of Each emissions from seven facilities in New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637– State Submittal? 4249 or at [email protected]. Jersey. This action includes a summary of The EPA is also announcing that, for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The each RACT submittal. These summaries an eighth facility, New Jersey has following table of contents describes the are organized into four groups as revised a NOX RACT permit emission format for the SUPPLEMENTARY follows: limit that EPA previously approved and INFORMATION section: A. ‘‘Facility-Specific NOX Emission EPA is incorporating the revised stricter I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? Limits’’ for four major NOX facilities limit into the State’s SIP. II. What Are EPA’s Findings on Each State that contain a source operation or item This direct final rule approves the Submittal? of equipment for which New Jersey has source-specific RACT determinations A. Facility-Specific NOX Emission Limits not established an emission limit that were made by New Jersey in B. Alternative NOX Emission Limits C. Phased Compliance Through pursuant to Subchapter 19, accordance with provisions of its B. ‘‘Alternative NOX Emission Limits’’ regulation. The intended effect of this Repowering D. Revised Permit for Facility-Specific NOX for two major NOX facilities that contain rulemaking is to approve source-specific Emission Limits a source operation or item of equipment emission limitations required by the III. What Are the Clean Air Act (CAA) of a category listed in section 19.2 for Clean Air Act. Requirements for NOX RACT? which an owner or operator seeks DATES: This direct final rule is effective IV. What Are New Jersey’s Regulatory NOX approval of a RACT emission limit that on October 10, 2003 without further RACT Requirements? is different from the one established in notice, unless EPA receives adverse A. EPA Approval of New Jersey’s NOX Subchapter 19, comment by September 10, 2003. If an RACT Regulation C. ‘‘Phased Compliance Through B. Section 19.13—Facility-Specific NOX adverse comment is received, EPA will Emission Limits Repowering’’ for one major NOX facility publish a timely withdrawal of the C. Section 19.21—Phased Compliance for which an owner or operator seeks direct final rule in the Federal Register Through Repowering approval, pursuant to section 19.21, for and inform the public that the rule will V. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Each State a plan for phased compliance through not take effect. Submittal? repowering of a specific source, and

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47478 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

D. ‘‘Revised Facility-Specific NOX stack emission testing, the State lowered Bed burners with low NOX burners and Emission Limits’’ for one major NOX the NOX emission limit from 168 tpy to staged fuel injection. The new facility- facility for which permit conditions are 78.8 tpy. specific NOX emission limit is 169.5 tpy revised in accordance with a previously In addition, since February 2003, the or 0.27 pounds per million BTU (lb/ submitted and EPA approved source- State has been reviewing a new mmBTU) heat input, as verified by specific SIP revision which allowed for Prevention of Significant Deterioration annual stack tests. Additionally, the revisions based on the results of (PSD) permit application for the EAF State’s Conditions of Approval include: compliance tests. which may slightly increase the NOX (1) Annual adjustment of the EPA is only acting on the permitted emission limit above the current 78.8 combustion process according to emission rates and conditions related to tpy State limit. The 78.8 tpy limit has Subchapter 19.16; and (2) use of natural emissions of NOX. This action is not not been submitted as a SIP revision. gas as the primary fuel with Number 2 being taken on any other pollutants CSS submitted this new PSD fuel oil as a standby fuel to be used only from these sources for which New Jersey application because it plans to increase during natural gas curtailment and up to may have taken permit actions. production at the EAF. The State hopes a maximum of 1000 hours of operation to complete, within approximately a in any one calendar year. A. Facility-Specific NOX Emission year, its review and public notice and 3. Co-Steel Raritan Corporation Limits comment period. 1. American Ref-Fuel Company This SIP revision includes the original Co-Steel Raritan Corporation owns NO emission limit of 168 tpy. On the and operates a mini steel mill, located The American Ref-Fuel Company X effective date of this SIP approval it will at Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, that owns and operates three mass burning become the federally enforceable NO has the capability of producing water wall incinerators at the Essex X SIP limit. In order for the current State 1,160,320 tpy of finished product. The County Resource Recovery Facility permit limit to become the federally facility includes an electric arc furnace located at Newark, Essex County. The enforceable NO limit, or for any future with laddle metallurgy system (EAF/ State’s June 1998 SIP submittal is a X State permit limit to become the LMS) that melts and refines scrap steel revision to a May 1995 SIP revision for federally enforceable NO limit, it must in a batch mode of operation, and a the same facility that was approved by X be submitted and EPA must approve of billet reheat furnace (BRF) that reheats EPA on January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2581). it as a SIP revision. steel rods for producing finished The EPA previously approved RACT It should be noted that while any product. controls at this facility that include aspect of a State permit limit is federally The facility’s RACT analysis Selective Non Catalytic Reduction enforceable because it is part of a permit concluded, and New Jersey agreed, that (SNCR) technology with ammonia there are no technologies available to which is issued under the federally injection, based on a 1989 Best control NO emissions from EAF’s. The approved State permit program, it is not X Available Control Technology (BACT) facility-specific NO emission limit for the federally enforceable NO SIP limit X analysis. EPA’s January 1997 approval X the EAF/LMS is 94 tpy as verified by required to satisfy the SIP. A federally included a facility-specific NOX annual stack tests and was State enforceable permit condition can be emission limit of 95 pounds per hour effective on March 6, 1998. made more or less stringent in (lbs/hr) per unit, with a concentration Additionally, the State Conditions of accordance with State permitting limit of 174 parts per million (ppm), Approval include: (1) The maximum procedures. However once a permit based on a three hour average. In the steel scrap feed rate to the EAF shall not condition is submitted and approved of June 1998 SIP revision, the facility’s exceed 148 tons per hour based on 24- as a SIP emission limit, in accordance RACT analysis concluded, and New hour daily production; and (2) operation with sections 110(l) and 116 1 of the Jersey agreed, that the new facility- of the EAF steel making process limited CAA, it can not be made more or less specific NO emission limit is 155 ppm, to 7840 hours in a year period. X stringent than the federally approved based on a twenty-four hour average, NOX emissions from the BRF are limit unless it is submitted and while maintaining the 95 lbs/hr/unit produced from natural gas fired burners. approved by EPA as a SIP revision, or limit based on a three hour average. The facility’s RACT analysis concluded, unless the approved SIP establishes and New Jersey agreed, that RACT is 2. Co-Steel Corporation of Sayreville procedures which allow for making the conversion of the existing three North (Formerly New Jersey Steel Corporation) limit more stringent. American Manufacturing burner zones Furthermore, if the PSD permit limit Co-Steel Corporation owns and with low NOX burners (LNB) and flue operates a mini steel mill, located at revision is considered ‘‘major’’ then the gas recirculation (FGR). The facility- Title V permit must also be revised at Sayreville, Middlesex County, that has specific NOX emission limit for the BRF the capability of producing 800,000 tons the same time as the PSD revision. is 80 tpy or 0.145 lb/mmBTU, as per year (tpy) of steel billets. The facility However, if the PSD permit limit verified by annual stack tests. includes an electric arc furnace (EAF) revision is considered ‘‘minor’’ then the Additionally, the State Conditions of that melts and refines scrap steel in a Title V permit revision may be revised Approval include: (1) The burners in all continuous mode of operation, and a at the next scheduled cycle. three zones of the furnace are to be billet reheat furnace (BRF) that reheats NOX emissions from the BRF are replaced with LNB and FGR; (2) annual steel billets for producing reinforcing produced primarily from natural gas adjustment of the combustion process bars for the construction industry. The fired burners with oil as the backup according to Subchapter 19.16; (3) fuel. The facility’s RACT analysis facility’s RACT analysis concluded, and implementation of the proposed NOX New Jersey agreed, that there are no concluded, and New Jersey agreed, that plan by February 1, 2001; and (4) control technologies available to control RACT is conversion of the existing four operation limited to using natural gas as North American Manufacturing Twin NOX emissions from EAF’s and the State fuel for the burners. established an emission limit based on Note that this source-specific SIP 1 Section 116 of the CAA establishes that the State engineering judgement. Subsequent to may not adopt or enforce an emission limit which revision addresses what the State New Jersey’s SIP submittal which EPA is less stringent than the limit in effect under an approved RACT is for the EAF as of is acting on today, and based on actual applicable SIP. March 6, 1998 and for the BRF as of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47479

February 1, 2001, since these are the shutdowns shall not exceed 75 events of C. Phased Compliance Through effective dates for the NOX RACT each type per calendar year; (2) Repowering requirements for those sources in the maximum number of fuel transfers shall 7. Roche Vitamins, Inc. State approved NOX Control Plan. Final not exceed 10 events per calendar year; EPA approval will make them federally and (3) the facility shall maintain Roche Vitamins, Inc. operates a enforceable. records of all start-up, shutdown and powerhouse facility in Belvidere, fuel transfer events. Warren County, which includes the 4. Homasote Company following: a packaged water tube steam Homasote owns and operates a fibre 6. University of Medicine and Dentistry boiler with a rated heat input of 84.4 board manufacturing operation located mmBTU/hr (Boiler No. 1), and a at West Trenton, Mercer County. The NOX emissions at the University of cogeneration system consisting of one facility includes a custom designed Medicine and Dentistry, located at 21.5 Megawatt diesel reciprocating eight tier conveyor type natural gas Newark, Essex County, are from three engine and a heat recovery steam dryer that replaced two oil or gas fired cogeneration units and three non-utility generator (HRSG) equipped with a 179 dryers that were dismantled. boilers. The facility operates three mmBTU/hr duct burner (Boiler No. 6). Replacement of the two dryers with the identical cogeneration units that include Roche Vitamins, Inc. proposed a natural gas dryer is expected to reduce Solar Centaur combustion turbines each repowering plan in which it committed NOX emissions by nearly 67 tons with a supplementary fired duct burner to replace Boiler No.1 and the annually. The facility’s RACT analysis to provide electricity and steam to its cogeneration unit with a new concluded, and New Jersey agreed, that campus. The plant uses natural gas as cogeneration unit consisting of a new the custom design of the natural gas the primary fuel and number 2 fuel oil gas turbine and a new HRSG. New dryer equipment makes the addition of as backup. The facility’s RACT analysis Jersey estimates that after repowering, the generally required control determined, and New Jersey agreed, that NOX emissions from the facility will be technologies infeasible. The facility- increased water injection to the turbine reduced by nearly 2023 tons annually. specific NOX emission limit is 0.10 lb/ has been determined to be RACT for the The repowering plan as approved by the mmBTU, as verified by compliance cogeneration units. The alternative NOX State requires the following: (1) The stack tests. Additionally, the State’s emission limit is 0.167 lb/mmBTU, new cogeneration unit to comply with Conditions of Approval include: (1) averaged over any calendar day using state of the art requirements; (2) the new Annual adjustment of the combustion Continuous Emission Monitoring cogeneration unit be installed in process pursuant to Subchapter 19; (2) System (CEMs), when combusting accordance with the milestones limitation of the amount of wet boards natural gas. For combustion of number specified in a federally enforceable passing through the dryer to not more 2 fuel oil, New Jersey lowered the agreement; (3) the repowering be than 17,000 lb/hr; (3) limitation of the permitted NOX emission limit from 0.40 completed by May 1, 1999; (4) fuel amount of natural gas used in the dryer lb/mmBTU to 0.35 lb/mmBTU which is restrictions apply to Boiler Nos. 1 and to not more than 284 million cubic feet the presumptive limit established in 6 and to the diesel engine; (5) after May per year; and (4) limitation of the Subchapter 19. 1, 1999, Boiler No. 1 be used as an amount of propane used as secondary emergency unit, not to exceed 500 hours fuel in the dryer to not more than The facility also operates three per calendar year; and (6) after May 1, 310,000 gallons per year. Compliance Cleaver Brooks non-utility boilers to 1999, the original cogeneration unit will with these additional conditions of provide steam to its Newark campus. no longer be operated. approval in the State’s SIP revision are The boilers only operate during periods The repowering plan further requires to be documented by record keeping. of high demand (peaking units) or that, during the interim period of May during periods of interruption of the 1, 1995 and May 1, 1999, the NO B. Alternative NO Emission Limits X X three cogeneration units, which are the emission limits and other requirements 5. Milford Power Limited Partnership primary source of steam. The facility’s for the boilers and cogeneration units Milford Power operates a combined RACT analysis concluded, and New are as follows: (1) For Boiler No. 1, 0.40 cycle cogeneration plant at the Crown Jersey agreed, that due to the low lb/mmBTU when firing natural gas, and Vantage Milford Mill in Milford capacity factor and remaining useful life 0.30 lb/mmBTU when firing a mixture Township, Hunterdon County. Steam of only seven years, there are no of number 6 oil and lasalocid oil; (2) for technologies that are economically the cogeneration facility (engine and and dry low NOX combustors are used feasible to control NOX emissions from HRSG), 582 lb/hr when firing number 6 to comply with Subchapter 19’s NOX RACT emission limit during periods of the three boilers. The alternative NOX oil in the engine and natural gas in the normal operation, however steam is not emission limit is 0.55 lb/mmBTU when duct burner; (3) for the engine only, 8.0 available or cannot otherwise be used combusting either natural gas or number grams NOX per horsepower-hour; (4) for during start-up, shutdown and fuel 6 fuel oil for each boiler. Additionally, Boiler No. 6 (duct burner) only, 0.20 lb/ transfer. The facility’s RACT analysis the State’s Conditions of Approval mmBTU; and (5) annual adjustment of concluded, and New Jersey agreed, that include: (1) Annually adjusting the the combustion process on Boilers No. 1 and 6. dry low NOX combustors without steam combustion process pursuant to addition had been demonstrated to be Subchapter 19; (2) stack testing in D. Revised Permit for Facility-Specific accordance with Subchapter 19 for RACT for the cogeneration plant during NOX Emission Limits start-up, shutdown and fuel transfer determining compliance; (3) operating 8. Township of Wayne, Mountain View periods. The alternative NOX emission each boiler no more than 2920 hours in limits are 0.34 lb/mmBTU during any calendar year; and (4) complying Water Pollution Control Facility periods of start-up and shutdown and with Subchapter 19’s NOX emission The Township of Wayne, Mountain 0.73 lb/mmBTU during fuel transfer limit of 0.28 lb/mmBTU by June 1, 2002 View Water Pollution Control Facility periods. Additionally, the State’s and thereafter, should the three non- owns and operates two multiple hearth Conditions of Approval include: (1) utility boilers continue to operate type sewage sludge incinerators which Maximum number of start-ups and beyond May 31, 2002. burn sewage sludge from its wastewater

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47480 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

treatment plant located in Wayne, source for NOX is considered to be one apply to thespecific source, or Passaic County. On October 20, 1998, which emits or has the potential to emit submission of a request for an EPA approved (63 FR 55949) a 100 tpy or more of NOX and is subject alternative maximum allowable December 1996 SIP revision for this to the requirements of a moderate emission rate if specific emission same facility that included a RACT nonattainment area. New Jersey is limitations do apply to the specific limitation and a State requirement to within the Northeast Ozone Transport source. In either case, the owners/ perform compliance testing which Region, established by section 184(a) of operators must include a technical and would confirm or establish a new the CAA, and has defined a major economic feasibility analysis of the facility-specific NOX emission limit. In stationary source for NOX as a source possible alternative control measures. a letter dated February 21, 2001, New which has the potential to emit 25 tpy, RACT determinations for an alternative Jersey informed EPA that, as a result of the level set for severe ozone maximum allowable emission rate must stack tests conducted in April 1998, the nonattainment areas. For detailed consider control technologies (e.g., low State, on December 21, 2000, revised the information on the CAA requirements NOX burners) and alternative control facility-specific NOX emission limit for NOX RACT see the Technical strategies (e.g., emissions averaging, requirements previously approved by Support Document prepared for today’s seasonal fuel switching to natural gas, EPA. The maximum allowable NOX rulemaking action. and repowering). Also, in either case, emission limit was revised from 12.0 lb/ Subchapter 19 requires that New Jersey hr to 7.0 lb/hr per incinerator and the IV. What are New Jersey’s Regulatory establish emission limits which rely on maximum allowable sludge feed rate Requirements for NOX RACT? a RACT determination specific to the

was revised from 1.0 dry ton per hour A. EPA Approval of New Jersey’s NOX facility. The resulting NOX control plan to 0.8 dry ton per hour per incinerator. RACT Regulation or alternate maximum allowable EPA is incorporating the revised permit emission rate must be submitted to EPA condition into the SIP. On November 15, 1993, New Jersey for approval as a SIP revision. Once a permit limit is submitted and submitted to EPA, as a revision to the approved of by EPA as a SIP emission SIP, Subchapter 19 of Chapter 27, Title C. Section 19.21—Phased Compliance limit, in accordance with sections 110(l) 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Through Repowering and 116 of the CAA, it can not be made Code. Subchapter 19 is entitled ‘‘Control Section 19.21 of New Jersey’s less stringent than the federally and Prohibition of Air Pollution From regulation allows attainment of approved limit unless it is submitted Oxides of Nitrogen.’’ This Subchapter compliance through repowering. Under and approved as a SIP revision with the provides the NOX RACT requirements Subchapter 19, repowering is defined as exception of cases where the approved for New Jersey and was effective on the permanent cessation of steam SIP establishes procedures which allow December 20, 1993. New Jersey generator operations replaced by either for making the limit more stringent. The submitted Subchapter 19 to EPA, as a the installation of a new combustion CAA is silent on whether a more revision to the SIP, on November 15, source or the purchase of heat or power stringent adjustment of a previously 1993 and on January 27, 1997, the EPA from a new combustion source located approved SIP limit must be submitted to final approval action on Subchapter 19 in New Jersey. EPA as a SIP revision. In the case of was published in the Federal Register Section 19.21 requires that a source Township of Wayne, the Agency has (62 FR 3804). owner who requests compliance accepted notification of a new limit On March 24, 1995, New Jersey through repowering: (1) Enter into an rather than submission as a SIP revision adopted amendments to Subchapter 19 enforceable commitment with the State because the previously approved SIP and submitted them to EPA for approval to repower; (2) submit an analysis that revision stated that the limit could be as a SIP revision on June 21, 1996. On defines RACT for the interim period made more stringent as a consequence March 29, 1999, the EPA final approval between May 31, 1995 and the date the of required compliance test results. This action on the revised Subchapter 19 was unit will be repowered; (3) specify a Federal Register notice is the agency published in the Federal Register (64 date, which can be no later than May 31, publication of the new NOX limit. The FR 14832). 1999, by which the unit will be new limit will become the new federally repowered; (4) include appropriate B. Section 19.13—Facility-Specific NOX enforceable NOX SIP limit upon the Emission Limits milestones for the repowering project; effective date of this Federal Register (5) meet applicable SIP and Federal notice. At that point, it can not be made Section 19.3 of New Jersey’s requirements upon the repower date; less stringent without submission of, regulation establishes a procedure for a and (6) ensure that the repowering and approval by EPA as, a SIP revision. case-by-case determination of what commitment is federally enforceable. represents RACT for a particular facility Section 19.21 also requires that a III. What Are the Clean Air Act item, equipment or source operation. source establish emission limits using Requirements for NO RACT? X This procedure is applicable in two advanced control techniques and The CAA required certain states to situations: (1) Except for non-utility commit to meet these limits once the develop RACT regulations for major boilers, if the major NOX facility source is repowered. The maximum stationary sources of NOX and to contains any source operation or item of allowable NOX emissions rate, provide for the implementation of the equipment of a category not listed in expressed in pounds per million BTUs, required measures as soon as practicable section 19.2 which has the potential to for repowered utility boilers ranges from but no later than May 31, 1995. Under emit more than 10 tons of NOX per year, 0.1 to 0.2 depending upon the type of the CAA, the definition of major or (2) if the owner or operator of a boiler and the type of fuel. Section 19.21 stationary source is based on the tons source operation or item of equipment allows repowering of all combustion per year (tpy) air pollution a source of a category listed in section 19.2 seeks sources. emits and the quality of the air in the approval of an alternative maximum area of the source. In ozone transport allowable emission rate. V. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Each State regions, attainment/unclassified areas as New Jersey’s procedure requires Submittal? well as marginal and moderate ozone either submission of a NOX control plan After reviewing the submittals, EPA nonattainment areas, a major stationary if specific emission limitations do not found them all administratively and

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47481

technically complete. For each source approval to each owner. These letters VIII. Statutory and Executive Order discussed in this rulemaking, EPA included and incorporated a COAD or a Reviews determined that the New Jersey letter of revised permit. Each COAD or revised Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR approval identifies NOX requirements permit contains conditions consistent 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is which represent RACT for the source. with Subchapter 19. These conditions not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and The conditions contained in the are considered approved permit therefore is not subject to review by the Conditions Of Approval Documents conditions which are fully enforceable Office of Management and Budget. For (COADs) or revised permits include, for by the State. Each COAD and revised this reason, this action is also not example, emission limits, work practice permit is identified in the subject to Executive Order 13211, standards, and testing, monitoring, and ‘‘Incorporation by reference’’ section at ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That record keeping/reporting requirements. the end of this Notice. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, New Jersey submitted the seven These conditions are consistent with the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May source-specific SIP revisions to EPA on NOX RACT requirements specified in 22, 2001). This action merely approves Subchapter 19 and conform to EPA NO January 21, 1998, June 12, 1998 and X state law as meeting Federal RACT guidance. Please note there may April 26, 1999. requirements and imposes no additional be other requirements, such as adequate VII. What Is EPA’s Conclusion? requirements beyond those imposed by monitoring, which States and sources state law. Accordingly, the will need to provide for, through the The EPA is approving the source- Administrator certifies that this rule Title V permitting process. Therefore, specific SIP revisions described above will not have a significant economic EPA is approving New Jersey’s three as RACT for the control of NOX impact on a substantial number of small source-specific SIP revision submittals, emissions from the seven sources entities under the Regulatory Flexibility which include seven source-specific identified in the three source-specific Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this RACT determinations, dated January 21, SIP revisions and for an eighth source, 1998, June 12, 1998 and April 26, 1999. is approving the stricter limit revised by rule approves pre-existing requirements In addition, for an eighth source- the State in accordance with a SIP under state law and does not impose specific RACT determination, New revision which EPA previously any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not Jersey has revised a NOX RACT permit approved. Please note that if EPA emission limit that EPA previously receives an adverse comment on an contain any unfunded mandate or approved and EPA is incorporating the amendment, paragraph, or a specific significantly or uniquely affect small revised stricter limit into the State’s SIP. source addressed in this direct final rule governments, as described in the As explained previously in this and if the provision that relates to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 rulemaking notice, in a February 21, adverse comment may be severed from (Public Law 104–4). 2001 letter, the State notified EPA that the remainder of the rule, EPA may This rule also does not have tribal it lowered the limit in accordance with sever the provision and adopt as final implications because it will not have a the approved SIP. those provisions of the rule that are not substantial direct effect on one or more EPA’s evaluation of each RACT the subject of the adverse comment. Indian tribes, on the relationship submittal is detailed in a document The EPA is publishing this rule between the Federal Government and entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document- without prior proposal because the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of NOX RACT Source-Specific SIP Agency views this as a noncontroversial power and responsibilities between the Revisions-State of New Jersey.’’ A copy amendment and anticipates no adverse Federal Government and Indian tribes, of that document is available, upon comments. However, in the proposed as specified by Executive Order 13175 request, from the EPA Regional Office rules section of this Federal Register (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This listed in the ADDRESSES section of this publication, EPA is publishing a action also does not have Federalism document. EPA’s summary of findings separate document that will serve as the implications because it does not have for each facility Is found in Section II of proposal to approve these same seven substantial direct effects on the States, this Notice. source-specific SIP revisions should on the relationship between the national adverse comments be filed. This final government and the States, or on the VI. What Is the Procedural History of rule will be effective October 10, 2003 distribution of power and State Submittals? without further notice unless the responsibilities among the various Prior to adoption of the seven source- Agency receive relevant adverse levels of government, as specified in specific RACT revisions discussed in comments by September 10, 2003. Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, this rulemaking, New Jersey published If the EPA receives adverse August 10, 1999). This action merely proposed limitations for each source comments, then EPA will publish a approves a state rule implementing a specific RACT determination in local notice withdrawing the final rule or Federal standard, and does not alter the newspapers and provided thirty (30) sever that portion of the final rule and relationship or the distribution of power days for public comment and an informing the public that the rule did and responsibilities established in the opportunity to request a public hearing. not take effect. All public comments Clean Air Act. This rule also is not New Jersey reviewed and responded to received will then be addressed in a subject to Executive Order 13045 all comments. The State then subsequent final rule based on the ‘‘Protection of Children from determined that the proposed NOX proposed rule. The EPA will not Environmental Health Risks and Safety control plans, alternative maximum institute a second comment period on Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), allowable emission rates and the proposed rule. Parties interested in because it is not economically repowering plan conform with the commenting on the proposed rule significant. provisions of sections 19.13 or 19.21 of should do so at this time. If no such In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s New Jersey’s regulation. These RACT comments are received, the public is role is to approve state choices, determinations were made during 1996, advised that this rule will be effective provided that they meet the criteria of 1997 and 1998. on October 10, 2003 and no further the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the After New Jersey made each action will be taken on the proposed absence of a prior existing requirement determination it issued letters of rule. for the State to use voluntary consensus

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47482 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority Dated: July 1, 2003. units and Cleaver Brooks non-utility to disapprove a SIP submission for Jane M. Kenny, boilers, Newark, Essex County, NJ failure to use VCS. It would thus be Regional Administrator, Region 2. COAD dated June 26, 1997. inconsistent with applicable law for ■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code (7) Roche Vitamins Inc’s cogeneration EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, of Federal Regulations is amended as facility and Boiler No. 1, Belvidere, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission follows: Warren County, NJ COAD dated June that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 10, 1998. The cogeneration facility the Clean Air Act. Thus, the PART 52—[AMENDED] consists of one reciprocal engine (21.5 MW) and one heat recovery steam requirements of section 12(d) of the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 National Technology Transfer and generator (HRSG) equipped with a duct continues to read as follows: burner (Boiler No. 6). Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (8) Township of Wayne, Mountain 272 note) do not apply. This rule does View Water Pollution Control Facility’s not impose an information collection Subpart FF—New Jersey sewage sludge incinerators, Passaic burden under the provisions of the County, NJ permit revision dated Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 ■ 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by December 21, 2000. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). adding new paragraph (c)(73) to read as (ii) Additional information— follows: Submission to Congress and the Documentation and information to Comptroller General § 52.1570 Identification of plan. support NOX RACT facility-specific emission limits, alternative emission * * * * * The Congressional Review Act, 5 limits, or repowering plan in three SIP (c) * * * revisions addressed to Regional U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by (73) Revisions to the State the Small Business Regulatory Administrator Jeanne M. Fox from New Implementation Plan submitted by the Jersey Commissioner Robert C. Shinn, Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, New Jersey Department of generally provides that before a rule Jr. and one letter addressed to Acting Environmental Protection on January Regional Administrator William J. may take effect, the agency 21, 1998, June 12, 1998 and April 26, promulgating the rule must submit a Muszynski from Dr. Iclal Atay, Chief 1999; and a letter which notified EPA of Bureau of Air Quality Engineering rule report, which includes a copy of a revised permit limit submitted by the the rule, to each House of the Congress dated: New Jersey Department of (A) January 21, 1998 SIP revision for and to the Comptroller General of the Environmental Protection on February two sources; United States. Section 804 exempts from 21, 2001. (B) June 12, 1998 SIP revision for one section 801 the following types of rules: (i) Incorporation by reference. source; (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) (A) Conditions of Approval (C) April 26, 1999 SIP revision for rules relating to agency management or Documents (COAD) or modified four sources; and personnel; and (3) rules of agency prevention of significant deterioration (D) February 21, 2001 for a revised organization, procedure, or practice that (PSD) permit: permit limit for one source. do not substantially affect the rights or The following facilities have been [FR Doc. 03–20424 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] issued COADs or modified PSD permit obligations of non-agency parties. 5 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P U.S.C. section 804(3). EPA is not by New Jersey: required to submit a rule report (1) American Ref-Fuel Company/ regarding this action under section 801 Essex County Resource Recovery ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Facility, Newark, Essex County, NJ PSD because this is a rule of particular AGENCY permit modification dated July 29, 1997. applicability. Incorporation by reference includes 40 CFR Part 52 Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean only the NOX emission limits in section Air Act, petitions for judicial review of A.6 of the July 29, 1997 PSD permit. [CA 172–0276a; FRL–7524–7] this action must be filed in the United (2) Co-Steel Corporation’s (formerly Revisions to the California State States Court of Appeals for the New Jersey Steel Corporation) electric Implementation Plan, Great Basin appropriate circuit by October 10, 2003. arc furnace/melt shop and billet reheat Unified Air Pollution Control District Filing a petition for reconsideration by furnace, Sayreville, Middlesex County, the Administrator of this final rule does NJ COAD approval dated September 3, AGENCY: Environmental Protection not affect the finality of this rule for the 1997. Agency (EPA). purposes of judicial review nor does it (3) Co-Steel Raritan Corporation’s ACTION: Direct final rule. extend the time within which a petition electric arc furnace/ladle metallurgy SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final for judicial review may be filed, and system and billet reheat furnace, Perth action on revisions to the California shall not postpone the effectiveness of Amboy, Middlesex County, NJ COAD approval dated June 22, 1998. State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under such rule or action. This action may not authority of the Clean Air Act as be challenged later in proceedings to (4) Homasote Company’s natural gas dryer (wet fibreboard mat dryer), West amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we enforce its requirements. (See section Trenton, Mercer County, NJ COAD are approving local rules that concern 307(b)(2).) approval dated October 19, 1998. permitting of sources that have the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 (5) Milford Power Limited potential to emit above major source Partnership’s combined cycle thresholds but do not actually emit Environmental protection, Air cogeneration facility, Milford, pollutants at those levels. pollution control, Incorporation by Hunterdon County, NJ COAD approval DATES: These revisions are effective on reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, dated August 21, 1997. October 10, 2003 without further notice, Reporting and recordkeeping (6) University of Medicine and unless EPA receives adverse comments requirements. Dentistry of New Jersey cogeneration by September 10, 2003. If EPA receives

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47483

such comment, we will publish a timely Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC Table of Contents withdrawal in the Federal Register 20460. California Air Resources Board, Stationary I. The State’s Submittal informing the public that this rule will A. What rules did the State submit? not take effect. Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. B. Are there other versions of these rules? ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Gerardo Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control C. What are the provisions in the submitted Rios, Permits Office Chief (AIR–3), Air District, 157 Short Street, Bishop, CA 93514. rules? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action Division, U.S. Environmental Protection A copy of the rules may also be A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne available via the Internet at http:// B. Do the rules meet the evaluation Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. criteria? [email protected]. Please be advised that this is not an EPA C. EPA recommendations to further You can inspect copies of the website and may not contain the same improve the rules D. Public comment and final action submitted rule revisions and EPA’s version of the rule that was submitted technical support documents (TSDs) at III. Background information to EPA. Why were these rules submitted? our Region IX office during normal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews business hours. You may also see copies David Wampler, Permits Office, (Air-3), of the submitted rule revisions at the I. The State’s Submittal Air Division, U.S. Environmental following locations: Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 A. What Rules Did the State Submit? Permits Office (AIR–3), Air Division, Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA Table 1 lists the rules we are Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 94105; (415) 972–3975. 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA approving with the dates that they were 94105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: adopted by the local air agencies and Environmental Protection Agency, Air Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ submitted by the California Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

GBUAPCD ...... 218 Limiting Potential to Emit ...... 12/04/95 05/10/96 GBUAPCD ...... 219 Request for Synthetic Minor Status ...... 12/04/95 05/10/96

On July 19, 1996, the submittal of at least 90 percent of the source’s total requirements (see sections 110(l) and Rules 218 and 219 were found to meet emissions in every 12-month period are 193). These rules were also evaluated the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part associated with the sources with the using EPA policy describing options 51 Appendix V, which must be met operational limitations. sources have for limiting their potential before formal EPA review. • There are detailed recordkeeping to emit under section 112 and Title V of and reporting requirements to assure B. Are There Other Versions of These the CAA. This policy is generally compliance with the emission Rules? described in a January 25, 1995 policy limitations and operational limitations. memorandum entitled, Options for There are no previous versions of Rule 219 includes the following Limiting the Potential to Emit of a Rules 218 and 219 in the SIP. significant provisions: Stationary Source Under Section 112 • C. What Are the Provisions in the The owner or operator of a specified and Title V of the Clean Air Act from Submitted Rules? stationary source, that would otherwise John Seitz, Director of EPA’s Office of be a major source, would be allowed to Rule 218 includes the following Air Quality Planning and Standards, to request and accept federally-enforceable EPA’s Regional Air Division Directors. significant provisions: limits such that the annual potential to • The owner or operator of a specified Rule 218 was compared to a model emit would be below major-source California prohibitory rule contained in stationary source, that would otherwise thresholds in order to allow the source be designated a major source because the January 25, 1995 policy to be considered a ‘‘synthetic minor the potential to emit exceeds the major- memorandum. source.’’ source threshold for regulated • The limits to the potential to emit Rule 219 was also compared to EPA pollutants, would be allowed under must be approved by EPA and must be guidance on establishing a synthetic- Rule 218 to avoid being subject to Title permanent, quantifiable, and practically minor operating-permits program V, federal permitting requirements, if enforceable. published on June 28, 1989 (54 FR the actual annual emissions do not • A synthetic minor source would not 27247). Permits issued pursuant to this exceed any of the following emission be subject to the permitting voluntary program that meet the June limitations: (1) 50 percent of the major- requirements of Rule 217, Title V- 28, 1989 criteria are considered source thresholds for regulated air Federal Operating Permits or of Title V federally enforceable for criteria pollutants excluding hazardous air of the CAA. The TSDs have more pollutants. The synthetic minor pollutants (HAPs), or (2) 5 tons per year information about these rules. mechanism may also be used to create of a single HAP, or (3) 12.5 tons per year emission limits for emission of of any combination of HAPs, or (4) 50 II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), if it is percent of any lesser threshold for a A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? single HAP as the EPA may establish as approved pursuant to section 112(l) of a rule. In combination with the other the CAA. In short, a program to create • There are also alternate operational requirements, the rules in today’s action federally-enforceable limits on a limitations for specific stationary must be enforceable (see section 110(a) source’s potential to emit should: sources that may be used provided that of the CAA) and must not relax existing • Be approved by EPA into the SIP.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47484 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

• Impose legal obligations for of the rule that are not the subject of an August 10, 1999). This action merely operating permit holders to adhere to adverse comment. approves a state rule implementing a permit limitations. Federal standard, and does not alter the III. Background Information • Provide for limits that are relationship or the distribution of power enforceable as a practical matter. Why Were These Rules Submitted? and responsibilities established in the • Have permits issued in a process Sections 172 and 173 of the CAA Clean Air Act. This rule also is not that provides the opportunity for review require that Title V permits be obtained subject to Executive Order 13045 and comment by the public and EPA. for affected sources, major sources, and ‘‘Protection of Children from • Ensure that there is no relaxation of any sources required by parts C and D Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), otherwise applicable Federal of the CAA. If certain sources could because it is not economically requirements. limit their potential to emit to below significant. B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation major-source thresholds or satisfy In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s Criteria? synthetic minor-source requirements, role is to approve state choices, they would not be required to obtain a provided that they meet the criteria of We believe that these rules are Title V permit. CARB submitted generally consistent with the relevant the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the administrative rules to support these absence of a prior existing requirement policy and guidance regarding actions for qualified sources. enforceability and SIP relaxations and for the State to use voluntary consensus with EPA policy describing options IV. Statutory and Executive Order standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for sources have for limiting their potential Reviews failure to use VCS. It would thus be to emit under section 112 and Title V of Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR inconsistent with applicable law for the CAA. Rule 219 is consistent with 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, EPA criteria published on June 28, 1989 not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and to use VCS in place of a SIP submission (54 FR 27247) for approving and therefore is not subject to review by the that otherwise satisfies the provisions of incorporating into the SIP synthetic- Office of Management and Budget. For the Clean Air Act. Thus, the minor federally-enforceable state this reason, this action is also not requirements of section 12(d) of the operating permits. The TSDs have more subject to Executive Order 13211, National Technology Transfer and information on our evaluation. ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, C. EPA Recommendations to Further 272 note) do not apply. This rule does Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Improve the Rules not impose an information collection 22, 2001). This action merely approves burden under the provisions of the The TSDs describes additional rule state law as meeting Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 revisions that do not affect EPA’s requirements and imposes no additional U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). current action but are recommended for requirements beyond those imposed by The Congressional Review Act, 5 the next time the local agency modifies state law. Accordingly, the U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the rules. Administrator certifies that this rule the Small Business Regulatory D. Public Comment and Final Action will not have a significant economic Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, impact on a substantial number of small generally provides that before a rule As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of entities under the Regulatory Flexibility may take effect, the agency the CAA, EPA is fully approving the Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this promulgating the rule must submit a submitted rules because we believe they rule approves pre-existing requirements rule report, which includes a copy of fulfill all relevant requirements. We do under state law and does not impose the rule, to each House of the Congress not think anyone will object to this, so any additional enforceable duty beyond and to the Comptroller General of the we are finalizing the approval without that required by state law, it does not United States. EPA will submit a report proposing it in advance. However, in contain any unfunded mandate or containing this rule and other required the Proposed rule section of this Federal significantly or uniquely affect small information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Register, we are simultaneously governments, as described in the House of Representatives, and the proposing approval of the same Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Comptroller General of the United submitted rules. If we receive adverse (Pub. L. 104–4). States prior to publication of the rule in comments by September 10, 2003, we This rule also does not have tribal the Federal Register. A major rule will publish a timely withdrawal in the implications because it will not have a cannot take effect until 60 days after it Federal Register to notify the public substantial direct effect on one or more is published in the Federal Register. that the direct final approval will not Indian tribes, on the relationship This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as take effect and we will address the between the Federal Government and defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). comments in a subsequent final action Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean based on the proposal. If we do not power and responsibilities between the Air Act, petitions for judicial review of receive timely adverse comments, the Federal Government and Indian tribes, this action must be filed in the United direct final approval will be effective as specified by Executive Order 13175 States Court of Appeals for the without further notice on October 10, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This appropriate circuit by October 10, 2003. 2003. This will incorporate these rules action also does not have Federalism Filing a petition for reconsideration by into or rescind rules from the federally implications because it does not have the Administrator of this final rule does enforceable SIP. substantial direct effects on the States, not affect the finality of this rule for the Please note that if EPA receives on the relationship between the national purposes of judicial review nor does it adverse comment on an amendment, government and the States, or on the extend the time within which a petition paragraph, or section of this direct final distribution of power and for judicial review may be filed, and rule and if that provision may be responsibilities among the various shall not postpone the effectiveness of severed from the remainder of the rule, levels of government, as specified in such rule or action. This action may not EPA may adopt as final those provisions Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, be challenged later in proceedings to

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47485

enforce its requirements. (See section the directional stability and control of VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 307(b)(2).) these vehicles during braking. We supplemented the ABS requirements for I. Background List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 truck tractors with a braking-in-a-curve On December 18, 1991, the Environmental protection, Air performance test. The braking-in-a- Intermodal Surface Transportation pollution control, Incorporation by curve test was not applied to single-unit Efficiency Act (ISTEA or Act), Public reference, Intergovernmental relations, trucks or buses or to air-braked trailers Law 102–240 was signed by President Permitting, Reporting and because we had performed only limited George H. Bush and became law. recordkeeping requirements. testing of ABS-equipped single-unit Section 4012 of the Act directed the Dated: June 12, 2003. vehicles. We stated that we would Secretary of Transportation to initiate Alexis Strauss, continue research on dynamic rulemaking for improving the braking Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. performance tests for single-unit trucks, performance of new commercial motor buses, and trailers, and would consider vehicles—defined by ISTEA as those ■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code applying performance test requirements with a GVWR of over 26,000 pounds of Federal Regulations is amended as to these vehicles in the future. (lbs.)—including truck tractors, trailers, follows: After issuing the final rule, we tested and dollies. The Act directed that in several ABS-equipped single-unit trucks PART 52—[AMENDED] that rulemaking, the agency examine and buses equipped with both hydraulic antilock brake systems (ABS), means of ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 and air brakes. Our testing and research improving brake compatibility, and continues to read as follows: indicated that the braking-in-a-curve methods of ensuring the effectiveness of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. performance test requirement is brake timing. In response to that practicable for those vehicles. congressional mandate, we published a Subpart F—California Accordingly, in December 1999, we final rule requiring ABS to be installed proposed applying the braking-in-a- on hydraulic and air-braked medium ■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by curve requirements to them to and heavy vehicles on March 10, 1995 adding paragraph (c)(231)(i)(E) to read as complement both the ABS equipment (60 FR 13216) (hereinafter referred to as follows: requirements and stopping distance the stability and control final rule). For requirements. This final rule extends § 52.220 Identification of plan. truck tractors only, the ABS application of the braking-in-a-curve requirements included a braking-in-a- * * * * * dynamic performance test requirement curve performance test on a low- (c) * * * to single-unit trucks and buses that are coefficient of friction surface. The test (231) * * * required to be equipped with ABS. includes a full brake application in both (i) * * * DATES: The amendments made in this the lightly loaded (bobtail) configuration (E) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution rule are effective October 10, 2003. If and with the tractor loaded to its Control District. you wish to petition for reconsideration GVWR, the latter using an unbraked (1) Rules 218 and 219, adopted on of this rule, your petition must be control trailer. December 4, 1995. received by September 25, 2003. Due to limited data and concerns * * * * * ADDRESSES: Any petitions for regarding the braking-in-a-curve test, the [FR Doc. 03–20426 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] reconsideration should refer to the March 1995 Final Rule did not apply BILLING CODE 6560–50–P docket and notice number of this notice the test to single-unit trucks, buses, or and be submitted to: Administrator, air-braked trailers. We stated, however, National Highway Traffic Safety that we would continue research on DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Administration, 400 Seventh Street, dynamic performance tests for single- SW., Washington, DC 20590. unit vehicles and would consider National Highway Traffic Safety FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For proposing to apply performance test Administration non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Jeff requirements to those vehicles at a Woods, Safety Standards Engineer, future time.1 49 CFR Part 571 Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, II. Single-Unit Truck and Bus ABS [Docket No. 03–15277] Vehicle Dynamics Division at (202) Performance Testing RIN 2127–AH16 366–2720, and fax him at (202) 493– 2739. We conducted ABS testing of single- unit trucks and buses in 1996 and 1997 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety For legal issues, you may call: Mr. at our Vehicle Research and Test Center Standards: Heavy Vehicle Antilock Otto Matheke, Attorney-Advisor, Office (VRTC) in East Liberty, OH.2 Five air- Brake System (ABS) Performance of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366–2992, Requirement and fax him at (202) 366–3820. You may send mail to both of these 1 The agency published two companion final AGENCY: National Highway Traffic rules on the same day, one to reinstate stopping officials at National Highway Traffic distance requirements for air-braked medium and Safety Administration (NHTSA), Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., heavy vehicles (60 FR 13286) and another to Department of Transportation (DOT). SW., Washington, DC, 20590. implement stopping distance requirements for ACTION: Final rule. hydraulic-braked medium and heavy vehicles (60 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR 13297). The cost/benefit information used for I. Background the three final rules was based on NHTSA’s Final SUMMARY: In March 1995, NHTSA Assessment, Final Rules, FMVSS Nos. 105 & 121, published a final rule amending the II. Single-Unit Truck & Bus ABS Performance Testing Stability and Control During Braking Requirements and Reinstatement of Stopping Distance hydraulic and air brake standards to III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking require medium and heavy vehicles Requirements for Medium and Heavy Vehicles, IV. Public Comments published in February, 1995. (e.g., truck tractors, trailers, single unit V. Final Rule 2 DOT HS 808941, Single Unit Truck and Bus trucks, and buses) to be equipped with VI. Pre-selection of Compliance Option ABS Braking-In-A-Curve Performance Testing, antilock brake systems (ABS) to improve VII. Effective Date February 1999.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47486 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

braked straight trucks and two requirements. The lower end of the PFC immediately after the post-burnish hydraulic-braked buses, all equipped range was also considered to be a worst- brake adjustment in S7.4.2.2, with the with ABS, were used in the tests to aid case test condition. loaded-to-GVWR tests followed by the in determining if the braking-in-a-curve The results of the testing at VRTC lightly loaded tests. performance test for tractors should be indicated that the braking-in-a-curve In order to provide manufacturers applied to single-unit vehicles. The test is practicable, repeatable, and safe with sufficient lead time to comply with vehicles were subjected to all the for single unit vehicles. Six of the seven the proposed requirements, the proposal requirements of Standards No. 105 and vehicles tested met the performance indicated that the effective date for the No. 121, including the braking-in-a- requirements now in effect for tractors, braking-in-a-curve test requirements, for curve performance tests. i.e., they stayed in the lane in at least both air and hydraulic-braked single The braking-in-a-curve tests began three out of four stops when subjected unit trucks and buses, be two years after with the determination of a maximum to maximum braking at 75 percent of the publication of the final rule in the drive-through speed, followed by the maximum drive-through speed. In fact, Federal Register. determination of the maximum brake- these six vehicles remained in the lane IV. Public Comments through speed. As defined in Standard during all four stops at 75 percent of the No.121, ‘‘maximum drive-through drive-through speed, all with a large NHTSA received comments about its speed’’ is the fastest constant speed that margin of compliance. proposal from vehicle and brake a vehicle can be driven through at least manufacturers as well as safety and III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 200 feet of curve arc length without trade groups. Three vehicle departing the lane. ‘‘Maximum brake- On December 21, 1999, the agency manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler through speed’’ is defined as the fastest published a notice of proposed Corporation (DaimlerChrysler), Ford speed at which a full brake application rulemaking in the Federal Register (64 Motor Company (Ford) and Mitsubishi can be made while the vehicle is in the FR 71377) containing the agency’s Motors R&D of America Incorporated curve, without the vehicle departing the proposal for a braking-in-a-curve test for (Mitsubishi), submitted comments. lane. Determination of the maximum single-unit trucks and buses. NHTSA Comments were also received from brake-through speed provided data on proposed that the braking-in-a-curve test Haldex Brake Products Corporation the potential margin of compliance or be conducted in two different (Haldex), Bendix Commercial Vehicle non-compliance for the test vehicles. conditions: with the vehicle lightly Systems (BCVS) and Bosch Braking In the agency’s testing, both trucks loaded, and with the vehicle loaded-to- Systems Corporation (Bosch). Several and school buses were tested in loaded- GVWR. The agency proposal also trade associations, National Truck to-GVWR and lightly loaded conditions. specified the same road test geometry Equipment Association (NTEA), Heavy The trucks were ABS equipped chassis- now in effect for tractors, namely a 12- Duty Brake Manufacturers Council cabs without bodies or equipment that foot-wide lane with a 500-foot radius (HDBMC), American Trucking would normally be installed by a measured at the center of the lane with Associations (ATA) and Truck second-stage manufacturer. However, to the test surface having a peak friction Manufacturers Association (TMA), simulate the lightly loaded condition of coefficient (PFC) of 0.5. The proposal offered their views. One safety group, completed vehicles, a 2,500 lb load also specified that the test speed is 75 Advocates for Highway Safety frame with an integrated roll bar was percent of the maximum drive-through (Advocates), submitted comments as installed on the chassis cabs. Trucks speed or 30 mph, whichever is lower. well. tested in the loaded-to-GVWR condition The brake pedal force specification With the exception of TMA and were weighted to their GVWRs, with the proposed in the notice called for a NTEA, the commenters generally axle loads in proportion to their pressure of 150 pounds to be achieved supported the agency proposal. GAWRs. Two ABS equipped school at the brake pedal within 0.2 seconds However, many of the commenters buses were also tested in loaded-to- from the initial application and argued that requiring that the braking- GVWR and lightly loaded conditions. maintained for the duration of the stop. in-a-curve test be run in both the The loaded-to-GVWR tests on the school The proposal specified that the brake loaded-to-GVWR and lightly loaded buses were conducted with sand bags temperature at the time of testing is to conditions was unnecessary and that the placed on the floor and seats so the total be between 150 and 200° F and the test lightly loaded test alone was sufficient. vehicle weight was equal to its GVWR, performed with the transmission in In addition, a number of commenters with axle loads in proportion to their neutral or the clutch pedal depressed. indicated dissatisfaction with the GAWRs. Finally, the agency proposal specified proposed test sequence and some of the The braking-in-a-curve tests were that in 3 of 4 consecutive stops, the test proposed test conditions. Other conducted on a low friction wetted vehicle is to remain in the 12 foot wide commenters indicated their belief that surface. The test curve had a 12-foot- marked lane when tested in both the the agency’s proposal underestimated wide lane with a 500-foot radius of lightly loaded condition and when the compliance burdens that the curvature (marked from the center of the loaded-to-GVWR in proportion to each proposal, if adopted, would impose on lane). Traffic cones were placed on both GAWR. final stage manufacturers and alterers. sides of the lane at 20-foot intervals. The Since the braking-in-a-curve test is One commenter addressed what it surface had a cross slope of one percent one brake test in a test sequence, the believed to be shortcomings in the and approximately zero longitudinal agency proposed that the braking-in-a- configuration of the test curve. slope. The peak coefficient of friction curve test for air-braked single-unit Advocates stated that the proposed test (PFC) of the surface during the time of trucks and buses be conducted configuration—a zero longitudinal the testing ranged from 0.34 to 0.41. The immediately after the burnish procedure slope, 500-foot continuous curve radius, effect of the cross slope was such that as indicated in Table I of Standard No. 12-foot wide lane and one percent side the test condition was considered to be 121, with the loaded-to-GVWR tests slope—does not approach worst-case worst case, since it may not be possible followed by the lightly loaded tests. We real-world operating condition. In to conduct all road testing on a also proposed that the braking-in-a- addition to criticizing the severity of the completely level road surface, due to curve test for hydraulic-braked single- test, Advocates viewed the proposed variability and water run-off design unit trucks and buses be conducted test as not sufficiently demanding and

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47487

indicated that few vehicles equipped difficult. BCVS further stated that if Bosch requested that the braking-in-a- with ABS would fail the proposed test. NHTSA believes that the fully-loaded curve test be performed following the DaimlerChrysler disagreed with the braking-in-a-curve test is essential, then loaded-to-GVWR parking brake test, proposed requirement that ‘‘no part’’ of the load center-of-gravity height should with the loaded-to-GVWR braking-in-a- the test vehicle leave the marked lane of be established at a height that is not curve test followed by the lightly loaded the braking curve during a stop. Instead, likely to lead to vehicle rollover. braking-in-a-curve test, for both DaimlerChrysler requested that this Concerns about vehicle rollover hydraulic- and air-braked single-unit requirement be changed so that a apparently also prompted BCVS to vehicles. Bosch also stated that it vehicle would comply if no part of any suggest that the allowance of 1,000 lbs. appeared that the agency had not point of contact of any tire left the lane for a rollbar, and 500 lbs. for driver and considered the costs incurred by during the stop. The company noted instrumentation, which was proposed in different phases of the test sequence that the agency proposal did not clearly the NPRM for the lightly-loaded requiring loading and unloading of the indicate how any departure of any part braking-in-a-curve test for single-unit test vehicle. Bosch requested that the of the vehicle from the traveled lane trucks and buses, be applied to other test sequence be changed to eliminate would be detected. DaimlerChrysler lightly-loaded road tests in FMVSS No. the requirement that empty vehicles be further indicated that vehicles with 121.3 loaded solely for the purpose of large rear overhang would be placed at Ford stated that it believes there is no conducting the braking-in-a-curve test a severe disadvantage since any lateral useful information to be obtained from after brake burnishing. Ford requested movement of the rear wheels would conducting the braking-in-a-curve test that if the agency decided to drop the result in the rear of a longer vehicle with the vehicle loaded-to-GVWR. Ford loaded-to-GVWR braking-in-a-curve test, moving closer to the outside of the lane. cited the fact that the SAE Truck and the test sequence be changed so that DaimlerChrysler also requested that Bus Vehicle Deceleration and Stability burnish and loaded-to-GVWR straight- NHTSA delete the specification that the Subcommittee found that 29 out of 31 line stops be conducted first, followed braking-in-a-curve test be conducted on single-unit vehicles tested in the by braking-in-a-curve tests in the a wet surface. In DaimlerChrysler’s braking-in-a-curve test the lightly- lightly-loaded condition, followed by view, the requirement that the surface loaded test condition performed the lightly-loaded straight-line stops. In be wet is unnecessary. In the company’s same or worse than when tested in the Ford’s view, this sequence would view, it is immaterial whether the test loaded-to-GVWR test condition. Ford eliminate one loading and unloading surface is dry or wet if the surface has states that the two vehicles that cycle and improve test efficiency. the proper coefficient of friction (PFC). performed better in the loaded-to-GVWR One manufacturer, Mitsubishi, The comments submitted by vehicle test condition were heavier-duty trucks commented that the requirements manufacturers and trade groups were and had sufficient margins of proposed for the force and timing of nearly unanimous in their disapproval compliance in both loading conditions. brake pedal applications during the of the proposed requirement that testing TMA stated that because of safety braking-in-a-curve test are too stringent. be conducted with vehicles in both a concerns, NHTSA should reconsider its The proposal specified that a brake lightly loaded condition and a loaded- decision to require the braking-in-a- pedal force of 150 lbs. be achieved to-GVWR condition. HDBMC stated that curve test in the loaded-to-GVWR test within 0.2 second from the initial many single-unit trucks and buses have condition. TMA believes that a loaded- application of force to the brake control already been tested for braking-in-a- to-GVWR vehicle could slide off the low (brake pedal) and that this minimum curve performance and that, with regard coefficient test surface of the 500-foot force be maintained for the duration of to loading condition, the worst-case radius curve onto a higher coefficient of the stop. Mitsubishi believes that this condition is when the vehicle is lightest. friction surface and then rollover. TMA application time would be difficult to HDBMC also stated that in the case of cited NHTSA statements in the NPRM achieve. The company provided test testing in the loaded-to-GVWR that the NHTSA tests involving vehicles data from tests conducted on single unit condition, it recommends that the with a load at a high center of gravity trucks showing that test drivers could center-of-gravity height for the ballast height caused an unsettling feeling [to achieve 150 lbs. of pedal force within should be not more than 32 inches the test driver] with regard roll stability. 0.2 seconds in only three out of 10 above the frame rails. Haldex and TMA presented data to support its view sample stops. HDBMC also recommended that the 32- that testing in the loaded-to-GVWR TMA and NTEA criticized our inch load height for single-unit trucks condition is less stringent than testing proposal as imposing significant test burdens and costs on small businesses be specified for 60-mph straight-line in the lightly-loaded condition. TMA stopping distance tests as well. beyond what those entities should concluded that testing in the loaded-to- BCVS advocated deletion of the fully- reasonably be expected to bear. These GVWR condition provides no additional loaded braking-in-a-curve test for the commenters are concerned that final confirmation of vehicle performance, following reasons: A lightly-loaded test stage manufacturers and alterers may presents a significant safety risk of condition is the most severe condition; not be able to rely on the certification vehicle rollover, and would increase test the SAE recommended practice (RP) of an incomplete vehicle manufacturer burdens without any measurable benefit J1626 ‘‘Braking Stability and Control to the extent portrayed by the agency in to vehicle safety. Performance Test Procedures for Air proposing the new requirements, In addition to advocating removal of and Hydraulic Brake Equipped Trucks, particularly since many trucks are the requirement that vehicles be tested Truck-Tractors and Buses’ specifies that configured for highly specialized in a loaded-to-GVWR condition, a the braking-in-a-curve performance test applications. Moreover, TMA argued number of commenters indicated that be conducted in the lightly-loaded that since NHTSA is proposing the proposed test sequence be changed. condition with the loaded-to-GVWR To reduce costs associated with performance requirements for all classes condition optional; loading the vehicle loading and unloading test vehicles, of vehicles, it should consider removing increases the risk of rollover; and the existing ABS equipment determining an appropriate loading 3 NHTSA has published a final rule (66 FR 64154) requirements. TMA stated these specification for the variety of vehicle amending FMVSS No. 121 by incorporating the equipment requirements are unduly configurations and body forms would be 1,000 lbs. rollbar provision. restrictive and may impede

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47488 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

development of improved ABS systems. regulatory text deleted S7.8 from the list demonstrate that the loaded-to-GVWR NTEA stated that the proposal should be of test procedures and sequences, and test offers little additional information abandoned on the basis that there are no inadvertently added S7.11. about a vehicle’s ABS performance additional benefits attained by adding DaimlerChrysler also believes that the beyond what can be shown by just using the proposed test procedure. words ‘‘except for vehicles with a the lightly-loaded test. In regard to costs, TMA argued that in GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs.’’ were In addition, the agency agrees with preparing the proposal, NHTSA tested inadvertently deleted from S7.5(b), and the observations of several commenters only the most common two- and three- that the word ‘‘must’’—proposed in lieu that there is a risk of vehicle rollover axle truck configurations (i.e., 4 x 2 and of the current ‘‘shall’’ in S7—should be while conducting the braking-in-a-curve 6 x 4), and has not adequately addressed retained. DaimlerChrysler also noted test with a loaded-to-GVWR vehicle the problems posed by other axle that the word ‘‘control’’ was deleted unless a low center-of-gravity loading configurations. As aftermarket axles are from the phrase ‘‘transmission selector scheme is required. Developing and often added to incomplete vehicles— control’’ in S7 and recommended that implementing a uniform low center-of- which can cause a vehicle to fall outside the word ‘‘control’’ be retained. Finally, gravity scheme for single-unit vehicles of the Incomplete Vehicle Document DaimlerChrysler indicated that while it would be difficult given the large (IVD) parameters specified by the prefers retaining the existing language number of single-unit truck incomplete vehicle manufacturer—final for S5.7(b), which governs test speeds configurations. Use of a higher center- stage manufacturers will bear additional for each category of vehicle for the of-gravity load increases concerns about responsibility for certification. TMA second effectiveness test, that the roll stability. During the maximum stated that low-volume, special existing language of S5.7(b) is also drive-through speed test, which configurations may need to be excluded incorrect determines the speed at which the from this portion of the standard, and braking-in-a-curve test is conducted, the believes that it is premature to conclude V. Final Rule test vehicle will depart from the test that the proposal is practicable for all This final rule adopts the lane if the driver exceeds the maximum single-unit trucks and buses. TMA also amendments to FMVSS No. 105 and drive through speed of the vehicle for believes the agency has significantly FMVSS No. 121 proposed in the that road surface condition. If this underestimated the cost of performing December 21, 1999 NPRM with several occurs, the test vehicle may move stand-alone braking-in-a-curve tests on modifications. First, because the agency laterally onto a wet asphalt surface with previously certified vehicles. TMA agrees with those commenters who a higher coefficient of friction (PFC 0.8). stated that stand-alone testing will argued that the lightly loaded test In these conditions, a vehicle loaded so require shipping vehicles to a test site, condition is the most severe test of an that it has a high center of gravity could installation of new brake system parts, ABS system in a braking-in-a-curve test, become unstable and rollover. The burnishing, loading and unloading, the final rule eliminates the proposed HDBMC offered its view that the agency charges for facilities, drivers, mechanics requirement that testing include braking should specify a 32-inch center-of- and test engineers as well as runs by a vehicle in a loaded-to-GVWR gravity height for any ballast added to instrumentation support and reporting. condition. The final rule also modifies create a loaded condition for any agency The organization estimated that stand- the proposed test sequence to reflect the braking tests, including the proposed alone braking-in-a-curve testing costs elimination of the loaded-to-GVWR test. We note first that as the agency is will average between $4,500 and $6,000 condition requirement and to simplify not specifying that the braking in a per test and a full FMVSS No. 105 or testing. We are also modifying the curve test be performed in a loaded-to- 121 certification will cost $10,000 to requirements for the full brake GVWR condition, this eliminates $13,000. application used in the braking-in-a- HDBMC’s concerns for that test. NTEA also believes that pass-through curve test and making a number of While the agency is not including the certification requirements supplied by corrections to the regulatory text. fully-loaded-to-GVWR braking-in-a- incomplete vehicle manufacturers will The most significant modification to curve test for single-unit vehicles in this be so restrictive that pass-through the proposal is our decision to eliminate final rule, it will keep this test certification will not be available and the requirement that the braking-in-a- requirement in FMVSS No. 121 for truck that small companies would not have curve test be performed with the test tractors. Reasons for keeping this the means to conduct certification vehicle in a lightly loaded and heavily requirement include the large variation testing. NTEA stated that a final stage loaded configuration. The comments in vehicle weight of unladen tractors manufacturer could ensure compliance submitted in response to the NPRM (bobtail) to fully-loaded-to-GVWR only through actual testing. In NTEA’s favored elimination of the requirement tractors; the large contribution of the view, the added cost of this testing will that vehicles be tested in a loaded-to- tractor in providing braking force when be prohibitive. Therefore, NTEA GVWR condition. These commenters a loaded semi-trailer is coupled to the contends that final stage manufacturers argued that the brakes on a lightly tractor; and the articulated configuration would be compelled either to cease loaded vehicle are generally much more of the tractor and semitrailer that results operations or choose not to test and risk likely to lock on a low friction surface in the trailer contributing to the lateral a host of liabilities. NTEA further argues than those on an identical vehicle with force on the tractor drive wheels during that the agency has repeatedly taken the a heavy load. a braking-in-a-curve test. In addition, position that alternatives to actual The agency’s own testing and data since loading a tractor to GVWR is compliance testing, such as engineering submitted by TMA indicate that the accomplished by coupling a loaded analyses, computer simulations, or lightly-loaded test condition has a lower control trailer to the tractor, the labor group testing through trade associations, margin of compliance than tests in the effort for loading and unloading is may not suffice as evidence of the due loaded-to-GVWR condition. In those few minimal compared to single-unit care required for certification. cases in which the loaded-to-GVWR test vehicles. DaimlerChrysler referred to what it condition resulted in a lower margin of This final rule also modifies the test believes to be errors in the agency compliance, the margin of compliance sequence. We note that our proposed proposed changes to FMVSS No. 105. was still quite large for the lightly- test sequence, which is already in effect The company stated that the proposed loaded condition. These tests and data for truck tractors, is based on several

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47489

factors. The braking-in-a-curve test is that NHTSA’s proposed specifications S5.7.(b) modifies the table or test speeds placed early in the sequence so re- for the brake application used in the for each category of vehicle for the running the required straight line tests FMVSS No. 105 braking-in-a-curve test second effectiveness test. need not be done if the vehicle does not were too stringent. As indicated above, The agency is making other minor pass the braking-in-a-curve test. In the company argued that our proposal technical or clarifying changes based on addition, placing the braking-in-a-curve that a brake pedal force of 150 lbs. be its own review. The first sentence of test early in the sequence avoids achieved within 0.2 second from the S6.1.1 referencing lightly-loaded performing the braking-in-a-curve test initial application of force would be braking tests is also amended to include with tires that may have developed flat impractical. Data from testing performed a reference to the braking-in-a-curve test spots on non-ABS controlled wheels by Mitsubishi using test drivers in for vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR and during other tests. Although these flat single unit trucks indicated that a pedal S6.1.2, which identifies how the 500 spots will not appear if all wheels of a force of 150 lbs. was achieved in 0.2 lbs. of weight allowed for the test driver vehicle are controlled by ABS, there is seconds or less in only three out of ten and instrumentation is to be placed in no requirement that vehicles be so stops. Mitsubishi suggested that a 0.5 the vehicle, is also modified from the equipped. NHTSA must assume that second application time is more language of the proposal. The text of compliance testing may encompass practicable. S6.9.2(a), which specifies the test vehicles that do not have ABS NHTSA agrees that it is difficult to surface for stopping distance tests in controlling all their wheels. However, reach the required application pressure FMVSS No. 105, is also being revised to placing the braking-in-a-curve test near within 0.2 second with a test driver. clarify that this specification does not the beginning of the test sequence when However, the agency believes that a 0.5 include the stability and control while the vehicle has to be tested in a loaded- second application time is too slow. The braking test in S6.9.2(b). S7 is revised in to-GVWR and lightly-loaded condition, Mitsubishi data show that the the final rule to accommodate the requires that the vehicle be loaded, application time for the ten stops ranged insertion of the stability and control test tested in the curve, unloaded, tested in from 0.18 to 0.31 second. The data also in S7.5(a), and references to S7.5 in the the curve and then loaded again for show that the 150 lbs. threshold was test procedure and sequence are being straight line tests. Compared to tractors, exceeded significantly in every case changed to S7.5(b). The final rule also where the loading and unloading within 0.5 second of the initial deletes the proposed language of involves attaching or uncoupling a application. Our review of the S5.3.6.2(a) of FMVSS No. 121— trailer, the loading and unloading of Mitsubishi data indicates that a test indicating that the vehicle is to be vehicles is more time consuming, driver is able to reach 150 lbs. of force loaded to its GVWR in proportion to its particularly for buses where weights within 0.3 second of the initial GAWRs —as this specification is have to be placed in each seating application. Accordingly, this final rule already included in S6.1.1 under S6, position. specifies that a full brake application for Road Test Conditions. Our decision to require the braking- the braking-in-a-curve test consists of an In limiting the modifications to its in-a-curve test for single unit vehicles application where 150 lbs. of force is original proposal to those items only in the lightly loaded condition applied to the brake control within 0.3 described above, the agency is rejecting eliminates the need for loading and seconds of the initial application of a number of changes suggested by the unloading for the braking-in-a-curve force to the brake control. commenters. Advocates stated that the test. However, as some of the Finally, NHTSA is making a number characteristics of the roadway specified commenters observed, other changes to of changes to the regulatory text to for the braking-in-a-curve test do not test sequences could reduce test resolve errors and clarify the new approach worst-case operating burdens without compromising safety. requirements. As proposed in the conditions and that few vehicles Changing the FMVSS No. 105 test NPRM, S5.1.7 of FMVSS No. 105 stated properly equipped with ABS would fail sequence to perform the braking-in-a- that the braking-in-a-curve test must be the proposed braking-in-a-curve test. curve after the lightly-loaded parking conducted at lightly-loaded vehicle NHTSA disagrees that the braking-in-a- brake test would reduce the unloading/ weight plus up to 500 lbs. to allow for curve course is not demanding, since loading and loading/unloading cycles in a test driver and instrumentation. disabling the ABS on single-unit trucks the entire test sequence from four to However, S4 of FMVSS No. 105 already and buses would likely result in these two. Changing the test sequence for included a definition of lightly-loaded vehicles departing the lane during a full single unit vehicles in FMVSS No. 121 vehicle weight (for vehicles over 10,000 effort brake application. The agency so that the braking-in-a-curve test is lbs. GVWR) with an allowance for 500 believes that the proposed test performed after the loaded-to-GVWR lbs. for the test driver and configuration is sufficiently rigorous to parking brake tests would reduce the instrumentation. As the definition of evaluate the safety performance of ABS. unloading/loading and loading/ ‘‘lightly-loaded’’ already includes an DaimlerChrysler requested that unloading cycles from three to one. As allowance for the test driver and compliance with the braking-in-a-curve these changes to the test sequences instrumentation, this final rule deletes test be determined on the basis of would reduce test burdens and not the redundant language in S5.1.7. whether any tire point-of-road contact compromise safety, this final rule DaimlerChrysler’s comments indicated leaves the test lane rather than any part revises the test sequences in FMVSS No. that the agency inadvertently deleted of the vehicle leaving the roadway. The 105 so the braking-in-a-curve test is S7.8 from the list of test procedures and company argued that the latter measure performed after the lightly loaded sequences in FMVSS No. 105, and is unclear and should not be applied to parking brake test and incorporates a inadvertently added S7.11 to the list. vehicles with large rear overhangs. test sequence for single unit vehicles in NHTSA agrees and is correcting the NHTSA believes that the measure of FMVSS No. 121 specifying that the errors in the final rule. To address other compliance is clear as it stands and well braking-in-a-curve test is performed errors noted by DaimlerChrysler, the understood to mean that in the plan after the loaded-to-GVWR parking brake final rule inserts the phrase ‘‘except for view (view from the top looking down), tests. vehicles with a GVWR greater than no part of the vehicle shall pass outside One commenter, Mitsubishi, 10,000 lbs.’’ in S7.5(b), the words of the 12-foot lane during the stop. As submitted data to support its argument ‘‘shall’’ and ‘‘control’’ in S7, and in currently specified in the FMVSS No.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47490 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

121 test procedure, the test driver is on final stage manufacturers by the equipment requirements. As we instructed to start each braking-in-a- proposal, arguing that pass-through discussed in the 1995 ABS final rule, we curve maneuver with the vehicle in the certification will not be available and regard the braking-in-a-curve center of the lane. The test lane is that their member companies do not requirement as a complement to the marked with cones placed at 20-foot have the means to conduct certification ABS equipment requirement, and not as intervals that are tall enough to contact testing. NTEA contends that a final stage an alternative to it. (60 FR 13231) The the body of the test vehicle if the body manufacturer can only be sure of braking-in-a-curve test alone can neither swings outside of the lane. This method compliance through actual testing. TMA evaluate the overall effectiveness of ABS has proved sufficient in determining if raised similar objections to the costs nor ensure the use of a closed-loop the vehicle remains in the lane. imposed on final stage manufacturers by system. Such an evaluation would Moreover, agency testing on vehicles the proposal and argued that NHTSA require an array of performance with a variety of overhangs indicates has underestimated the costs and requirements such as split mu tests, that a vehicle that is maintaining burdens that the regulations imposed on surface transition tests, and stopping traction and control will not move this segment of the industry. TMA also distance performance tests. However, laterally far enough for the rear of the argued that adoption of the performance the braking-in-a-curve test is an vehicle to leave the traveled lane. requirements for single unit vehicles objective, repeatable, and practicable Most importantly, the purpose of the would allow NHTSA to remove the procedure for evaluating the braking-in-a-curve test is to represent a existing equipment requirements for performance of a vehicle’s ABS, and driving situation that might be ABS from FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS will be used by the agency to encountered on a public road during a No. 121. complement the ABS equipment panic brake application. We believe that It is NHTSA’s position that adding requirement. no part of the vehicle including a rear performance requirements for single The agency is not aware of, and TMA overhang should encroach on another unit trucks is necessary and desirable. has not provided any data on, braking travel lane. If the agency permitted the NHTSA does not claim that additional systems that provide stability and rear wheels of a vehicle to touch the safety benefits above those projected in control during the braking-in-a-curve outside of the 12-foot wide lane during the agency’s Final Economic test that do not use a closed-loop control the braking-in-a-curve test then the rear Assessment (FEA) for the 1995 final rule strategy as required by the ABS overhang would be outside of the travel establishing the ABS requirements will equipment requirements. Thus, the lane and could pose a crash threat to be attained solely from implementing a agency has decided to retain the ABS other vehicles when that vehicle is braking-in-a-curve test for single-unit equipment requirements in FMVSS Nos. operated on public roads. vehicles.4 As detailed in that FEA, 105 and 121. DaimlerChrysler also requested that NHTSA estimated that the use of ABS We have also concluded that these NHTSA delete the requirement that the on all heavy vehicles would help requirements do not stifle innovation. proposed braking-in-a-curve road prevent between 320 and 506 fatalities, Moreover, TMA did not provide specific surface be ‘‘wet.’’ The NPRM proposed between 15,900 and 27,413 injuries, and examples of how the existing equipment that the braking-in-a-curve test be between $ 458 million and $ 553 requirements would prevent the use of performed on a wet level surface having million of property damage each year. new technologies. The agency is aware a peak friction coefficient (PFC) of 0.5. These benefits assumed that ABS units of new technologies such as the DaimlerChrysler indicated that the installed on single-unit vehicles, which electronically-controlled braking system properties of test surface are adequately were not then subject to the braking-in- (ECBS) that has been developed by the addressed by the command that it have a-curve test, would be as effective as industry, and is involved through the a PFC equal to 0.5 when measured by those installed on truck tractors. Society of Automotive Engineers in a specific procedure. In Therefore, now adding the braking-in-a- learning more about the characteristics, DaimlerChrysler’s view, if the PFC is curve test for single unit vehicles does mechanical and electronic design correct, the pavement could be dry or not modify those benefits. features, and performance of ECBS. If wet. We do not agree with Adding this performance test is, in appropriate, future rulemaking efforts DaimlerChrysler’s position. The our view, necessary to ensure those can be undertaken to accommodate procedure used for measuring the PFC previously calculated benefits are these systems in FMVSS No. 121. of the test surface—ASTM Method realized. NHTSA has encountered However, the agency sees no reason to E1337–90—requires use of a wetted several instances in which ABS systems consider deletion or modification of the surface. If the surface must be wet to that met equipment requirements did ABS equipment requirements from determine its coefficient of friction for not meet the braking-in-a-curve test. As FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 until it has testing, it must also be wet when testing we explained in the 1995 ABS final specific knowledge on how, or if, occurs. NHTSA also believes that rule, the braking-in-a-curve test existing requirements impact on the use deleting the word ‘‘wet’’ from FMVSS provides an important check of ABS of alternate braking system technologies. No. 105 would lead to confusion, since performance. Merely requiring ABS TMA also stated that the proposed it would not be clear if the vehicle test systems to meet the ABS definition does braking-in-a-curve test is not should be conducted with the test not ensure that an ABS system will practicable. In TMA’s view, NHTSA has surface wetted or dry. provide an acceptable level of not tested enough different axle Both NTEA and TMA voiced a performance. combinations on single unit trucks to number of objections to the agency NHTSA does not agree with TMA’s conclude that the proposed test is proposal. As we observed above, NTEA contention that the adoption of the suitable for vehicles with different urged the agency to terminate this braking-in-a-curve test for single unit combinations of drive axles and ‘‘tag’’ rulemaking on the basis of its argument vehicles eliminates the need for the ABS and ‘‘pusher’’ axles. NHTSA that no additional benefits are realized acknowledges that it has not performed by adding the proposed test procedure 4 It should be noted that one commenter, the braking-in-a-curve test with more to FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 121. Advocates, performed an analysis indicating that than the most common axle safety benefits would accrue for the establishment Beyond that, NTEA objected to the of ABS performance requirements for single-unit combinations. However, it is the additional costs and burdens imposed trucks. agency’s position that it need not do so.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47491

Testing to date indicates that as long as ascertain how a braking-in-a-curve test, on the number of tests to be conducted. wheel lock-up is prevented on at least which is not disproportionately However, as indicated above, NHTSA the rearmost axle and the steer axle, the demanding in comparison to other tests believes that testing costs as high as vehicle will remain stable during the in the sequence, could account for forty those projected by TMA represent an braking-in-a-curve maneuver. None of to fifty percent of the total cost of a unlikely worst case and that the the commenters, including TMA, complete FMVSS No. 105 or 121 agency’s projection are much more submitted data to the agency indicating certification test. TMA’s comments also representative of actual conditions. We that NHTSA’s testing on more did not indicate what its members were also note that the cost of ABS conventional axle configurations is not currently expending in performing components and complete systems has applicable to other axle arrangements. testing substantially similar to the test declined approximately 30 percent in Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the required by this final rule. Because, the 7 years since the cost-benefit braking-in-a-curve test is practicable for according to TMA’s comments, TMA analysis contained in the FEA was less common axle configurations. members are already using the SAE performed, thereby reducing the overall TMA and NTEA both objected to the J1626 test procedure, TMA urged the cost of compliance. burdens that adoption of the single unit agency to take steps to ensure that the NTEA also commented on the costs of braking-in-a-curve test would allegedly FMVSS No. 121 and 105 braking-in-a- the agency proposal. The organization impose on final stage manufacturers. curve test conform as closely as possible contends that the costs of complying The agency’s February 1995 FEA to that test. with the braking-in-a-curve requirement contained calculations of compliance A review of the SAEJ1626 test would be particularly burdensome for costs for both the stopping distance and procedure indicates that it contains a its members. NTEA describes these ABS requirements of the 1995 Final braking-in-a-curve test that is virtually members as small businesses that sell Rule. Using these costs as a starting identical to the braking-in-a-curve and install truck bodies on incomplete point, the December 1999 NPRM contained in this final rule. Therefore, it vehicles. Some of these vehicles are contained an estimate for the cost of appears, to the extent that TMA obtained from incomplete vehicle implementing the braking-in-a-curve members are already performing the manufacturers in a nearly complete test for single-unit trucks and buses. A SAE J1626 test, that the promulgation of condition such as a chassis-cab, i.e., a stand-alone braking-in-a-curve test was this final rule should not impose truck that is complete except for a body. estimated to cost $1500, and the additional test costs. If those In the case of a chassis-cab, the final incremental cost to incorporate the manufacturers are not currently stage manufacturer typically adds a braking-in-a-curve test into a complete performing the SAE braking-in-a-curve body to the portion of the vehicle Standard No. 105 or 121 compliance test test, the agency believes that TMA’s behind the cab to produce a completed was set at $1,000. The cost per air- claimed additional costs for adding the truck. Other configurations, such as braked vehicle, when distributed across braking-in-a-curve test to FMVSS No. cutaways, stripped chassis or chassis the affected population, was estimated 105 and 121 are overstated. cowls require substantially more work to be about $18. In the later years, it was Our own inquiries with test facilities before the vehicle is complete. NTEA estimated that 30 compliance tests indicate that adding the braking-in-a- believes that as much as 20 percent of would be required annually, for a total curve test to the existing NHTSA test all single unit trucks built in multiple cost of $360,000 (12 × 30 × $1,000). The sequence should impose additional stages are based on cutaways, stripped cost per air-braked vehicle in those later costs of approximately $1000, chassis or chassis cowls. According to years would be about $6. particularly since we are now specifying the organization, when these types of In the case of hydraulic-braked single- that the braking-in-a-curve test be incomplete vehicles are used, the final unit vehicles, which were already performed only in the lightly loaded stage manufacturer can only certify the subject to the existing test requirements condition. In the agency’s view, TMA’s completed vehicle through testing. of Standard No. 105, the 1995 FEA projected test costs of $4500 to $6000 NTEA also stated that even where a concluded that the incremental cost of for adding the braking in a curve test chassis cab or other incomplete vehicle a braking-in-a-curve test would be would be reasonable only in the that has been certified by the $1,000 per test. The FEA estimated that situation where a vehicle has not been incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the 10 manufacturers would have to tested to SAE J1626, has already been particular application for the vehicle complete 20 compliance tests each, the tested to Standard No. 105 or 121, and may require sufficient changes so the total cost for these vehicles would be was being transported to a test facility final stage vehicle no longer complies approximately $200,000.00. Given only for testing to the braking-in-a-curve with the specifications contained in the annual sales of hydraulically braked test with newly-installed and freshly incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s medium and heavy trucks of burnished brakes. certification. In both cases, NTEA approximately 195, 000 vehicles, we The NPRM indicated an estimated commented that the final stage estimated the cost per vehicle for the cost of $18 per air-braked single-unit manufacturer would then face the braking-in-a-curve test for hydraulically vehicle for manufacturers to include practical and financial obstacles of braked vehicles at about $1. This cost stand-alone braking-in-a-curve testing in obtaining and paying for the required per vehicle would be the same in the the first year and $6 in later years. In the compliance tests. later years if manufacturers chose to test case of hydraulically-braked vehicles, NHTSA agrees that final stage for each model year. this figure is $1 per year for the first manufacturers may not be able to rely TMA estimates that stand-alone year and thereafter. As noted above, on a certification provided by an braking-in-a-curve testing costs between NHTSA does not agree that TMA’s incomplete vehicle manufacturer or that $4,500 and $6,000 per test. TMA states claimed costs are reasonable, such a certification may not exist. that a typical burnish alone costs particularly in light of the widespread However, it is our view that NTEA’s approximately $1,500 while a full use of the SAE J1626 test. However, if claims are overstated, and like those FMVSS No. 105 or 121 certification test TMA’s cost estimates were applied, then presented by the TMA, present a worst- costs $10,000 to $13,000. TMA did not the per-vehicle cost could be as high as case scenario as the norm. We note first provide a detailed breakdown of these $54 to $72 per vehicle, provided the that chassis-cabs, for which pass costs, so it is difficult for NHTSA to FEA and NPRM assumptions are valid through certification is available,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47492 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

represent a significant portion of the that the required tests were We estimate that the incremental cost affected population. For instance, in the impracticable. This left the courts to of performing the braking-in-a-curve test 1987 through 1989 model years, chassis- consider the question of whether the to be approximately $1000.00. cabs represented 86 percent of sales of due care standard provided sufficient Manufacturers, even final stage incomplete trucks with a GVWR above guidance to manufacturers when no manufacturers producing specialized 10,000 pounds. Based on inquiries with compliance test was available. The vehicles on a bare chassis, rarely manufacturers, NHTSA believes that Paccar court, describing the due care produce just one example of a particular this percentage is now much larger. standard as ‘‘amorphous,’’ found that design. The incremental cost of the Finally, even where pass-through NHTSA’s ‘‘suggestions’’ of what braking-in-a-curve test is therefore likely certification is not available, incomplete constituted due care to be too imprecise to be spread over a production run of vehicle manufacturers provide to assist those trying to meet the many vehicles. Even in the case of a certification data for specific Federal standard at issue. In the NTEA case, the production run of just one vehicle, we motor vehicle safety standards that can court followed the earlier Paccar do not believe that this additional test be used by the final stage manufacturer decision and held that NHTSA could cost is so high as to make the braking- to certify compliance without having to not impose a due care requirement on in-a-curve test impractible, particularly do any testing. Examination of this final stage manufacturers for whom the since a buyer seeking a highly documentation shows that final stage designated test was impracticable. specialized vehicle is likely to be manufacturers are usually provided NTEA argues that imposing the braking- willing to pay more for the special with an envelope within which the in-a-curve test to final stage features it offers. vehicle center-of-gravity can be located manufacturers is equally impracticable NHTSA also believes that final stage and the axle loadings that can be used as the tests involved in both the Paccar manufacturers are capable of in order for the vehicle to meet either and NTEA decisions. As the agency has determining what constitutes the Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121. not proposed any alternative to the test exercise of due care when certifying a Incomplete vehicle manufacturers strive other than to establish compliance vehicle and may rely on the exercise of to make this information as complete as through due care, NTEA contends that that care in establishing certification possible in order to serve their NHTSA cannot now apply the braking- without testing. While we must concede customers. Therefore, NHTSA believes in-a-curve test to final stage that NHTSA cannot make a single that occurrences where final stage manufacturers. pronouncement of what constitutes due manufacturers may not rely on pass- care for every circumstance in which a NHTSA does not agree with NTEA’s through certification or vehicle manufacturer certifies a vehicle, analysis. We note first that NTEA did certification data from the incomplete manufacturers, even final stage not provide any data supporting its vehicle manufacturer will be rare and manufacturers, should be able to make position that the braking-in-a-curve test would represent a significantly smaller this determination themselves. Vehicle is so costly as to be impracticable. In percentage of the affected vehicles than manufacturers, both large and small, fact, NTEA’s comments do not contain the 20 percent claimed by NTEA. must make similar determinations for NTEA also argues that the tremendous any cost estimates for this test. In the liability purposes every day. In so variety of vehicle configurations absence of any cost estimates, NTEA doing, they are aided by the application produced by its members compels the stresses that the tremendous variety of of industry and professional standards conclusion that NHTSA cannot require vehicles made by final stage of care. these member companies to perform the manufacturers who cannot rely on pass- Final stage manufacturers are also braking-in-a-curve test. This argument is through certification supports the provided with considerable guidance by based on two assertions. The first is that premise that the braking-in-a-curve test the incomplete vehicle documents and its members who do not use chassis- is impracticable. According to NTEA, body builder’s guides provided by cabs and do not have pass-through requiring final stage manufacturers to chassis manufacturers. Even where certification have no choice but to perform the braking-in-a-curve test is pass-through certification cannot be perform compliance testing to tantamount to requiring that every used, incomplete vehicle documents demonstrate compliance with FMVSS vehicle produced by these provide assurance of compliance if the Nos. 105 and 121. The second is that for manufacturers must undergo this test. completed vehicle meets the axle those manufacturers, the costs of testing However, as is the case with cost loading and center-of-gravity are so great as to make it impracticable. estimates for the test itself, NTEA does specifications provided by the As testing must be both objective and not provide any data on the production incomplete vehicle manufacturer. If the practicable and NTEA’s members have of final stage manufacturers, including final stage manufacturer stays within no choice but to test, the costs of the how many manufacturers produce the guidelines provided by the braking-in-a-curve test, in NTEA’s view, models in extremely low volumes. In incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the preclude use of the test. some instances, final stage certification information supplied with The NTEA position relies heavily on manufacturers will be able to spread the the chassis can be used to certify the decisions in two prior challenges the cost of testing over the production run compliance without doing any actual agency final rules, Paccar, Inc. v. of similar vehicles. In other instances, testing. Moreover, each chassis-cab National Highway Traffic Safety manufacturers may have to perform manufacturer has an incentive to make Administration, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.), testing of a single vehicle. Unlike the the requirements for pass-through cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862, 99 S. Ct. 184, tests involved in both the Paccar and certification as broad as possible. The 58 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1978) and NTEA v. NTEA cases, the braking-in-a-curve test final stage manufacturer can then select National Highway Traffic Safety simply adds a new component to a from a variety of readily-available Administration, 919 F.2d 1148, 1152–53 braking test sequence that chassis-cab configurations and options (6th Cir. 1990) where the courts rejected manufacturers are already required to (e.g., wheelbase, front and rear axle the agency’s argument that compliance perform. This incremental addition to ratings) that can predictably meet the could be demonstrated by a showing of the existing test sequence does not, in pass-through certification criteria. due care when tests are not performed. contrast to the test in the NTEA case, When a final stage manufacturer In both cases, NHTSA had conceded damage the test vehicle. completes a vehicle in a way that takes

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47493

the vehicle outside the specifications of condition. This has resulted in some two-year leadtime provided in this final the IVD, then it cannot rely on the IVD problems when the agency conducts its rule provides sufficient time for in certifying compliance of the vehicle. compliance tests. For example, in a intermediate stage manufacturers to Absent actual testing, alternate means of recent case, a vehicle was tested to develop complying incomplete vehicles certification, such as engineering FMVSS No. 135 and did not meet one in a sufficient number of configurations analysis or computer simulation, may be of the requirements of that standard. to meet the needs of final stage sufficient to allow a final stage When contacted about the non- manufacturers. Finally, this final rule manufacturer to certify compliance in compliance, the vehicle manufacturer will make it necessary for some small good faith. For example, the stated that the vehicle should be final stage manufacturers to certify their manufacturer or supplier of the lift axle, compliance tested to FMVSS No. 105, vehicles with limited assistance from upon request from a final stage since at that time that particular vehicle the intermediate vehicle manufacturer. manufacturer, may provide service could be manufactured to either The compliance date chosen by the brake retardation force characteristics standard at the vehicle manufacturer’s agency affords these manufacturers for the axles it sells, based on option. Thus, the agency was faced with sufficient time to take whatever steps dynamometer or other testing conducted having to test to two standards to may be required to meet the new by the axle manufacturer, which can be determine which one applied. requirements. Accordingly, the agency applied through simple calculations to To avoid confusion in the future, the finds that good cause exists to make the determine compliance with service agency is now conducting a review of compliance dates in this final rule brake stopping distance requirements. compliance test condition options and effective more than one year after That supplier can also provide grade- anticipates that it will propose issuance. holding or drawbar test data to regulations to address this issue. determine, using simple calculations, However, until such rules are proposed VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices that the parking brake requirements in and adopted, our practice will be to A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures FMVSS No. 121, for example, are met at address optional test conditions in each the increased GVWR as altered by the standard. Thus, the agency is adding a Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory final stage manufacturer. Other braking statement to the general test conditions Planning and Review,’’ (58 FR 51735, requirements in the FMVSSs, including for both FMVSS No. 105 (S6.15) and 121 October 4, 1993), provides for making emergency brake stopping distance and (S6.1.16) that directs a vehicle determinations whether a regulatory brake actuation and release timing, can manufacturer to identify which option action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore similarly be met by performing was selected for compliance test subject to Office of Management and engineering analysis, working with purposes. The agency does not believe Budget (OMB) review and to the chassis manufacturers and brake system that this makes any of the standard’s requirements of the Executive Order. and axle suppliers, and installing requirements more stringent. Instead, it The Order defines a ‘‘significant suitable equipment, to permit the final removes uncertainty from the regulatory action’’ as one that is likely stage manufacturer to certify compliance test program and reduces to result in a rule that may: compliance with FMVSS Nos. 105 or test costs to the agency. (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 121. In many cases, such certification VII. Effective Date can be achieved without having to adversely affect in a material way the conduct actual road testing, or in some The amendments contained in this economy, a sector of the economy, cases, with only portions of road or final rule become effective October 10, productivity, competition, jobs, the laboratory testing required (such as 2003. With the exception of vehicles environment, public health or safety, or hiring a consultant to perform brake built in two or more stages, the braking- State, local, or Tribal governments or application and release timing tests at in-a-curve test requirements contained communities; the final stage manufacturer’s facilities). in this final rule apply to vehicles built (2) Create a serious inconsistency or NHTSA recognizes that there may be on or after July 1, 2005. Vehicles built otherwise interfere with an action taken unusual vehicle configurations for in two or more stages must meet the or planned by another agency; which complete data are not available braking-in-a-curve test’s requirements (3) Materially alter the budgetary from vehicle or component suppliers on or after July 1, 2006. Single unit impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, that would enable an engineering trucks and buses are built in a wide or loan programs or the rights and analysis to be used for certification variety of configurations to meet a obligations of recipients thereof; or purposes. In such cases, computer diverse array of uses and needs. Many (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues simulations or actual road testing may single unit trucks and buses are built to arising out of legal mandates, the be necessary for certification. Final stage standard designs and configurations. President’s priorities, or the principles manufacturers should consider these However, many are specialty vehicles set forth in the Executive Order. facts before deciding to build unusual dedicated to specific purposes. We have considered the impact of this vehicle configurations, since it is Although anti-lock brake systems rulemaking action under Executive predictable that some vehicles cannot be suitable for use in these vehicles are Order 12866 and the Department of certified using engineering analyses readily available, adaptation of these Transportation’s regulatory policies and prior to purchasing a chassis, body, or systems for particular applications will procedures. The Office of Management other equipment. require sufficient leadtime to allow and Budget did not review this whatever development and testing may rulemaking document under E.O. 12866. VI. Preselection of Test Condition be needed. Moreover, as many single The document is also not considered to Option unit trucks and buses are manufactured be significant under the Department’s Many FMVSSs contain alternative in two or more stages, the agency notes Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 compliance options from which vehicle that many final stage manufacturers are FR 11034; February 26, 1979). manufacturers may choose. In this final likely to rely on incomplete vehicle This document amends 49 CFR Parts rule, there is an option to use a rollbar manufacturers to supply chassis that 571.105 and 571.121 by extending the structure of up to 1,000 pounds for meet the new requirements. The agency application of the existing braking-in-a- vehicles tested in the lightly-loaded has determined that the approximately curve performance test for anti-lock

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47494 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

brakes to vehicles already required to be the brakes is attributable to the March E. Regulatory Flexibility Act equipped with such brakes. By 1995 final rule, not this one. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility providing a compliance test, this final B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by rule assures the realization of the the Small Business Regulatory benefits previously calculated when the The agency has analyzed this Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of requirement for installation of anti-lock rulemaking action in accordance with 1996) whenever an agency is required to brakes was issued in 1995. The the principles and criteria set forth in publish a notice of rulemaking for any compliance test contained in this final Executive Order 13132. This final rule proposed or final rule, it must prepare rule, which requires a vehicle to does not have substantial direct effects and make available for public comment successfully negotiate a curved lane on on the States, on the relationship a regulatory flexibility analysis that a wetted low-friction surface, is between the national government and describes the effect of the rule on small identical to the existing agency test the States, or on the distribution of entities (i.e., small businesses, small applicable to truck tractors, virtually power and responsibilities among the organizations, and small governmental identical to an existing Society of various levels of government, as jurisdictions). However, no regulatory Automotive Engineers (SAE) test, and specified in Executive Order 13132. flexibility analysis is required if the similar to other industry tests used to Accordingly, the requirements of head of an agency certifies the rule will evaluate anti-lock brakes. Therefore, section 6 of the Executive Order do not not have a significant economic impact NHTSA believes that existing ABS apply to this final rule. on a substantial number of small systems, when properly installed and entities. SBREFA amended the configured, will allow a vehicle to meet C. Executive Order 13045 Regulatory Flexibility Act to require the requirements of the braking-in-a- Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Federal agencies to provide a statement curve test. April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: of the factual basis for certifying that a By extending the braking-in-a-curve (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically test to non-articulated trucks and buses, rule will not have a significant significant’’ as defined under E.O. economic impact on a substantial this final rule adds a new road test 12866, and (2) concerns an requirement to an existing sequence of number of small entities. environmental, health or safety risk that The Administrator has considered the road tests for those vehicles. The costs NHTSA has reason to believe may have of the new additional road test required effects of this rulemaking action under a disproportionate effect on children. If the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. by this final rule are (because the tests the regulatory action meets both criteria, are identical) identical to the costs of § 601 et seq.) and certifies that this final we must evaluate the environmental rule will not have a significant requiring truck tractors to meet the same health or safety effects of the planned test. Based on our knowledge of this economic impact on a substantial rule on children, and explain why the number of small entities. braking-in-a-curve test, the agency planned regulation is preferable to other estimated the incremental cost of adding This final rule extends application of potentially effective and reasonably an existing performance test for anti- this new road test to the existing feasible alternatives considered by us. sequence of road tests for brakes to be lock brakes to a class of vehicles that are This rule is not subject to the approximately $1,000 per test. In most already required to have anti-lock Executive Order because it is not cases, this additional test cost will be brakes. The performance test, known as economically significant as defined in spread over hundreds or thousands of the braking-in-a-curve test, previously vehicles. In instances in which the E.O. 12866 and does not involve applied only to truck tractors and this vehicle involved is a more specialized decisions based on environmental, final rule simply requires that single configuration, the cost of compliance safety or health risks having a unit (non-articulated) trucks and buses testing, including the cost of including disproportionate impact on children. must meet the same test. The primary the braking-in-a-curve test in the D. Executive Order 12778 cost effect of the requirements will be existing road test sequence will be testing costs and will be on spread over fewer vehicles. Overall, Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, manufacturers of single unit (i.e., non- NHTSA estimates that approximately ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ we have articulated) trucks and buses. Some 250,000 single unit trucks and 7,000 considered whether this final rule will single unit trucks and buses are single-unit buses will be affected by this have any retroactive effect. We conclude produced by large manufacturers. Other final rule. Testing costs were estimated that it will not have such effect. single unit trucks and buses are at the time of the 1995 final rule to Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a produced in stages. In most cases, large range from $1 to $18 per vehicle, Federal motor vehicle safety standard is manufacturers provide incomplete depending on whether the vehicle has in effect, a State may not adopt or vehicles to smaller final stage air brakes or hydraulic brakes and if the maintain a safety standard applicable to manufacturers, who then produce the braking-in-a-curve test is as part of a full the same aspect of performance which finished vehicle. Final stage brake system compliance test or is is not identical to the Federal standard, manufacturers, those who use performed alone. except to the extent that the state incomplete vehicles produced by larger When we promulgated the anti-lock requirement imposes a higher level of manufacturers to produce specialty brake requirements in 1995, the benefits performance and applies only to products, are generally small of the anti-lock brake requirements were vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49 businesses. However, NHTSA believes estimated to result in as many as 506 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for that this final rule is not burdensome for fewer annual fatalities, 27,413 fewer judicial review of final rules final stage manufacturers. As eighty to injuries and a reduction of property establishing, amending or revoking ninety percent of the affected vehicles damage by as much as $553 million Federal motor vehicle safety standards. are completed from chassis-cabs where each year. The increased cost, which That section does not require pass through certification is available, included the cost of anti-lock brakes and submission of a petition for most final stage manufacturers will be testing combined, was estimated to be reconsideration or other administrative able to rely on the prior certification and $692 per vehicle. Almost all of that cost proceedings before parties may file suit testing performed by an incomplete is for the brakes themselves. The cost of in court. vehicle manufacturer and thus will not

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47495

need to incur additional costs. The Performance Test Procedures for Air PART 571—[AMENDED] remaining final stage manufacturers will and Hydraulic Brake Equipped Trucks. ■ be required to perform testing or take Any differences between the provisions 1. The authority citation for part 571 other steps to ensure that the vehicles of this final rule and SAE J1626 are continues to read as follows: they produce will meet the new minor in nature and do not add Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, performance requirements. These significantly to the test burdens of 21417, and 21466; delegation of authority at manufacturers will have a variety of manufacturers. Accordingly, to the 49 CFR 1.50. means available to accomplish this, degree that the final rule does not adopt ■ 2. Section 571.105 is amended by including access to test and other data a voluntary consensus standard, the revising S4 to add definitions of ‘‘Full performed by chassis manufacturers, agency believes that no explanation is brake application’’ and ‘‘Maximum trade groups and equipment necessary. drive-through speed;’’ by revising S5.1, manufacturers. Therefore, the agency I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act S6.1.1, S6.1.2, S6.9.2, the introductory has determined that this final rule will text of S7, S7.5, and Table 1; and by not have a significant impact on these Section 202 of the Unfunded adding S5.1.7, S6.14 and S6.15, to read small entities and has not prepared a Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) as follows: regulatory flexibility analysis. requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits § 571.105 Standard No. 105, Hydraulic F. National Environmental Policy Act and other effects of proposed or final brake systems. We have analyzed this final rule rules that include a Federal mandate * * * * * amendment for the purposes of the likely to result in the expenditure by S4 Definitions. National Environmental Policy Act and State, local or tribal governments, in the * * * * * determined that it will not have any aggregate, or by the private sector, of Full brake application means a brake significant impact on the quality of the more than $100 million in any one year application in which the force on the human environment. (adjusted for inflation with base year of brake pedal reaches 150 pounds within 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA G. Paperwork Reduction Act 0.3 seconds from the point of rule for which a written statement is application of force to the brake control. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act needed, section 205 of the UMRA of 1995, a person is not required to * * * * * generally requires us to identify and Maximum drive-through speed means respond to a collection of information consider a reasonable number of by a Federal agency unless the the highest possible constant speed at regulatory alternatives and adopt the which the vehicle can be driven through collection displays a valid OMB control least costly, most cost-effective or least number. This final rule does not contain 200 feet of a 500-foot radius curve arc burdensome alternative that achieves without leaving the 12-foot lane. any new information collection the objectives of the rule. requirements. The provisions of section 205 do not * * * * * apply when they are inconsistent with S5.1 Service brake systems. Each H. National Technology Transfer and vehicle must be equipped with a service Advancement Act applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other brake system acting on all wheels. Wear Section 12(d) of the National than the least costly, most cost-effective of the service brake must be Technology Transfer and Advancement or least burdensome alternative if we compensated for by means of a system Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– publish with the final rule an of automatic adjustment. Each passenger 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) explanation why that alternative was car and each multipurpose passenger directs us to use voluntary consensus not adopted. vehicle, truck, and bus with a GVWR of standards in its regulatory activities This final rule will not result in costs 10,000 pounds or less must be capable unless doing so would be inconsistent of $100 million or more to either State, of meeting the requirements of S5.1.1 with applicable law or otherwise local, or tribal governments, in the through S5.1.6 under the conditions impractical. Voluntary consensus aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, prescribed in S6, when tested according standards are technical standards (e.g., this final rule is not subject to the to the procedures and in the sequence materials specifications, test methods, requirements of sections 202 and 205 of set forth in S7. Each school bus with a sampling procedures, and business the UMRA. GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds must practices) that are developed or adopted be capable of meeting the requirements by voluntary consensus standards J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) of S5.1.1 through S5.1.5, and S5.1.7 bodies. The NTTAA directs us to The Department of Transportation under the conditions specified in S6, provide Congress, through OMB, assigns a regulation identifier number when tested according to the procedures explanations when we decide not to use (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in and in the sequence set forth in S7. Each available and applicable voluntary the Unified Agenda of Federal multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck consensus standards. Regulations. The Regulatory Information and bus (other than a school bus) with This final rule adds anti-lock brake Service Center publishes the Unified a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds system performance requirements and a Agenda in April and October of each must be capable of meeting the performance test for single unit trucks to year. You may use the RIN contained in requirements of S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S5.1.3, 49 CFR 571.105 and 49 CFR 571.121. the heading at the beginning of this and S5.1.7 under the conditions The amendments add these new document to find this action in the specified in S6, when tested according requirements to an existing regulatory Unified Agenda. to the procedures and in the sequence scheme that already contains an set forth in S7. Except as noted in identical test for truck tractors. The tests List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 S5.1.1.2 and S5.1.1.4, if a vehicle is adopted in this final rule are identical Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor incapable of attaining a speed specified in most respects to the provisions of vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, in S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S5.1.3, or S5.1.6, its Section 5.3 of the Society of Automotive Tires. service brakes must be capable of Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice ■ In consideration of the foregoing, 49 stopping the vehicle from the multiple J1626, Braking, Stability, and Control CFR part 571 is amended as follows: of 5 mph that is 4 to 8 mph less than

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47496 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

the speed attainable in 2 miles, within S6.9.2(a) For vehicles with a GVWR having to meet the requirements of distances that do not exceed the greater than 10,000 pounds, road tests S5.1.1, S5.1.2, S5.1.3, and S5.1.7 in corresponding distances specified in (excluding stability and control during section S5.1, the applicable test Table II. If a vehicle is incapable of braking tests) are conducted on a 12- procedures and sequence are S7.1, S7.2, attaining a speed specified in S5.1.4 in foot-wide, level roadway, having a peak S7.4, S7.5(b), S7.5(a), S7.8, S7.9, S7.10, the time or distance interval set forth, it friction coefficient of 0.9 when and S7.18. However, at the option of the must be tested at the highest speed measured using an American Society for manufacturer, the following test attainable in the time or distance Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1136 procedure and sequence may be interval specified. standard reference test tire, in conducted: S7.1, S7.2, S7.3, S7.4, * * * * * accordance with ASTM Method E 1337– S7.5(b), S7.6, S7.7, S7.5(a), S7.8, S7.9, S5.1.7 Stability and control during 90, at a speed of 40 mph, without water S7.10, and S7.18. The choice of this braking. When stopped four consecutive delivery. Burnish stops are conducted option must not be construed as adding times under the conditions specified in on any surface. The parking brake test to the requirements specified in S5.1.2 S6, each vehicle with a GVWR greater surface is clean, dry, smooth, Portland and S5.1.3.) Automatic adjusters must than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or cement concrete. remain activated at all times. A vehicle after July 1, 2005 and each vehicle with S6.9.2(b) For vehicles with a GVWR shall be deemed to comply with the a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds greater than 10,000 pounds, stability stopping distance requirements of S5.1 manufactured in two or more stages on and control during braking tests are if at least one of the stops at each speed or after July 1, 2006 shall stop from 30 conducted on a 500-foot-radius curved and load specified in each of S7.3, mph or 75 percent of the maximum roadway with a wet level surface having S7.5(b), S7.8, S7.9, S7.10, S7.15 and drive-through speed, whichever is less, a peak friction coefficient of 0.5 when S7.17 (check stops) is made within a at least three times within the 12-foot measured on a straight or curved section stopping distance that does not exceed lane, without any part of the vehicle of the curved roadway using an the corresponding distance specified in leaving the roadway. Stop the vehicle American Society for Testing and Table II. When the transmission selector with the vehicle at its lightly loaded Materials (ASTM) E1136 standard control is required to be in neutral for vehicle weight, or at the manufacturer’s reference tire, in accordance with ASTM a deceleration, a stop or snub must be option, at its lightly loaded vehicle Method E1337–90, at a speed of 40 mph, obtained by the following procedures: weight plus not more than an additional with water delivery. (a) Exceed the test speed by 4 to 8 1000 pounds for a roll bar structure on * * * * * mph; the vehicle. S6.14 Special drive conditions. A (b) Close the throttle and coast in gear * * * * * vehicle with a GVWR greater than to approximately 2 mph above the test S6.1.1 Other than tests specified at 10,000 pounds equipped with an speed; lightly loaded vehicle weight in S7.5(a), interlocking axle system or a front S7.7, S7.8, and S7.9, the vehicle is wheel drive system that is engaged and (c) Shift to neutral; and loaded to its GVWR such that the weight disengaged by the driver is tested with (d) When the test speed is reached, on each axle as measured at the tire- the system disengaged. apply the service brakes. ground interface is in proportion to its S6.15 Selection of compliance * * * * * GAWR, except that each fuel tank is options. Where manufacturer options filled to any level from 100 percent of are specified, the manufacturer shall S7.5 (a) Stability and control during capacity (corresponding to full GVWR) select the option by the time it certifies braking (vehicles with a GVWR greater to 75 percent. However, if the weight on the vehicle and may not thereafter select than 10,000 pounds). Make four stops in any axle of a vehicle at lightly loaded a different option for the vehicle. Each the lightly-loaded weight condition vehicle weight exceeds the axle’s manufacturer shall, upon request from specified in S5.1.7. Use a full brake proportional share of the gross vehicle the National Highway Traffic Safety application for the duration of the stop, weight rating, the load required to reach Administration, provide information with the clutch pedal depressed or the GVWR is placed so that the weight on regarding which of the compliance transmission selector control in the that axle remains the same as a lightly options it has selected for a particular neutral position, for the duration of each loaded vehicle weight. vehicle or make/model. stop. * * * * * * * * * * (b) Service brake system—second S6.1.2 For the applicable tests S7. Test procedure and sequence. effectiveness test. For vehicles with a specified in S7.5(a), S7.7, S7.8, and Each vehicle shall be capable of meeting GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, or any S7.9, vehicle weight is lightly loaded all the applicable requirements of S5 school bus, make six stops from 30 mph. vehicle weight, with the added weight when tested according to the procedures Then, for any vehicle, make six stops distributed in the front passenger seat and sequence set forth below, without from 60 mph. Then, for a vehicle with area in passenger cars, multipurpose replacing any brake system part or a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, make passenger vehicles, and trucks, and in making any adjustments to the brake four stops from 80 mph if the speed the area adjacent to the driver’s seat in system other than as permitted in the attainable in 2 miles is not less than 84 buses. burnish and reburnish procedures and mph. * * * * * in S7.9 and S7.10. (For vehicles only * * * * *

TABLE I.—BRAKE TEST PROCEDURE SEQUENCE AND REQUIREMENTS

Test load Sequence Test procedure Require- Light GVWR ments

1. Instrumentation check ...... S7.2 2. First (preburnish) effectiveness test ...... X S7.3 ...... S5.1.1.1 3. Burnish procedure ...... X S7.4

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47497

TABLE I.—BRAKE TEST PROCEDURE SEQUENCE AND REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Test load Sequence Test procedure Require- Light GVWR ments

4. Second effectiveness test ...... X S7.5(b) ...... S5.1.1.2 5. First reburnish ...... X S7.6 ...... 6. Parking brake ...... X X S7.7 ...... S5.2 7. Stability and control during braking (braking-in-a-curve test) ...... X ...... S7.5(a) ...... S5.1.7 8. Third effectiveness (lightly loaded vehicle) ...... X ...... S7.8 ...... S5.1.1.3 9. Partial failure ...... X X S7.9 ...... S5.1.2 10. Inoperative brake power and power assist units ...... X S7.10 ...... S5.1.3 11. First fade and recovery ...... X S7.11 ...... S5.1.4 12. Second reburnish ...... X S7.12 13. Second fade and recovery ...... X S7.13 ...... S5.1.4 14. Third reburnish ...... X S7.14 15. Fourth effectiveness ...... X S7.15 ...... S5.1.1.4 16. Water recovery ...... X S7.16 ...... S5.1.5 17. Spike stops ...... X S7.17 ...... S5.1.6 18. Final inspection ...... S7.18 ...... S5.6 19. Moving barrier test ...... X S7.19 ...... S5.2.2.3

* * * * * stopped four consecutive times for each options it has selected for a particular ■ 3. Section 571.121 is amended by combination of weight, speed, and road vehicle or make/model. revising S5.3, S5.3.6, S5.3.6.2 and Table conditions specified in S5.3.6.1 and * * * * * 1; and by adding S6.1.17, to read as S5.3.6.2, each truck tractor shall stop at follows: least three times within the 12-foot lane, TABLE I.—STOPPING SEQUENCE without any part of the vehicle leaving § 571.121 Air brake systems the roadway. When stopped four Single * * * * * consecutive times for each combination Truck unit S5.3 Service brakes—road tests. The of weight, speed, and road conditions tractors trucks service brake system on each truck and specified in S5.3.6.1 and S5.3.6.2, each buses tractor shall, under the conditions of S6, bus and truck (other than a truck tractor) meet the requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.3, manufactured on or after July 1, 2005, Burnish ...... 1 1 S5.3.4, and S5.3.6, when tested without and each bus and truck (other than a Stability and Control adjustments other than those specified truck tractor) manufactured in two or at GVWR (PFC in this standard. The service brake more stages on or after July 1, 2006, 0.5) ...... 2 N/A system on each bus and truck (other shall stop at least three times within the Stability and Control than a truck tractor shall) manufactured 12-foot lane, without any part of the at LLVW (PFC 0.5) 3 5 before July 1, 2005 and each bus and vehicle leaving the roadway. Manual Adjustment of truck (other than a truck tractor) Brakes ...... 4 N/A * * * * * manufactured in two or more stages 60 mph Service shall, under the conditions of S6, meet S5.3.6.2 Stop the vehicle, with the Brake Stops at the requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.3, and vehicle: GVWR (PFC 0.9) .. 5 2 60 mph Emergency S5.3.4 when tested without adjustments (a) Loaded to its GVWR, for a truck Service Brake other than those specified in this tractor, and Stops at GVWR standard. The service brake system on (b) At its unloaded weight plus up to (PFC 0.9) ...... N/A 3 each bus and truck (other than a truck 500 pounds (including driver and Parking Brake Test at tractor) manufactured on or after July 1, instrumentation), or at the GVWR ...... 6 4 2005 and each bus and truck (other than Manual Adjustment of manufacturer’s option, at its unloaded a truck tractor) manufactured in two or Brakes ...... 7 6 weight plus up to 500 pounds more stages on or after July 1, 2006 60 mph Service shall, under the conditions of S6, meet (including driver and instrumentation) Brake Stops at the requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.3, and plus not more than an additional LLVW (PFC 0.9) ... 8 7 S5.3.4, and S5.3.6, when tested without 1000 pounds for a roll bar structure on 60 mph Emergency adjustments other than those specified the vehicle, for a truck, bus, or truck Service Brake tractor. Stops at LLVW in this standard. The service brake (PFC 0.9) ...... 9 8 * * * * * system on each trailer shall, under the Parking Brake Test at conditions of S6, meet the requirements S6.1.17 Selection of compliance LLVW ...... 10 9 of S5.3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 when tested options. Where manufacturer options Final Inspection ...... 11 10 without adjustments other than those are specified, the manufacturer shall specified in this standard. However, a select the option by the time it certifies * * * * * heavy hauler trailer and the truck and the vehicle and may not thereafter select Issued on July 31, 2003. trailer portions of an auto transporter a different option for the vehicle. Each need not met the requirements of S5.3. manufacturer shall, upon request from Jeffrey W. Runge, * * * * * the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. S5.3.6 Stability and control during Administration, provide information [FR Doc. 03–20025 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] braking—trucks and buses. When regarding which of the compliance BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47498 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of must have landed and bartered, traded, Mexico Fishery Management Council or sold such red snapper prior to noon, National Oceanic and Atmospheric and is implemented under the authority local time, August 7, 2003. Administration of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery During the closure, the bag and Conservation and Management Act by possession limits specified in 50 CFR 50 CFR Part 622 regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Those 622.39(b) apply to all harvest or [I.D. 080503A] regulations set the commercial quota for possession of red snapper in or from the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico at EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico, and the sale Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 4.65 million lb (2.11 million kg) for the or purchase of red snapper taken from Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish current fishing year, January 1 through the EEZ is prohibited. In addition, the Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Closure December 31, 2003. The red snapper bag and possession limits for red commercial fishing season is split into of the Spring Commercial Red Snapper snapper apply on board a vessel for two time periods, the first commencing Component which a commercial permit for Gulf reef at noon on February 1 with two-thirds fish has been issued, without regard to AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries of the annual quota (3.10 million lb where such red snapper were harvested. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (1.41 million kg)) available, and the However, the bag and possession limits Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), second commencing at noon on October for red snapper apply only when the Commerce. 1 with the remainder of the annual recreational quota for red snapper has ACTION: quota available. During the commercial Notice of Closure. not been reached and the bag and season, the red snapper commercial possession limit has not been reduced to SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial fishery opens at noon on the first of fishery for red snapper in the exclusive each month and closes at noon on the zero. The 2003 recreational red snapper economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of 10th of each month, until the applicable season opens on April 21, 2003, and Mexico. NMFS has determined that the commercial quotas are reached. closes on October 31, 2003. The spring portion of the annual commercial Under 50 CFR 622.43(a), NMFS is prohibition on sale or purchase does not quota for red snapper will be reached on required to close the commercial fishery apply to sale or purchase of red snapper August 7, 2003. This closure is for a species or species group when the that were harvested, landed ashore, and necessary to protect the red snapper quota for that species or species group sold prior to noon, local time, August 7, resource. is reached, or is projected to be reached, 2003, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. DATES: Closure is effective noon, local by filing a notification to that effect in time, August 7, 2003, until noon, local the Federal Register. Based on current Classification time, on October 1, 2003. statistics, NMFS has determined that the available spring commercial quota of This action is taken under 50 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil 3.10 million lb (1.41 million kg) for red 622.43(a) and is exempt from review Steele, telephone 727–570–5305, fax snapper will be reached when the under Executive Order 12866. 727–570–5583, e-mail fishery closes at noon on August 7, Dated: August 6, 2003. [email protected]. 2003. Accordingly, the commercial SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fishery in the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico Bruce C. Morehead, fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is for red snapper will remain closed until Acting Director, Office of Sustainable managed under the Fishery noon, local time, on October 1, 2003. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Management Plan for the Reef Fish The operator of a vessel with a valid reef [FR Doc. 03–20387 Filed 8–6–03; 3:42 pm] Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). fish permit having red snapper aboard BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM 11AUR1 47499

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Friday, except holidays. All comments related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, contains notices to the public of the proposed received, including names and published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, issuance of rules and regulations. The addresses, will become a matter of 1983). purpose of these notices is to give interested public record. Comments on the Unfunded Mandates persons an opportunity to participate in the information collection requirements of rule making prior to the adoption of the final Title II of the Unfunded Mandates rules. this proposed rule must be sent to the addresses listed in the Paperwork Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), requires Reduction Act section of this proposed Federal agencies to assess the effects of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE rule. their regulatory actions on State, local, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan and tribal governments or the private Farm Service Agency McGlynn, (202) 720–7641. sector. The rule contains no Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mandates, as defined by title II of 7 CFR Part 783 UMRA. Thus, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 12866 the requirements of sections 202 and RIN 0560–AG83 This proposed rule has been 205 of UMRA. Tree Assistance Program determined to be not significant under Paperwork Reduction Act Executive Order 12866. AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. In accordance with the Paperwork Regulatory Flexibility Act ACTION: Proposed rule with request for Reduction Act of 1995, FSA has comments. The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not submitted a request to OMB for the applicable to this rule because the Farm approval of the information collections SUMMARY: This rule provides for Service Agency (FSA) is not required by required for the Tree Assistance implementation, subject to the 5 U.S.C. 553 or any law to publish a Program and the application necessary availability of funds, of the Farm notice of proposed rule making for the for the proper functioning of the Service Agency (FSA) Tree Assistance subject matter of this rule. program. Program (TAP) recently authorized by Title: Tree Assistance Program. the Farm Security and Rural Investment Environmental Evaluation OMB Control Number: 0560–NEW. Act of 2002. The TAP program provides The environmental impacts of this Type of Request: Request for a assistance to tree, bush and vine owners final rule have been considered in reinstatement, with change, of a who have trees, bushes or vines lost by accordance with the provisions of the previously approved collection for a natural disaster. As of this time, no National Environmental Policy Act of which approval has expired. funds have been appropriated for the 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Abstract: The Tree Assistance program. regulations of the Council on Program provides assistance to owners Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts of trees, bushes and vines that were lost DATES: Submit comments on this 1500–1508), and the FSA regulations for as a result of a natural disaster. The proposed rule and the information compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR parts 799 information is collected to document a collection requirements of this rule on and 1940, subpart G. FSA completed an producer’s eligibility to receive such or before October 10, 2003 in order to environmental evaluation and payments. Producers must certify to the be assured of consideration. concluded the rule requires no further requirements contained in this rule and ADDRESSES: Comments should be environmental review. No extraordinary at 7 CFR part 783. The information will mailed to Dan McGlynn, Deputy circumstances or other unforeseeable be used by FSA to determine the Director, Production, Emergencies, and factors exist which would require program eligibility of tree, bush and Compliance Division, Farm Service preparation of an environmental vine owners. FSA considers the Agency (FSA), United States assessment or environmental impact information collected essential to Department of Agriculture, STOP 0517, statement. A copy of the environmental prudent eligibility determinations and 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., evaluation is available for inspection payment calculations. Without accurate Washington, DC 20250–0517, telephone and review upon request. information, payments could be made to (202) 720–7641, or hand delivered to ineligible recipients, and the integrity Executive Order 12988 room 5754 South, at the address above and accuracy of the program could be during normal business hours. All This rule has been reviewed in compromised. comments and supporting documents accordance with Executive Order 12988. Estimate of Burden: Public reporting on this rule may be viewed by This rule preempts State laws to the burden for this collection of information contacting the information contact listed extent such laws are inconsistent with is estimated to average 1 hour and 20 below. Persons with disabilities who it. Before judicial action may be brought minutes per response. require alternative means for concerning provisions of this rule, all Respondents: Farms. communication (Braille, large print, administrative remedies must be Estimated Number of Respondents: audio tape, etc.) should contact the exhausted. 333. USDA Target Center at (202) 720–2600 Estimated Number of Responses per (voice and TDD). Comments may be Executive Order 12372 Respondent: 1. inspected in the Office of the Director, This program is not subject to Estimated Total Annual Burden on PECD, (FSA), USDA, Room 4752 South Executive Order 12372, which requires Respondents: 111 hours. Building, Washington, DC, between 7:30 intergovernmental consultation with Comment is invited on: (a) Whether a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through State and local officials. See the notice the collection of information is

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47500 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

necessary for the proper performance of natural disaster to also include plant the United States Department of the functions of the agency, including disease and insect infestation. Should Agriculture, Farm Service Agency whether the information will have funds be appropriated, payments would (FSA), or a designee supervised by the practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the be provided for the replacement of all Deputy Administrator for Farm agency’s estimate of burden, including qualifying losses of eligible trees, bushes Programs, FSA (Deputy Administrator), the validity of the methodology and or vines within these limitations. The and carried out by FSA State and county assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 1997 program provided payments to committees. the quality, utility, and clarity of the eligible tree and vine owners; as (1) State and county committees do information collected; and (d) ways to indicated, the 2002 Act added bushes to not have the authority to modify or minimize the burden of the collection of the eligibility criteria. Nursery tree stock waive any provision of this regulation. the information on those who are to and Christmas trees will not be covered The State committee shall take any respond, including through the use of under the new TAP program because required action not taken by the county appropriate automated, electronic, annual crops are not produced from committee, correct acts of a county mechanical, or other technological nursery tree stock and Christmas trees. committee which violate this regulation, collection techniques or other forms of Instead nursery tree stock and Christmas or prevent a county committee from information technology. Comments trees are the crops themselves. The 2002 taking action beyond what is allowed in should be sent to Dan McGlynn, Deputy Act also limits payments by specifying this regulation. Director, Production, Emergencies, and that qualifying acres for a person may (2) The Deputy Administrator, or Compliance Division, Farm Service not exceed 500 in number. Again, designee, may determine any TAP issue Agency (FSA), United States however, while these regulations are and reverse or modify decisions a State Department of Agriculture, STOP 0517, being promulgated in the event of a or county committee makes. 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., program appropriation, there is not at (3) This program will cover losses for Washington, DC 20250–0517, or via this time such an appropriation. No damages to trees, bushes and vines that electronic mail to: payments will be made until there is _ occurred between dates announced by Dan [email protected]. such an appropriation at which time the Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Background and Discussion dates of coverage and other terms and Administrator may waive or modify conditions may be imposed as needed Sections 10201–10205 of the Farm deadlines or other requirements when in light of available funds. doing so does not adversely affect the Security and Rural Investment Act of Part 783 is updated accordingly, and 2002 (Pub. L. 107B171) authorize the program or when an exception to this changes are made for clarity, structure regulation is necessary to achieve the appropriation of funds to carry out a and readability. Tree Assistance Program (TAP) to goals of the program and distribute provide payments to eligible tree, bush List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 783 benefits more equitably. and vine owners who incurred losses Disaster assistance, Emergency § 783.2 Definitions. due to natural disasters. The statute assistance, Reporting and record (a) The definitions in part 718 of this authorizes payments only for eligible keeping requirements. chapter apply to TAP except when they owners who actually replant or For the reasons set forth in the conflict with paragraph (b) of this rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes and preamble, Title 7 of the Code of Federal section. vines and who produce annual crops Regulations part 783 is proposed to be from trees for commercial purposes. The (b) The following terms, as defined, revised as follows: apply to TAP: statute defines ‘‘trees’’ to include vines 1. Revise part 783 to read as follows: and bushes. Bush means, a low branching woody Generally, TAP will be made available PART 783—TREE ASSISTANCE plant from which an annual fruit or under the same or similar terms as the PROGRAM vegetable crop is produced for TAP program outlined in the 1997 TAP commercial purposes, such as blueberry program codified in rules initially Sec. bushes. published on January 27, 1998, (63 FR 783.1 General. Cutting means, a vine, which was 3791), based on funds provided in 783.2 Definitions. planted in the ground for commercial 783.3 Eligibility. Public Law 105–18. However, there are production of grapes, kiwi fruit, or 783.4 Application. passion fruit. certain notable differences. So far, 783.5 Benefits. Congress has left the time frame for 783.6 Obligations of an owner. Deputy Administrator means the damages to trees, bushes and vines 783.7 Multiple benefits. Deputy Administrator for Farm open. The rule reflects that lack of 783.8 Miscellaneous. Programs of the Farm Service Agency of precision. In the 1997 Act, owners were Authority: 7 U.S.C 8201 et seq. the Department of Agriculture or his or eligible for up to 100% of the cost to her delegate. replace or rehabilitate trees or vines § 783.1 General. County office means the FSA or adjusted for normal mortality. In the (a) Purpose and Limitation. This part USDA Service Center that is responsible 2002 Act, subject to a $75,000 per governs and provides the requirements for servicing the farm or the county in person limit, producers are eligible for and authorities for administration of the which the trees, bushes or vines are reimbursement only up to 75 percent of Tree Assistance Program (TAP) of the located. the replanting costs for trees, bushes Farm Service Agency. This program Individual stand means an area of and vines in excess of a 15 percent loss, shall operate only to the extent funds trees, bushes or vines, which are tended adjusted for normal mortality. The are appropriated for this program or the by an owner as a single operation, definition of a natural disaster in the Secretary under other authority makes whether or not such trees, bushes or 1997 program included flood, drought, funds explicitly available for purposes vines are planted in the same field or hail, excessive moisture, freeze, tornado, of this program. Otherwise, no similar location. Trees, bushes or vines hurricane, earthquake, and excessive payments shall be made under this part. in the same field or similar area may be wind as determined by the agency. The (b) Administration. The TAP will be separate individual stands if the county 2002 Act broadened the definition of a administered by the Administrator of committee determines that the trees,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47501

bushes or vines are susceptible to losses (b)(1) Proof of damage. The damage (4) Sufficient evidence of the loss to at significantly differing levels. must be visible and obvious to the allow the county committee to calculate Lost means if the tree has been county committee except that if the whether an eligible loss occurred. damaged to such an extent that it would damage is no longer visible, the county (c) Agency action. Before requests will be more economically beneficial to committee may accept other evidence of be approved, the county committee: replace it than to leave it in its the loss as it determines is reasonable. (1) Must make recommendations and deteriorated, low producing, state, as (2) County Committee (COC) may an eligibility determination based on a determined by FSA. require information from an expert in complete application on those requests Natural disaster means plant disease, the case of plant disease or insect that it wants to refer to a higher insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze, infestation. approval official. flood, earthquake, lightning, or other (c)(1) Eligible owners. To be eligible (2) Will verify actual qualifying losses occurrence of such magnitude or for TAP payments the owner must: and the number of acres involved by on- severity so as to be considered (i) Own the stand on which the claim site visual inspection of the land and disastrous as determined by the Deputy for benefits is based; trees, bushes or vines. Administrator. (ii) Have owned it at the time the (3) May request additional Normal mortality means the natural disaster occurred; and information and may consider all percentage of damaged or dead trees, (iii) Have continuously owned the relevant information in making its bushes or vines in the individual stand stand until the TAP application is determination including its members’ that normally occurs in a 12 month submitted; and own knowledge about the applicant’s period established by the State (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of normal operations. Committee (STC). this section, no person, as defined in Owner means an individual, or legal part 1400 of this title, with an annual § 783.5 Benefits. entity, including an Indian tribe under gross revenue in excess of $2.5 million (a) Subject to the availability of TAP the Indian Self-Determination and for the preceding tax year will be funds, an approved owner shall be Education Assistance Act; an Indian eligible for benefits under this part. reimbursed in an amount not to exceed organization or entity chartered under (3) Federal, State, and local 75 percent of the eligible costs for the the Indian Reorganization Act; a tribal governments and agencies and political qualifying loss (that loss over and above organization under the Indian Self- subdivisions thereof are not eligible for the calculated 15% mortality). The Determination and Assistance Act; or, benefits under this part. payment shall be the lesser of the actual an enterprise under the Indian (d)(1) Succession. A new owner is costs for the replanting or the amount Financing Act of 1974, who owns a tree, allowed to receive TAP benefits in an calculated using rates established by the bush or vine as defined in this part. amount not to exceed those approved county committee (not to exceed the Program year means a calendar year for the predecessor and not paid to the maximum amount the Deputy for which funding is available. previous owner, if the previous owner Administrator establishes). The costs Seedling means a tree, which was agrees to the succession in writing and permitted shall only be approved for: planted in the ground for commercial if the new owner: (1) Seedlings or cuttings, for tree, purposes. (i) Acquires ownership of trees, bush or vine replanting; Tree means, a tall woody plant having bushes or vines for which benefits have (2) Site preparation and debris comparatively great height and a single been approved; handling within normal cultural trunk from which an annual fruit or (ii) Agrees to complete all approved practices for the type of individual vegetable crop is produced for practices which the original owner has stand being re-established and necessary commercial purposes, such as maple not completed; and to ensure successful plant survival; tree for syrup, papaya tree, or orchard (iii) Otherwise meets and assumes full (3) Chemicals and nutrients necessary tree. Plantain and banana plants are also responsibility for all provisions of this for successful establishment; included. Trees used for pulp or timber part, including refund of payments (4) Labor to plant seedlings or cuttings are not considered trees under this part. made to the previous owner, if as determined reasonable by the county Vine means, a plant with a flexible applicable. committee; and stem supported by climbing, twining, or (2) In the case of death, incompetence (5) Labor used to transplant existing creeping along a surface from which an or disappearance of an eligible TAP seedlings established through natural annual fruit or vegetable crop is applicant, successors may be eligible to regeneration into a productive tree produced for commercial purposes, receive the payments instead as stand. such as grape, kiwi fruit, or passion specified in part 707 of this chapter. (b) Costs for fencing, irrigation, fruit. irrigation equipment, protection of § 783.4 Application. seedlings from wildlife, general § 783.3 Eligibility. (a) A complete application for TAP improvements, re-establishing (a) Eligible loss. To be considered an benefits and related supporting structures, windscreens and costs as eligible loss: documentation must be submitted to the determined by the Deputy (1) Trees, bushes or vines must have county office prior to the deadline that Administrator are not eligible for been lost as a result of a natural disaster; FSA announces. reimbursement benefits. (2) The individual stand must have (b) A complete application includes (c) When lost stands are replanted, the sustained a loss in excess of 15 percent all of the following: types planted may be different than after adjustment for normal mortality; (1) A form provided by FSA. those originally planted if the new types (3) The loss could not have been (2) A written estimate of the number have the same general end use, as the prevented through reasonable and of trees, bushes or vines lost or damaged county committee determines. Payments available measures; and which is prepared by the owner or will be based on the lesser of rates (4) The tree, bush or vine would not someone who is a qualified expert, as established to plant the types actually normally have been rehabilitated or determined by the county committee. lost or the cost to establish the replanted within the 12-month period (3) The number of acres on which the alternative used. If the species of following the loss. loss was suffered. plantings, seedlings or cuttings differs

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47502 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

significantly from the species lost, as the allowed without regard to questions of FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION county committee determines, the costs title under State law, and without regard may not be reimbursed. to any claim or lien in favor of any 12 CFR Parts 614 and 615 (d) Owners may elect not to replant person except agencies of the U.S. the entire eligible stand. If so, the Government. RIN 3052–AB96 county committee shall calculate (b) Persons shall be ineligible to payment based on the number of receive assistance under this program if Loan Policies and Operations; Funding qualifying trees, bushes or vines they have: and Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and actually replanted. (1) Adopted any scheme or device Operations, and Funding Operations; (e) The cumulative total quantity of intended to defeat the purpose of this OFI Lending acres planted to trees, bushes or vines program; for which a person may receive (2) Made any fraudulent AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. assistance shall not exceed 500 acres. representation; or ACTION: Proposed rule. (f) The cumulative amount of TAP (3) Misrepresented any fact affecting a payments which any person, as defined program determination. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit in accordance with part 1400 of this (c) TAP benefits paid to a person as Administration (FCA, agency, us, or we) title, may receive shall not exceed a result of misrepresentation shall be proposes to amend its regulations $75,000 per program year. refunded to FSA with interest and costs governing other financing institutions (g) If the total of all eligible TAP of collection. The party engaged in acts (OFIs) and investments in Farmers’ claims received exceeds the available prohibited by this paragraph and the notes so it would be easier for Farm TAP funds, payments shall be reduced party receiving payment and their Credit System (FCS, Farm Credit, or by a uniform national percentage after successors shall be jointly and severally System) institutions and non-System the imposition of applicable payment liable for any amount due. The remedies lenders to work together in providing limitation provisions. provided to FSA in this part shall be in affordable credit to agriculture and rural addition to other civil, criminal, or § 783.6 Obligations of an owner. America. In addition, the proposed rule administrative remedies which may would remove provisions in the existing (a) Eligible owners must execute all apply. OFI and Farmers’ notes regulations that: required documents, comply with all (d) Program documents executed by Impede the flow of credit; are not applicable noxious weed laws, and persons legally authorized to represent required by law; or do not enhance safe complete the TAP funded practice estates or trusts will be accepted only if and sound operations. The FCA also within 12 months of application such person furnishes evidence of the proposes related amendments to its approval. authority to execute such documents. A capital regulations. (b) If a person was erroneously minor who is an owner that has met all determined to be eligible or becomes other eligibility criteria shall be eligible DATES: You may send us comments by ineligible for all or part of a TAP for TAP assistance if: October 10, 2003. payment, the person and/or successor (1) The minor establishes that the ADDRESSES: Send us your comments by shall refund any payment paid under right of majority has been conferred on electronic mail to [email protected], this part together with interest from the the minor by court proceedings or by through the Pending Regulations section date of disbursement at a rate in statute; or of our Web site at www.fca.gov, or accordance with part 1403 of this title. (2) A guardian has been appointed to through the government-wide Web site, (c) Participants must allow manage the minor’s property and the www.regulations.gov. You may also representatives of FSA to visit the site applicable program documents are submit your comments in writing to S. for the purposes of certifying executed by the guardian; or Robert Coleman, Director, Regulation compliance with TAP requirements. (3) A bond is furnished under which and Policy Division, Office of Policy the surety guarantees any loss incurred § 783.7 Multiple benefits. and Analysis, Farm Credit for which the minor would be liable had Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, Persons eligible to receive payments the minor been an adult. under this part and another program for McLean, VA 22102–5090, or by (d) The regulations regarding facsimile transmission to (703) 734– the same loss, may receive benefits from reconsiderations and appeals at part 11 only one program and must choose 5785. You may review copies of all of this title and part 780 of this chapter comments we receive in the Office of which program benefits they want. If apply to this part. other benefits become available after Policy and Analysis, Farm Credit (e) In lieu of payments in cash, Administration. payment of TAP benefits the owner may qualifying losses may be compensated refund the TAP payment and receive the by seedlings sufficient to reestablish a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: other program benefit. If the owner stand. Dennis Carpenter, Senior Policy purchased additional coverage (f) The Deputy Administrator may set Analyst, Office of Policy and insurance, as defined in 7 CFR 400.651, such additional conditions and Analysis, Farm Credit Administration, or is eligible for assistance or emergency limitations on eligibility as may be 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, loans under another Federal program for needed to reflect limited funding or Virginia 22102–5090, (703) 883–4498, the same loss, the owner will be eligible accomplish program objectives as TTY (703) 883–4434, for such assistance. In no case shall the deemed appropriate by the Deputy or total amount received from all sources Administrator, consistent with exceed the amount of the owner’s actual governing legislation. Richard A. Katz, Senior Attorney, Office loss. Should the total amount of benefits of General Counsel, Farm Credit Signed in Washington DC on August 5, exceed the owner’s actual loss, the TAP 2003. Administration, 1501 Farm Credit benefits will be reduced accordingly. Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102–5090, James R. Little, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–4020. § 783.8 Miscellaneous. Administrator, Farm Service Agency. (a) Any payment or portion thereof [FR Doc. 03–20345 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] due any person under this part shall be BILLING CODE 3410–05–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47503

I. Background credit products that non-System lenders and discount for OFIs any loan that This proposed rule is intended to offer their customers. For example, PCAs could make. As a result, OFI loans make affordable credit more available to Farm Credit banks fund and discount to eligible processing and marketing, agriculture and rural America by short- and intermediate-term loans that farm-related businesses, and non-farm increasing cooperation between System OFIs make to eligible borrowers. rural homeowners may also be funded and non-System lenders. This Separately, Farm Credit banks and or discounted by a Farm Credit bank. rulemaking began on April 20, 2000, associations can provide non-System The legislative history of the various with an advance notice of proposed lenders with long-term funding, in Farm Credit Acts reveals that the rulemaking (ANPRM) that asked the addition to short- and intermediate-term primary purpose of the OFI program is public questions about ways to improve funding, by buying participations up to to address the scarcity of operating 4 the funding and discount relationship 100 percent of the principal amount of credit for farmers and ranchers. Over between Farm Credit banks and OFIs. the loan. Syndications are another the years, Congress has responded to the method that FCS institutions use to help See 65 FR 21151. FCA staff changing credit needs of farmers, non-System institutions extend credit, subsequently conducted telephone and ranchers, and other rural residents by particularly to larger borrowers. As part field interviews with interested parties. expanding the lending authority of the of its effort to promote partnering On August 3, 2001, we held a public FCS, and giving Farm Credit banks more arrangements between FCS and non- 5 meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, where authority to fund OFIs. These statutory System lenders, the FCA is currently interested parties offered suggestions on changes have ensured that the FCS exploring methods for the System’s use how we could facilitate greater could continue as a source of affordable of syndications originated by non- cooperation between System and non- and reliable credit to agriculture and System lenders. Today, the FCA is System lenders in providing credit to rural America on both a wholesale and proposing substantial revisions to its agriculture and rural America. The retail level. Farmers’ notes regulations, which if public meeting addressed both the OFI OFIs, historically, have established adopted, will expand this program to program and other arrangements where funding or discount relationships with more non-System lenders, and allow all the FCS and non-System lenders could Farm Credit banks when the cost of FCS FCS associations to invest, for the first help each other in extending credit to funds is significantly lower than other time, in both long- and short-term loans farmers, ranchers, and other eligible funding sources. The OFI program between these other lenders and eligible borrowers in rural America. reached its peak in the 1970s and early Many of the comments and farmers and ranchers. 1980, when market interest rates were at These different authorities give the suggestions that we received from the historically high levels. In 1982, FCS many powers to meet the varied ANPRM, interviews, and at the public approximately 300 OFIs borrowed funding needs of a wide variety of non- meeting are incorporated in this approximately $914 million from System lenders that finance agriculture. proposed rule, which would revise both various Farm Credit banks. By These authorities allow non-System our OFI and Farmers’ notes regulations. December 31, 2002, Farm Credit banks lenders to access any one or a This preamble also explains other lent only $291 million to 31 OFIs. combination of FCS funding programs, actions that we are taking to facilitate Much of the decline in the OFI depending on individual needs. The greater cooperation between System and program can be attributed to the farm System fulfills its mission to finance non-System lenders that will ultimately crisis of the mid and late 1980s. agriculture and other specified credit benefit agriculture and other eligible Declining land values and commodity needs in rural America by serving as a rural residents. OFIs and Farmers’ notes prices meant that many farmers were steady source of funding and liquidity are two separate and distinct programs unable to repay their loans, which for other lenders. This should result in that arise under different provisions of caused the FCS to experience significant lower credit costs and more credit the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as financial stress between 1984 and 1989. options for farmers, ranchers, aquatic amended (Act). In the first program, During this time, many OFIs terminated producers and harvesters, and other Farm Credit Banks (FCBs) and the their funding and discount relationships eligible rural residents. agricultural credit bank (ACB) with Farm Credit banks for a variety of (collectively Farm Credit banks) fund II. Other Financing Institutions reasons. One reason for the decline of and discount short- and intermediate- the OFI program was that Farm Credit A. History of OFIs term loans that OFIs make to eligible banks were in a weakened financial farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers Farm Credit banks have discounted position and, therefore, could no longer and harvesters, farm-related businesses, production agricultural loans for OFIs offer OFIs competitive rates. and non-farm rural homeowners. The since 1923.1 Since 1930, Farm Credit Additionally, the merger or Farmers’ notes program currently banks also have made secured loans and consolidation among many commercial authorizes certain FCS associations to advances directly to OFIs.2 Thus, OFIs bank OFIs improved their liquidity and invest in notes, contracts, and other could borrow from, and discount obligations that eligible farmers and production agricultural loans with, 4 See H. R. Rep. No. 1712, 67th Cong., 1st. Sess. ranchers enter into with suppliers. Farm Credit banks before Congress (February 25, 1923), p. 17; H.R. Rep. No. 96–1287, created production credit associations 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. (September 4, 1980), p.21. Changes to the OFI and Farmers’ notes 5 From 1923 until 1988, OFIs funded and regulations require conforming (PCAs) as an alternative source of discounted short- and intermediate-term loans with amendments to our capital regulations. financing the operating needs of farmers the former Federal Intermediate Credit Banks. This rule complements other efforts and ranchers.3 Since 1980, the Act has Section 410 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized Farm Credit banks to fund (1987 Act) created the FCBs through the mandatory by the FCA to increase the flow of credit merger of the Federal Land Bank and the Federal to agriculture and rural America by Intermediate Credit Bank in each Farm Credit promoting greater cooperation between 1 See The Agricultural Credits Act of 1923, Pub. district. See Pub. L. 100–233, section 410, 101 Stat. FCS and non-System lenders. System L. 503, 42 Stat. 1454 (March 4, 1923). 1568, 1637 (January 6, 1988). Section 7.0 of the Act 2 See Federal Farm Loan Act Amendments, Pub. authorizes FCBs to merge with banks for banks and associations have many L. 439, 46 Stat. 816 (June 26, 1930). cooperatives to form an ACB. According to section different powers that enable them to act 3 See Farm Credit Act of 1933, Pub. L. 75–73D, 7.2 of the Act, an ACB has all of the powers and as a funding source for a wide array of title II, 48 Stat. 257, 259 (June 16, 1933). obligations of its constituent banks.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47504 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

resulted in lower-cost funding for their promote safety and soundness.6 The hurdles that existing and potential OFIs agricultural loans. express purpose of our earlier faced in their relationships with FCS The FCS has regained its financial rulemaking was to ‘‘substantially funding banks. strength over the past decade. As a expand access to System funding so The FCA Board also decided to solicit result, FCBs and the ACB are once again OFIs can provide more short- and additional guidance from interested in a strong financial position to fulfill intermediate-term credit to parties who parties by convening a public meeting their statutory mission of increasing the are eligible to borrow under sections in Des Moines, Iowa, on August 3, 2001. availability of affordable and 2.4(a) and (b) of the Act.’’ 7 Fifteen (15) representatives from Farm dependable credit for agriculture and After the earlier rulemaking Credit banks and associations, trade other rural credit needs by assisting concluded, Farm Credit banks and OFIs associations, commercial banks, OFIs, both FCS associations and non-System brought to our attention other problems investment bankers, and farm groups lenders, including OFIs. The FCA has that impeded OFI access to System presented testimony at or as follow-up consistently promoted various efforts to funding. In response to these concerns, to the public meeting. In addition to improve cooperation among System and the FCA started this rulemaking in April discussing the OFI program, non-System lenders so agriculture and 2000. The ANPRM sought input on the commenters at the public meeting also rural America will always have following issues: asked the FCA to explore other adequate credit. In this context, we 1. The appropriate risk weighting of arrangements where non-System lenders propose regulatory amendments that Farm Credit bank loans to OFIs; that do not qualify as OFIs could obtain will provide OFIs with greater access to 2. Removing regulatory restrictions on credit services from both Farm Credit the funding and discount services of funding OFIs located in the chartered banks and associations. The comments Farm Credit banks within the confines territory of another Farm Credit bank; that we received from the ANPRM, field of the Act. 3. Public disclosure of the identities and telephone interviews, and the of OFIs; and public meeting, helped us develop the B. The Act and OFIs 4. Other ways to improve the ability rule that we propose today. of Farm Credit banks to fund OFIs. Currently, section 1.7(b)(1) of the Act D. Regulatory Issues authorizes Farm Credit banks to offer The FCA received 37 comment letters funding, discounting, and other similar in response to the ANPRM. Of this total, As we explained earlier, the purpose financial services to OFIs so they can comments were received from six Farm of this rule is to make it easier for OFIs make short- and intermediate-term loans Credit banks and associations, 18 to obtain funding from Farm Credit to eligible agricultural and aquatic commercial banks, and four non-bank banks for their short- and intermediate- producers, farm-related business, and entities. Nine (9) banking trade term loans to agricultural and aquatic rural homeowners. Section 1.7(b)(1)(B) associations also submitted comments producers, farm-related business, and of the Act allows national banks, State on behalf of their members. Most rural homeowners. Improving OFI banks, trust companies, agricultural commenters favored: (1) Lowering the access to the funding and discount credit corporations, incorporated risk weighting on most System bank services of Farm Credit banks could livestock loan companies, certain loans to OFIs; (2) removing territorial make affordable credit more available to agricultural credit cooperatives, and restrictions on FCS bank loans to OFIs; farmers, ranchers, and other eligible corporations that lend to aquatic and (3) disclosing the identity of OFIs. borrowers. Farm Credit banks fulfill producers and harvesters to become The commenters also offered us helpful their missions as a Government- OFIs. Section 1.7(b)(4) requires the FCA suggestions for improving the funding sponsored enterprise by enhancing the to enact regulations that assure that and discounting relationship between liquidity of OFIs, thereby lowering the loans, discounts, and other similar OFIs and their System funding banks. cost of funding agriculture. Commenters identified several financial assistance from Farm Credit We will discuss these comments in regulatory issues pertaining to the OFI banks are available on a reasonable basis greater detail below when we explain program. The FCA proposes to address to any OFI that: how the proposed rule addresses some of the issues by amending the OFI 1. Is significantly involved in lending specific issues. regulations. In other cases, the FCA will for agricultural or aquatic purposes; The responses to the ANPRM indicated that we needed more public explain how the commenters’ concerns 2. Demonstrates a continuing need for input, not only on OFIs, but also on are addressed by the existing supplementary sources of funds to meet other approaches that would enable the regulations, which means that a the credit requirements of its FCS to provide funding to non-System regulatory amendment is unnecessary. agricultural or aquatic borrowers; lenders that finance agriculture and 3. Has limited access to national or 1. Assured Access other specified needs in rural America. regional capital markets; and The FCA gained additional information Section 1.7(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Act 4. Does not use its relationship with and advice about these issues in the requires FCA regulations to assure that its Farm Credit bank to extend credit to summer of 2001, when staff conducted the funding and discount services of persons and for purposes that are not telephone and field interviews with all Farm Credit banks are available on a authorized by title II of the Act. Farm Credit banks, an FCS association, reasonable basis to any OFI that is C. FCA’s Rulemaking Efforts and three OFIs in Wisconsin, and significantly involved in lending for Oklahoma. These field interviews were agricultural and aquatic purposes. This proposed rule is designed to help 8 supplemented by telephone interviews Currently, § 614.4540(b)(1) states that restore the vitality of the OFI program with other lenders. In all interviews, the Farm Credit banks must ‘‘fund, by making it easier for OFIs to obtain staff asked the questions that we discount, or provide other similar funding from Farm Credit banks. originally raised in the ANPRM and financial assistance to any creditworthy Between 1996 and 1998, the FCA sought additional information about the OFI that * * * maintains at least 15 conducted a rulemaking that overhauled percent of its loan volume at a seasonal the OFI regulations by removing 6 See 61 FR 24907 (May 17, 1996); 62 FR 38223 peak in loans and leases to farmers, numerous regulatory requirements that (July 17, 1997); 63 FR 36541 (July 7, 1998). were not required by law, or did not 7 See 63 FR 36541 (July 7, 1998). 8 See 46 FR 51886 (October 22, 1981).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47505

ranchers, aquatic producers and a much smaller percentage of their loan could choose their System funding harvesters.’’ Section 1.7(b) of the Act portfolios. Additionally, bank. One Farm Credit bank opposed and § 614.4540 of the regulations allow § 614.4540(b)(1) continues to forbid repealing § 614.4550, so FCS OFIs that do not meet this 15-percent Farm Credit banks from including the associations would not be placed at a threshold to fund and discount their loan volume of an OFI’s parent, competitive disadvantage. short- and intermediate-term loans at affiliates, or subsidiaries in determining In response to these comments, the Farm Credit banks, but they are not compliance with this 15-percent FCA proposes allowing OFIs to apply assured access if credit becomes scarce. threshold. In practice, most lenders for funding and discount services from Several commercial bank and System establish a separate OFI affiliate to any FCS bank. However, the proposed commenters believe that this 15-percent access System bank funding and, rule will require a Farm Credit bank to threshold is too onerous, and they asked therefore, the 15-percent threshold notify another System bank in writing the FCA to reduce or eliminate it. These should not be onerous to OFIs. As noted within five (5) business days of commenters erroneously claim that the earlier, failure to meet the 15-percent receiving an application from an OFI requirement that agricultural loans threshold does not prohibit FCS bank that maintains its headquarters or has always comprise 15 percent of an OFI’s funding to creditworthy OFIs unless more than 50 percent of its loan volume loan portfolio discourages potential credit is scarce. in the territory of the other Farm Credit OFIs and deters existing OFIs from Because the FCA wants to make the bank. This notice will give the bank in depending on Farm Credit banks as OFI program more attractive to eligible whose territory the OFI is located ample their primary source of agricultural agricultural lenders, we invite your opportunity to contact the applicants funding. The FCA seeks to dispel the comments on alternatives that and offer them funding and discount misconception that § 614.4540(b)(1) reasonably demonstrate that an OFI is services. Under the proposed rule, no requires OFIs to always maintain at least significantly involved in agricultural OFI may borrow from two or more Farm 15 percent of their loan portfolio in farm lending, as section 1.7(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Credit banks at the same time. Farm loans in order to maintain assured Act requires. Credit banks extend wholesale credit to access. Instead, this regulation requires 2. Place of Discount OFIs, and they hold the OFIs’ retail such OFIs to maintain at least 15 loans and other collateral as security. percent of their volume at a seasonal Non-System lenders and many Farm Credit banks have long considered place Allowing two or more Farm Credit peak in farm loans and leases. banks to simultaneously fund the same At this time, the FCA does not of discount restrictions as a major OFI could pose safety and soundness propose to change the 15-percent reason why the OFI program has not risks to the funding banks if the OFI threshold as the factor that determines been widely used by commercial banks experienced financial stress and whether an OFI is significantly involved and other agricultural lenders. in agricultural lending, and thus assured Historically, OFIs borrowed from the disputes arose over collateral pledged. access to funding from a System bank. Farm Credit bank that serves the Our new regulatory approach would In reaching this decision, the FCA territory where such OFIs maintain their resolve the difficulties that often arise examined how two of the other Federal headquarters or makes the most of their when OFIs must borrow from a Farm bank regulatory agencies determine if a loans. As a result, OFIs have maintained Credit bank that is owned and bank engages in substantial agricultural a funding or discount relationship with controlled by their competitors. When lending. The FCA’s research revealed a System bank that is owned and Farm Credit banks compete for OFI that the Federal Deposit Insurance controlled by their competitors. credit, the OFI can lower its funding Corporation (FDIC) classifies banks as In 1998, the FCA sought to remedy costs, which it can then pass on to its agricultural banks if at least 25 percent this problem by adopting § 614.4550, agricultural borrowers. Additionally, of their loans are to farmers or ranchers. which established new place-of- this approach frees Farm Credit banks The Board of Governors of the Federal discount rules for OFIs. Under this from potential association pressure not Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) regulation, every OFI must apply first to to lend to their competitors. If a Farm classifies a bank as agricultural if its the Farm Credit bank that serves the Credit bank is concerned about another ratio of farm loans to total loans exceeds territory where the OFI operates. If the System bank funding OFIs in its the unweighted average of the average of bank denies funding, or otherwise fails territory, written notice gives it ample all banks on a given date. Based on this to approve a completed application opportunity to seek the relationship formula, the Federal Reserve Board most within 60 days, the OFI may apply to with the OFI. recently classified banks as agricultural any other FCB or the ACB. Additionally, 3. Borrower Rights banks if farm loans comprise at least the regulation allows a Farm Credit 14.97 percent of their loan portfolios. bank to consent to another System bank Section 4.14A(a)(6)(B) of the Act Thus, the standard that the FCA uses to funding or discounting loans for an OFI. expressly requires OFIs to adhere to determine if a non-System lender is We received 28 comments about place borrower rights, ‘‘but only with respect substantially involved in agricultural of discount in response to the ANRPM, to loans discounted or pledged under lending is significantly more permissive and another five comments about this section 1.7(b)(1).’’ The borrower rights than the FDIC’s benchmark and issue during the interviews and public that apply to loans that OFIs discount or comparable to the measure used by the meeting. Specifically, we received pledge with a Farm Credit bank are: (1) Federal Reserve Board. comments on this issue from 12 Effective Interest Rate (EIR) disclosures; The current regulatory threshold also commercial banks and seven (2) notice of adverse credit decision; (3) seems to strike a fair balance between commercial bank trade associations. the right to appeal adverse credit the needs of small rural lenders and Additionally, six Farm Credit banks and decisions to the lender’s credit review larger institutions. Agricultural loans one FCS association commented on this committee; (4) receiving copies of usually comprise a larger percentage of issue. All commercial bank and bank certain documents; and (5) the right to the loan assets of small rural lenders. trade association commenters, five Farm restructure distressed loans. Existing However, larger institutions may extend Credit banks, and the one FCS § 614.4560(d) implements section more overall credit, in dollar terms, to association favored repealing regulatory 4.14A(a)(6)(B) of the Act by requiring farmers, although agricultural loans are restrictions on place of discount so OFIs OFIs to comply with borrower rights on

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47506 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

those loans that Farm Credit banks fund under title I or II of the Act. The 1987 genuinely may not know how it will or discount. Act amended these statutory provisions fund a particular borrower’s loans until During this rulemaking, the FCA so these rights and protections would after closing. In such cases, an OFI may received numerous comments from also apply to OFI borrowers.9 The 1987 decide not to give the borrower an EIR existing and potential OFIs and a Farm Act also added section 4.14A to the Act disclosure, written notification about Credit bank that borrower rights are a so that farmers, ranchers, and aquatic the denial of credit, or the right to significant disincentive to the success of producers and harvesters 10 who appeal the credit denial to a credit this program. Borrower rights are a borrowed from either the FCS or an OFI review committee because the OFI plans statutory requirement for OFIs; would have the right to restructure to use deposits or another line of credit therefore, the FCA cannot repeal distressed loans.11 These statutory to fund the borrower’s loan. If the OFI § 614.4560(d). amendments clearly demonstrate that subsequently decides to draw on its Recently, a Farm Credit bank and Congress intended to grant OFI credit line with its Farm Credit bank to some of its affiliated OFIs asked the borrowers whose loans were funded by fund this loan, borrower rights would FCA to reconsider its interpretation of a Farm Credit bank all of the rights and apply to all future actions on this loan. section 4.14A(a)(6)(B) of the Act. The protections described above, regardless For example, a borrower who did not FCB and its OFIs interpret section of when certain events occurred. receive an EIR disclosure at closing 4.14A(a)(6)(B) to mean that borrower The FCB and its OFIs believe that would be entitled to an EIR disclosure rights apply to OFI loans only during Congress’s use of the word ‘‘pledged’’ in at a later date if the OFI funds or the time they are actually pledged as section 4.14A(a)(6)(B) indicates that discounts the loan with the Farm Credit collateral to the funding bank. Under borrower rights apply only during the bank and then adjusts the borrower’s this interpretation, OFI loans would be period of time when an OFI loan serves interest rate. The OFI must also give the exempt from most borrower rights as collateral for the Farm Credit bank borrower written notice and the right to requirements because many of these loan. However, they are reading the appeal adverse credit actions to a credit rights apply before or after the time an word ‘‘pledged’’ out of context with the review committee once it funds or OFI’s loans are actually pledged to the rest of the statute. Section 4.14A(a)(6) discounts a seasoned loan with a Farm FCB or ACB. Examples of borrower refers to ‘‘loans discounted or pledged Credit bank. OFIs must also honor the rights that usually apply before an OFI under section 1.7(b)(1)’’ of the Act. rights of borrowers to restructure actually pledges loans to a Farm Credit However, section 1.7(b)(1) of the Act distressed loans even if the Farm Credit bank are: (1) Most EIR disclosures; (2) describes the services that Farm Credit bank removed such loans from collateral written notice that the borrower’s credit banks are authorized to provide certain after their credit quality declined. Once application has been denied; and (3) FCS associations and OFIs, not the a Farm Credit bank funds or discounts appeals of adverse credit decisions to timing of when such associations and a loan, borrower rights attach to it for the lender’s credit review committee. OFIs pledge collateral to the bank. the duration of the loan. This is the An example of a right that applies when Therefore, the term ‘‘pledged’’ in section same approach that the FCA follows for a loan is no longer pledged to a System 4.14A(a)(6)(B) covers those loans that a loans that FCS institutions sell to non- bank is the right of borrowers under Farm Credit bank funds under its System lenders.12 section 4.14A of the Act to restructure authority in section 1.7(b)(1), not the The FCA proposes a technical distressed loans. Borrowers usually seek time when such loans are pledged. correction to § 614.4560(d). Currently, to restructure a distressed loan after the For these reasons, OFIs must comply this provision erroneously states that Farm Credit bank instructs the OFI to with borrower rights on all loans that section 4.36 of the Act applies to all remove it from collateral. Under the they fund or discount through a Farm loans that an OFI funds or discounts suggested interpretation, section 4.13A Credit bank. Borrower rights, however, through an FCB or ACB. In fact, the of the Act would be the only borrower do not apply to loans that an OFI funds plain language in section 4.36 of the Act rights provision of the Act that would through other sources. Thus, OFIs that states that the right of first refusal always apply to OFI borrowers. This always use the funding or discounting applies only to the borrowers of FCS provision enables System and OFI services of a Farm Credit bank to make institutions that operate under title I or borrowers to obtain copies of: (1) All all of its short- and intermediate-term II of the Act. As a result, OFIs are loan documents they sign or deliver; (2) agricultural and aquatic loans must subject to some, but not all, of the loan appraisals on their assets that the comply with all borrower rights regulations in subpart N of part 614. lender uses in making credit decisions; requirements. Accordingly, the FCA proposes to omit and (3) the lender’s articles of Some flexibility may exist, however, the reference to section 4.36 from incorporation and bylaws. for those OFIs that actually use several § 614.4560(d) and to further amend this The FCB and its affiliated OFIs sources of funding, including Farm regulatory provision so it refers to advocate an interpretation of section Credit banks, to make loans to farmers, §§ 614.4516, 614.4517, 614.4518, and 4.14A(a)(6)(B) of the Act that ranchers, and aquatic producers and 614.4519, which are the only emphasizes the timing of certain events harvesters. In some cases, an OFI regulations in subpart N of part 614 that over how an OFI loan is funded. apply to OFIs.13 However, our analysis leads us to 9 Pub. L. 100–233, Sections 103, 104, 105, and conclude that Congress intended section 106, 101 Stat. 1568, 1579–81 (January 6, 1988). 4. Equitable Treatment 4.14A(a)(6)(B) of the Act to apply 10 Borrower rights do not apply to loans that are In 1998, the FCA adopted § 614.4590, whenever an OFI uses a Farm Credit subject to the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 which requires Farm Credit banks to bank rather than another source (such as et seq. The Truth-in-Lending Act applies to consumer credit. Non-farm rural home loans and treat OFIs and FCS associations deposits or other lines of credit) to fund consumer loans to farmers are subject to the Truth- the borrower’s loan. Originally, the in-Lending Act, not the borrower rights provisions 12 12 CFR 614.4336. provisions of the Act that govern EIR of the Act. See Act, §§ 4.13 and 4.14A(a)(5). Also, 13 The FCA recently proposed to move all disclosures, written notice of credit borrower rights do not apply to loans that the ACB borrower rights regulations to part 617. See 68 FR makes under title III of the Act. See Act 5587, February 4, 2003. If the FCA adopts this denials, and appeal of adverse credit §§ 4.14A(a)(6)(A). change the final OFI rule will revise the cross- decisions only applied to Farm Credit 11 Pub. L. 100–233, Sections 102, 101 Stat 1568, references to borrower rights regulations in banks and associations that operate 1574 (January 6, 1988). § 614.4560(d).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47507

equitably. More specifically, § 614.4590 that would strengthen associations. In 1998, we reasoned that § 614.4590(a) states that Farm Credit regulatory requirements concerning disclosing such pricing information was banks must apply comparable and equitable treatment. unnecessary because the regulation did objective loan underwriting standards Fundamental differences between not compel Farm Credit banks to charge and pricing requirements to both OFIs OFIs and direct lender associations identical rates to OFIs and System and FCS associations. Under mean that regulations can only require associations.14 The comments that we § 614.4590(b), the total charges that a Farm Credit banks to treat OFIs and FCS received during this rulemaking have System bank assesses its OFIs must be direct lender associations equitably, but persuaded us to propose a change on comparable to the total charges it not equally. The following are some of this issue. Disclosing pricing imposes on its affiliated associations. the fundamental differences between information will make the OFI program This regulation also states that any these two types of financial institutions more transparent and address concerns variation between the overall funding that preclude identical treatment: by existing and potential OFIs that they costs that OFIs and FCS associations are • OFIs have access to several funding are not treated fairly. The FCA hopes charged by the same funding bank must sources whereas direct lender that this change will attract more result from differences in credit risk and associations do not. agricultural lenders to this program and, administrative costs to the FCB or ACB. • FCS associations have invested therefore, make affordable credit more Many responses to the ANPRM and significant amounts of capital in the available for farmers, ranchers, and several speakers at the public meeting funding bank, while most OFIs have other eligible rural residents. expressed the view that Farm Credit not. The FCA plans to achieve this banks do not treat OFIs equitably with • A direct lender association pledges objective by proposing to add two new FCS associations, which own and all of its loans to the Farm Credit bank, provisions to § 614.4590. Proposed control each System bank. According to whereas OFIs do not. § 614.4590(c) would require each FCB or • these commenters, the perception of FCS associations are members of a ACB to provide any OFI or OFI unfair treatment discourages potential cooperative credit system that shares applicant, upon request, a copy of its OFIs from establishing a funding and gains and losses, whereas OFIs have policies, procedures, loan underwriting discount relationship with an FCB or limited exposure to such losses. standards, and pricing guidelines for • ACB. Many commenters informed us Administrative costs for funding a OFIs. This provision would also specify that existing OFIs often feel that Farm direct lender association and an OFI that the pricing guidelines must identify Credit banks favor the associations. differ because OFIs are not required to the specific components that make up Many commercial bank commenters maintain a long-term commitment with the cost of funds for OFIs and the suggested that our regulations should a System funding bank. amount of these components in basis mandate equal, rather than equitable, These fundamental differences mean points. We believe this requirement is treatment of OFIs and FCS associations. that OFIs expose Farm Credit banks to consistent with the information that is These commenters believe that the different credit risks and administrative available to the associations, and is disparity of treatment is especially costs than direct lender associations. As analogous to EIR disclosures that evident in the price of funding that a result, some disparity in cost of funds associations provide to retail borrowers. Farm Credit banks charge their OFIs and that an FCB or ACB charges FCS Proposed § 614.4590(d) would require FCS associations. Several commenters associations and OFIs may be justified. each FCB or ACB to explain in writing want us to require Farm Credit banks to For this reason, § 614.4590 requires that the reasons for any variation in the disclose to OFIs exactly how they price Farm Credit banks treat OFIs overall funding costs it charges OFIs their loans to both OFIs and FCS comparably, but not identically, to FCS and FCS associations if such associations. Several commercial bank associations in pricing loans. In fact, information is requested by an OFI or trade associations asked the FCA to § 614.4590(b) states that the total OFI applicant. This provision would require Farm Credit banks to identify charges that an FCB or ACB assesses an require a Farm Credit bank to compare the specific components that make up OFI through capitalization the costs that it charges OFIs and FCS their cost of funds to OFIs and the requirements, interest rates, and fees associations as groups or, if possible, amount of these components in terms of shall be comparable to the charges that variations between groups of OFIs and basis points. Commercial banks and the same Farm Credit bank imposes on FCS associations that are of a similar their trade associations also requested its direct lender associations. This size. However, proposed § 614.4590(d) that the FCA enact regulations that regulation also specifies that any would expressly prohibit System expressly prohibit Farm Credit banks variation in the overall funding costs funding banks from disclosing financial from charging OFIs fees that are not that the same FCS funding bank charges or confidential information about charged to FCS associations. Some OFIs and direct lender associations individual FCS associations. Such commenters asked the FCA to require must be attributed to differences in information is confidential and Farm Credit banks to pay dividends or credit risk and administrative costs to proprietary information affecting the patronage to OFIs. the bank. bank and its other customers and, The FCA sought to address many of The current regulation, however, does therefore, it cannot be disclosed to OFIs. these concerns in the rulemaking that not require Farm Credit banks to explain The FCA also proposes a conforming ended in 1998 by adopting § 614.4590, and justify variations in the cost of amendment to § 614.4540(c) that would which requires Farm Credit banks to funds to existing OFIs and OFI require each FCB or ACB to establish treat OFIs and FCS associations applicants. As a result, it is difficult to objective policies, procedures, pricing equitably. The FCA notes that the OFI ascertain whether Farm Credit banks are guidelines, and loan underwriting program has not significantly expanded pricing credit comparably for OFIs and standards for determining the since 1998, but many of the same FCS associations, as § 614.4590(b) creditworthiness of each OFI applicant. complaints about disparate treatment by requires. Commercial bank commenters Currently, § 614.4540(c) does not Farm Credit banks of OFIs and FCS have repeatedly asked the FCA to mention procedures or pricing associations have surfaced once again. resolve this problem by requiring Farm guidelines. The FCA has decided to address these Credit banks to disclose to OFIs how concerns by proposing amendments to they price funding for both OFIs and 14 See 63 FR 35541 (July 7, 1998).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47508 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

The proposed rule does not require identities confidential shields them site address to the public is in its best Farm Credit banks to pay dividends or from unwanted marketing solicitations interest. patronage to their OFIs. It is not or publicity involving their personal appropriate in this instance for FCA financial business. In contrast, OFIs 7. Associations Acting as Farm Credit regulations to impose business practices could benefit from the disclosure of Bank Agents on FCS institutions in the absence of a their identity because it could make Both System and non-System compelling safety and soundness prospective retail borrowers aware of commenters suggested that FCS reason. other credit options. associations could serve as an effective The proposed amendments to We received 33 comments about the § 614.4590 should ensure that Farm conduit for funding OFIs. These disclosure of OFI identities. Twenty-five commenters pointed out that Credit banks treat their OFIs and (25) comments on this issue came from associations equitably. If information associations often have established commercial banks or their trade relationships with local OFIs and other that a Farm Credit bank discloses about associations; two comments were how it prices funding for OFIs and FCS commercial lenders. In many cases, FCS received from a non-bank entity and an associations and existing and potential associations continues to raise concerns OFI, while six comments came from about equitable treatment, an OFI or OFI OFIs already have entered into joint Farm Credit banks and associations. financing arrangements for common applicant could pursue this matter with Reaction was mixed, and neither borrowers. the FCA Ombudsman. commercial banks nor System 5. Ombudsman institutions took unified positions on The Act allows only Farm Credit this issue. Most commenters believe that banks that operate under title I of the Many commercial banks and their there is no valid justification to prohibit Act, not FCS associations, to establish trade associations asked us to appoint funding and discount relationships with an Ombudsman to assist OFI applicants or otherwise restrict Farm Credit banks from disclosing the names of their OFIs. OFIs. However, section 1.5(18) of the and existing OFIs in establishing and Act allows a Farm Credit bank to maintaining good relations with System These commenters assert that delegate to associations such functions funding banks. On February 25, 2003, disseminating this information as the bank deems appropriate. the FCA Board established the Office of promotes the OFI program and informs Similarly, section 2.2(19) of the Act the Ombudsman. According to the farmers, ranchers, and rural allows a direct lender association to public announcement, ‘‘The Office of homeowners of their other credit perform functions delegated to it by its the Ombudsman will be an effective, options. These commenters also believe neutral and confidential resource and that the FCA regulations should treat funding bank. We believe that this liaison for the public.’’ Addressing the FCS associations and OFIs the same authority allows FCS associations to act concerns of OFIs will be one of many when it comes to disclosing their as point-of-contact or servicing agents duties of the Office of the Ombudsman. identities to the public. However, other for the Farm Credit bank in its lending More information about how the commenters opposed the disclosure of relationship with its OFIs. Ombudsman will assist existing and identifying information about OFIs to While associations could not directly potential OFIs will be forthcoming. the public. These commenters believe fund OFIs, they could help make this that requiring such disclosures are an program more successful by acting as 6. Disclosure of OFI Identities unwarranted intrusion by the FCA into intermediaries or servicing agents on private business transactions. Other In the ANPRM, we asked you whether loans from the Farm Credit banks to commenters expressed the view that we should amend our regulations so OFIs. Such arrangements could help OFIs should advertise for customers if Farm Credit banks could disclose the promote new, and support existing, they want to expand market penetration, identities of the OFIs that they fund. local relationships between the rather than relying on Farm Credit Our current regulations on releasing associations and potential and existing banks to inform potential borrowers of information prohibit FCS institutions OFIs. Origination and servicing fees from releasing information about their their other credit options. Some commenters suggested a compromise earned by the associations as agents for borrowers and stockholders to the the banks can also serve to increase the 15 that would allow Farm Credit banks to public. However, these prohibitions associations’ earnings potential. Such apply only to retail borrowers, such as disclose only the identities of OFIs that consent. arrangements could also serve to reduce farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers the servicing costs for smaller OFIs. A The FCA proposes a new rule, and harvesters, and rural homeowners. precedent for this approach is that FCS § 614.4595, which would allow Farm We have never interpreted these associations acted as servicing agents on Credit banks to disclose to the public regulations as prohibiting the release of loans that the former regional banks for the names, addresses, telephone names of FCS associations that borrow cooperatives made to small, local, numbers, and Internet Web site from Farm Credit banks. In fact, farmer cooperatives. In this capacity, information about the identities of FCS addresses of those OFIs that consent in writing. The proposed regulation also FCS associations provided efficient and associations is widely available because effective loan administration for the it is contained in financial statements requires each Farm Credit bank to adopt banks on loans they could have made that Farm Credit banks release to the policies and procedures for: (1) themselves. public. Obtaining and maintaining the consent The ANPRM explained why we of its OFIs; and (2) disclosing this Agreements between the parties can believe that the reasons for protecting information to the public. Similarly, the establish these arrangements and, the identity of retail borrowers do not financial statements of Farm Credit therefore, no new regulation is apply to financial institutions that fund banks should disclose the identity of an necessary. The FCA Board supports and discount loans with a Farm Credit OFI only with its consent. The FCA associations serving as agents for the bank. Retail borrowers often are believes that this regulatory approach Farm Credit banks in establishing and individual consumers, and keeping their empowers each OFI to make the maintaining funding relationships decision whether disclosure of its name, between Farm Credit banks and existing 15 12 CFR part 618, subpart G. address, telephone number, and Web or new OFIs.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47509

8. ‘‘Similar Financial Assistance’’ for associations and OFIs that are more source of funding and liquidity. These OFIs stringent than lending limits imposed ideas could improve relations between Section 1.7(b)(1) of the Act expressly by statute or regulation, as long as it existing OFIs and their funding banks authorizes Farm Credit banks to ‘‘extend does not favor FCS associations over and encourage prospective OFIs to other similar financial assistance’’ to OFIs. establish funding and discount both OFIs and FCS associations that 10. Eligible Collateral Pledged To relationships with Farm Credit banks. extend short- and intermediate-term Support an OFI’s Discounting New regulations or policies credit to their customers. Several Arrangements With a Farm Credit Bank promulgated by the FCA are not required to implement these ideas for commenters asked us to clarify exactly Currently, § 614.4570 requires a what constitutes ‘‘similar financial improving the OFI program. Instead, secured lending relationship between these suggestions request Farm Credit assistance.’’ Similar financial assistance each Farm Credit bank and every OFI. includes lease financing, the issuance of banks to take the initiative and reach Under § 614.4570(b)(2), each FCB or out to existing and prospective OFIs. guarantees, surety bonds, and the ACB must perfect its security interest in issuance of standby letters of credit. The FCA uses this opportunity to any and all obligations and the proceeds convey the commenters’ ideas to Farm These all are services that Farm Credit thereunder that the OFI pledges as Credit banks and provide them with banks routinely provide to their direct collateral, in accordance with applicable guidance about measures that could lender associations and; therefore, they state law. Additionally, § 614.4570(c) make this program more appealing to are also acceptable forms of financial allows each FCB and ACB to require its OFIs. The FCA encourages Farm Credit assistance that Farm Credit banks may OFIs to pledge supplemental collateral banks to develop internal programs and offer their OFIs. Our explanation is to support the lending relationship. consistent with guidance that we These commenters asked the FCA to initiatives that: previously offered Farm Credit banks on amend § 614.4570(b) so OFIs could a. Establish outreach programs for this issue. At this time, no regulatory pledge long-term agricultural mortgage contacting prospective OFIs and amendment is necessary to clarify the loans as primary collateral to their FCS providing them with information about meaning of ‘‘similar financial funding bank. According to the the bank’s services; assistance’’ in section 1.7(b)(1) of the commenters, this approach would b. Routinely publish updated Act. provide OFIs with an additional source information about its products and services for OFIs, and its underwriting 9. Establishment of OFI Lending Limits of funding for agricultural mortgages. The FCA denies this request because standards, funding terms and In 1998, former § 614.4565 was it is incompatible with section 1.7(b) of conditions, and pricing guidelines for repealed, which imposed a lending limit the Act, which requires OFIs to use OFI loans; on the amount of credit that any OFI funds from a Farm Credit bank only for c. Allow OFI representatives to could extend to a single credit risk with the purpose of extending short- and observe meetings of the bank’s board of FCS funds. At the time, we intermediate-term credit to eligible directors; acknowledged that certain OFIs would borrowers for authorized purposes d. Promote better communication remain subject to lending limits that under section 2.4(a) and (b) of the Act. through roundtable discussions, focus their primary regulator imposes under OFIs may, however, pledge agricultural groups, and public discussions that applicable Federal or state law. The mortgages to Farm Credit banks as bring OFIs, associations, and other preamble to the final rule stated that we supplemental, but not primary, interested parties together to discuss expect each Farm Credit bank to collateral under § 614.4570(c). issues of mutual interest; prudently manage risk exposures to Section 614.4570(c) requires each FCB e. Work with OFIs to identify and concentrations in OFI loan portfolios and the ACB to develop policies and remove administrative barriers that through underwriting standards and the loan underwriting standards that hinder OFI access; general financing agreements (GFAs) establish uniform and objective f. Allow FCS associations to act as executed with the OFIs.16 requirements for determining the need intermediaries and servicing agents on After the FCA repealed former and amount of supplemental collateral extensions of credit from the funding § 614.4565, some Farm Credit banks or other credit enhancements that each bank to OFIs, as discussed earlier; and considered imposing a lending limit on OFI must pledge to its System funding both FCS associations and OFIs that is bank as a condition for obtaining credit. g. Identify best practices for OFIs. lower than the lending limit that: (1) The amount, type, and quality of The FCA is strongly committed to the Section 614.4353 establishes for System supplemental collateral or other credit success of the OFI program. OFIs are an direct lender associations; and (2) enhancements specified by such important component of the mission of Federal or state laws place on policies and procedures must be Farm Credit banks to finance depository institutions. During this proportional to the level of risk that the agriculture. By adopting the internal rulemaking, two commenters asked us OFI poses to the System funding bank. programs and initiatives described to enact a new regulation that would Provisions in the GFA or the security above, Farm Credit banks can attract forbid Farm Credit banks from imposing agreement govern collateral pledged by more OFIs to rely on the FCS as a source a lending limit on OFIs that is lower each OFI to its System funding bank. for funding and liquidity which, in turn, than the limit established by applicable will provide eligible farmers, ranchers, Federal or state law. The FCA declines 11. Improving the Relationship Between aquatic producers and harvesters, farm- this request because it is inconsistent Farm Credit Banks and OFIs related businesses, and rural with safety and soundness. Each Farm Several commenters offered various homeowners with more plentiful and Credit bank may establish, by suggestions for improving the affordable credit, as Congress intended. underwriting standards and GFAs, relationship between Farm Credit banks The FCA may provide additional limits on its exposure to concentrations and prospective and existing OFIs. guidance to Farm Credit banks about in the loan portfolios of both FCS These suggestions are confidence- improving the OFI program through building measures that will attract more bookletters, informational memoranda, 16 See 63 FR 36541, 36545 (July 7, 1998). OFIs to rely on Farm Credit banks as a and the Office of the Ombudsman.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47510 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

E. Statutory Issues PCAs and agricultural credit changes are reflected in proposed Many FCS and non-System associations to purchase, as § 615.5172(a) and (b). Other provisions of the proposed rule commenters identified other factors that investments, notes, conditional sale ensure that FCS direct lender they view as impediments to the success contracts, and obligations that evidence associations continue to treat Farmers’ of the OFI program. Several commenters the sale of the items, described above to notes as investments. Several provisions believe that OFIs should be able to fund farmers and ranchers. of the proposed rule contain various or discount long-term mortgage loans on The authority to purchase Farmers’ requirements that are designed to agricultural land and rural homes with notes derives from section 2.2(10) of the enhance the credit quality of Farmers’ Farm Credit banks. Other commenters Act, which permits certain associations notes. For example, proposed observed that OFIs cannot hold voting to invest their funds as may be approved by their funding bank under FCA § 615.5172(b) reaffirms that FCS stock in their System funding banks associations may invest in Farmers’ and; therefore, they are not represented regulations. Because Farmers’ notes are investments, the regulation places a notes that are secured by specified on the banks’ boards of directors. One collateral that the underlying debtor commenter opposed the prohibition on portfolio cap of 15 percent and a concentration limit of 50 percent of pledges to creditors. The FCA also Farm Credit banks extending additional proposes to retain the 15-percent credit to OFIs when the aggregate of capital and surplus on association investments in Farmers’ notes. portfolio cap and the 50-percent their liabilities exceeds ten times their concentration limit in § 615.5172(c). All paid-in and unimpaired capital and Additionally, § 615.5172(d) requires participating dealers and cooperatives to proposed revisions to § 615.5172(c) surplus. Several commenters expressed would either conform this provision to the view that the OFI program should be endorse Farmers’ notes that they sell to these associations with full recourse. amendments in § 615.5172(a) and (b) or modeled after the Federal Home Loan are stylistic changes that enhance the Bank System. These restrictions on the The full recourse requirement is designed as a credit enhancement, clarity of this regulation. Current OFI program are imposed by the Act, § 615.5172(d) requires the seller to not FCA regulations. which is consistent with the treatment of Farmers’ notes as investments. endorse all Farmers’ notes with full III. Investments in Farmers’ Notes Finally, the existing regulation requires recourse. The FCA proposes to update this requirement by allowing other types Our public meeting notice asked associations to contact those notemakers who meet their credit underwriting of credit enhancements, such as interested parties for input on both OFIs guarantees, insurance, reserves of cash and ‘‘other types of partnering standards, and encourage them to become FCS borrowers. or marketable securities, subordinated relationships between System and non- interests, or a combination of such The Farmers’ notes regulation has System lending institutions that would credit enhancements that would become outmoded. The FCA proposes increase the availability of funds to adequately cover the principal amount substantial revisions to § 615.5172 that agriculture and rural America.’’ See 66 of the association’s investment in FR 35428 (July 5, 2001). At the public should reinvigorate this program. The Farmers’ notes. meeting, many commenters encouraged proposed revisions should enable this The purpose of the portfolio cap, the us to promote other arrangements, in program to evolve as agricultural credit concentration limit, and the credit addition to the OFI program, that make markets continually change, so that FCS enhancements in proposed it easier for Farm Credit banks and associations can help non-System § 615.5172(d) is to ensure that Farmers’ associations to provide funding and lenders meet the credit needs of farmers. notes are treated as investments. FCS liquidity to non-System financial However, the purpose of this program associations are credit cooperatives, and institutions and merchants that extend remains the same, namely that FCS the portfolio cap and concentration credit to agriculture. Many commenters associations will continue to provide limit ensure that most assets in expressed their desire for more flexible funding and liquidity to other association portfolios are loans to and informal arrangements between FCS agricultural creditors. members. The full recourse requirement and non-System institutions. The FCA proposes four major changes and the other credit enhancements in The FCA is exploring a variety of to the Farmers’ notes regulation so that § 615.5172(d) lessens the credit risk that different options that could improve this program will be more responsive to FCS associations assume from Farmers’ cooperation between FCS and non- the needs of other creditors and their notes. System lenders that, in turn, would customers. First, all entities that The FCA proposes to delete the increase the flow of credit to agriculture routinely extend agricultural or aquatic provision in § 615.5172 that currently and rural America. For example, we are credit in the normal course of their requires associations to contact the currently reviewing the regulatory business may participate in this farmers or ranchers who are indebted on treatment of loan syndications. Future program. In the past, this program was these Farmers’ notes, and encourage rulemakings may suggest other restricted to private dealers and them to become FCS borrowers. This regulatory approaches for enhancing cooperatives. Now, merchants and all requirement may be an impediment to partnering arrangements between FCS types of creditors will be able to sell the success of the Farmers’ notes and non-System lenders. Farmers’ notes to FCS associations. program. Other creditors may be Our efforts in this rulemaking focus Second, the FCA proposes to expand reluctant to sell Farmers’ notes to FCS on the Farmers’ notes program. The FCA this program to long-term loans. Third, associations as long as the regulation originally approved this program in all FCS direct lenders may now invest requires such associations to lure away 1966. The purpose of the Farmers’ notes in Farmers’ notes, whereas this program their customers. program is to provide liquidity to was previously limited to FCS The proposed revisions to the private dealers and cooperatives that associations that had only short- and Farmers’ notes regulation would give sell farm machinery, supplies, intermediate-term lending authorities. the System a greater role in providing equipment, home appliances, and other Fourth, FCS associations will be funding and liquidity to those who items of a capital nature to eligible allowed to invest in notes from aquatic extend credit to agriculture during the farmers and ranchers. The Farmers’ producers and harvesters and farm- normal course of business. The Farmers’ notes regulation, § 615.5172, allows related businesses. All these proposed notes program complements the OFI

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47511

program. Farm Credit banks provide associations. The overwhelming recourse on all loans they fund or funding and liquidity to OFIs, whereas majority of the commenters supported discount with a Farm Credit bank. FCS direct lender associations provide the concept of differentiating the risk Proposed § 615.5172(d) requires full these services through the Farmers’ weighting of OFI loans based on the recourse or another form of credit notes program. In both programs, the structure and risk-mitigating enhancement for Farmers’ notes as FCS acts as a source of funding and characteristics of the OFIs. Under this described in the proposed rule. liquidity to agricultural creditors who approach, OFIs that are Federal- or Proposed § 615.5210 would establish need these services so they can meet the state-regulated depository institutions or a 50-percent risk weighting for OFIs or credit needs of their customers. As a their affiliates would be risk-weighted at Farmers’ notes sold by entities that: (1) result, the System fulfills its mission to 20 percent, while unregulated non-bank Are not OECD banks but otherwise meet finance agriculture and related activities OFIs might be risk weighted at a higher similar capital and operational in rural America, as Congress intended. percentage. One unregulated OFI standards; and (2) carry an investment From the FCA’s perspective, agriculture opposed any change to the risk grade or higher NRSRO rating. Again, benefits when System and non-System weighting of OFI loans by Farm Credit full recourse or another appropriate lenders cooperate to make affordable banks. Three commenters, including credit enhancement is a condition for credit more available for farmers, two FCBs, suggested that Farm Credit the 50-percent risk weighting. The ranchers, aquatic producers and banks apply the same risk weight to all proposed rule establishes a 100-percent harvesters, farm-related businesses, and OFI and FCS association loans. rural homeowners. The FCA proposes amendments to risk weighting for all OFIs and Farmers’ notes that do not qualify for the 20- IV. Capital Risk Weighting § 615.5210 that would permit Farm Credit banks to risk weight their loans percent or 50-percent risk weight We have previously interpreted our to OFIs that are Federal- or state- categories. regulations as requiring funding banks regulated depository institutions, or Applying lower risk weightings for to risk weight loans to OFIs at 100 their affiliates, at 20 percent. Under this OFIs that are considered less risky percent. In contrast, existing proposal, Farm Credit banks would would allow the FCBs to hold less § 615.5210(f)(2)(ii)(I) allows Farm Credit continue to risk weight loans to OFIs capital to support such loans. This banks to risk weight loans to System that are unregulated, or exhibit a higher approach is consistent with the associations at 20 percent. This means risk profile at either 50 or 100 percent, direction from the proposed Basel Farm Credit banks currently hold more depending on certain factors, which are Accord revisions, which are currently capital (at a minimum) for loans to OFIs explained below. Although we received under consideration. Lowering the than loans to System associations, no comments about how to risk weight capital requirements for OFI loans will which in many cases have similar Farmers’ notes, the proposed rule would lower the operating costs of the OFI structures and financial conditions as establish similar risk weights for these program to Farm Credit banks, which in OFIs. investments. turn should lower the cost of funds to The ANPRM acknowledged that many The proposed rule would establish a OFIs and ultimately reduce interest OFIs, particularly commercial banks or 20-percent risk weighting for OFIs or rates charged to OFI borrowers. These their affiliates might pose no greater risk Farmers’ notes sold by entities that are outcomes would advance the System’s to their FCS funding bank than System either: (1) An equivalent to an OECD 18 associations. However, unregulated non- public mission to provide affordable bank (Federal- or state-regulated credit on a consistent basis to bank OFIs could expose their System depository institution); (2) subsidiaries funding bank to greater risk than FCS agriculture and rural America. Greater of OECD equivalent banks or bank flexibility for the risk weighting of OFI associations and regulated OFIs. The holding companies and carry full preamble to the ANPRM explained, in loans should provide the Farm Credit guarantees from such parent entities; or banks additional incentives to expand detail, the risk-reducing features of FCS (3) an institution that carries one of the associations that justified a 20-percent their lending to both existing and new 17 three highest ratings from a nationally OFIs. risk weighting. recognized statistical rating organization Furthermore, as the preamble to the (NRSRO).19 V. Regulatory Flexibility Act ANPRM observed, the risk-weighting Additional criteria for a 20-percent categories in the FCA’s capital risk weighting is that the obligation Pursuant to section 605(b) of the regulations are patterned after the risk- must have full recourse or another form Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 weighting categories in the 1988 Basel of credit enhancement. Under et seq.), the FCA hereby certifies that the Accord, which the other Federal bank § 614.4570(a), OFIs must pledge full proposed rule will not have a significant regulatory agencies adopted and applied economic impact on a substantial to all depository institutions. As a 18 OECD means the group of countries that are full number of small entities. Each of the result, many, but not all, OFIs have the members of the Organization for Economic banks in the System, considered same risk-reducing features as FCS Cooperation and Development, regardless of entry together with its affiliated associations, associations. The ANPRM asked several date, as well as countries that have concluded has assets and annual income in excess special lending arrangements with the International questions about whether and how we Monetary Fund’s General Arrangement to Borrow, of the amounts that would qualify them should amend our capital regulations to excluding any country that has rescheduled its as small entities. Therefore, System address the risk weighting of OFI loans external sovereign debt within the previous 5 years. institutions are not ‘‘small entities’’ as by Farm Credit banks. For purposes of United States banking operations, defined in the Regulatory Flexibility We received 38 comments on this all Federally regulated depository institutions are considered the equivalent of OECD banks. Act. issue during the ANPRM comment 19 Nationally recognized statistical rating List of Subjects period and as part of the public meeting organization means an entity recognized by the testimony from 28 commercial banks, Division of Market Regulation of the Securities and 12 CFR Part 614 two non-bank entities and OFIs, five Exchange Commission (or any successor Division) (Commission) as a nationally recognized statistical Farm Credit banks, and two rating organization for various purposes, including Agriculture, Banks, banking, Foreign the Commission’s uniform net capital requirements trade, Reporting and recordkeeping 17 See 65 FR 21151 (April 20, 2000). for brokers and dealers. requirements, Rural areas.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47512 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

12 CFR Part 615 volume to eligible borrowers who number, and Internet Web site address Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, conduct agricultural or aquatic of any affiliated OFI only if such OFI, banking, Government securities, operations in the chartered territory of through a duly authorized officer, Investments, Rural areas. another Farm Credit bank unless it consents in writing. Each Farm Credit notifies such bank in writing within five Bank and agricultural credit bank must For the reasons stated in the (5) business days of receiving the OFI’s adopt policies and procedures for preamble, parts 614 and 615, chapter VI, application for financing. Two or more obtaining and maintaining the consent title 12 of the Code of Federal Farm Credit banks cannot of its OFIs and for disclosing this Regulations are proposed to be amended simultaneously fund the same OFI. information to the public. as follows: 4. Revise § 614.4560(d) to read as follows: PART 615—FUNDING AND FISCAL PART 614—LOAN POLICIES AND AFFAIRS, LOAN POLICIES AND OPERATIONS § 614.4560 Requirements for OFI funding OPERATIONS, AND FUNDING relationships. 1. The authority citation for part 614 OPERATIONS continues to read as follows: * * * * * (d) The borrower rights requirements 7. The authority citation for part 615 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, in part C of title IV of the Act, and the continues to read as follows: 4106, and 4128; secs. 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, regulations in subparts K, L, and Authority: Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.10, 1.11, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.11, 3.25, 4.3, 2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, §§ 614.4516, 614.4517, 614.4518, and 4.3A, 4.9, 4.14B, 4.25, 5.9, 5.17, 6.20, 6.26, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.13, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 614.4519 of subpart N of part 614 shall 8.0, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.12 of the 4.14D, 4.14E, 4.18, 4.18A, 4.19, 4.25, 4.26, apply to all loans that an OFI funds or Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2018, 4.27, 4.28, 4.36, 4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, discounts through a Farm Credit Bank 2019, 2020, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2093, 7.6, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of the Farm Credit or agricultural credit bank, unless such 2122, 2128, 2132, 2146, 2154, 2154a, 2160, Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, loans are subject to the Truth-in- 2202b, 2211, 2243, 2252, 2278b, 2278b-6, 2018, 2019, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 2279aa, 2279aa-3, 2279aa-4, 2279aa-6, 2093, 2094, 2097, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128, 2279aa-7, 2279aa-8, 2279aa-10, 2279aa-12); 2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2199, * * * * * sec. 301(a) of Pub. L. 100–233, 101 Stat. 1568, 2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d, 2202e, 5. Amend § 614.4590 by adding new 1608. 2206, 2206a, 2207, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, § 614.4590 Equitable treatment of OFIs and Subpart F—Property, Transfers of 2279a–2, 2279b, 2279c–1, 2279f, 2279f–1, Farm Credit System associations. 2279aa, 2279aa–5); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100– Capital, and Other Investments 233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639. * * * * * 8. Revise § 615.5172 to read as (c) Upon request, each Farm Credit follows: Subpart P—Farm Credit Bank and Bank or agricultural credit bank must Agricultural Credit Bank Financing of provide each OFI and OFI applicant a § 615.5172 Investments by associations in Other Financing Institutions copy of its policies, procedures, loan Farmers’ notes. underwriting standards, and pricing (a) In accordance with policies 2. Revise § 614.4540(c) to read as guidelines for OFIs. The pricing prescribed by the board of directors of follows: § 614.4540 Other financing guidelines must identify the specific the Farm Credit Bank or agricultural institution access to Farm Credit Banks components that make up the cost of credit bank that funds it and each direct and agricultural credit banks for funds for OFIs and the amount of these lender association, each direct lender funding, discount, and other similar components in basis points. association may invest in notes, sales financial assistance. (d) Upon request of any OFI or OFI contracts, and other similar obligations * * * * * applicant, each Farm Credit Bank or (hereafter Farmers’ notes) that eligible (c) Underwriting standards. Each agricultural credit bank must explain in farmers, ranchers, producers and Farm Credit Bank and agricultural credit writing the reasons for any variation in harvesters of aquatic products, and bank shall establish objective policies, the overall funding costs it charges to farm-related businesses give to entities procedures, pricing guidelines, and loan OFIs and direct lender associations. The that routinely extend credit in the underwriting standards for determining written explanation must compare the normal course of their business. the creditworthiness of each OFI cost of funds that the Farm Credit Bank (b) Farmers’ notes must be secured by: applicant. A copy of such policies and or agricultural credit bank charges the (1) Collateral of a capital nature that guidelines shall be made available, aggregate of its OFIs and affiliated direct eligible farmers, ranchers, producers upon request to each OFI and OFI lender associations. When possible, the and harvesters of aquatic products use applicant. written explanation shall compare the in their agricultural or aquatic * * * * * costs of funding that the bank charges operations or for their household needs; 3. Revise § 614.4550 to read as several OFIs and FCS associations that (2) Collateral of a capital nature that follows: are similar in size. However, the Farm eligible farm-related businesses use in Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank providing farm-related services to § 614.4550 Place of discount. must not disclose financial or eligible farmers and ranchers. A Farm Credit Bank or agricultural confidential information about any (c) The total amount that an credit bank may provide funding, individual FCS association. association may invest in Farmers’ discounting, or other similar financial 6. Amend part 614, subpart P by notes, at any one time, must not exceed assistance to any OFI applicant. adding a new § 614.4595 to read as 15 percent of the balance of its loans However, a Farm Credit Bank or follows: outstanding at the close of the agricultural credit bank cannot fund, association’s preceding fiscal year. In discount, or extend other similar § 614.4595 Public disclosure about OFIs. addition, the total amount that an financial assistance to an OFI that A Farm Credit Bank or agricultural association may carry as investments in maintains its headquarters, or has more credit bank may disclose to members of Farmers’ notes originated by any one than 50 percent of its outstanding loan the public the name, address, telephone selling entity must not exceed 50

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47513

percent of the association’s capital and from a NRSRO or the investment is ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking surplus. guaranteed by a parent company with (NPRM). (d) All Farmers’ notes in which an such a rating. If the entity has more than association invests shall have at least one NRSRO rating the lowest rating SUMMARY: This document proposes the one or a combination of the following shall apply. adoption of a new airworthiness credit enhancements: (ii) Maintain capital to total assets of directive (AD) that is applicable to (1) The selling entity must endorse at least 9 percent. certain Boeing Model 747–400, –400D, these Farmers’ notes with full recourse; (iii) * * * and –400F series airplanes; equipped (2) A guarantee by a creditworthy (C) Claims on other financing with GE or P&W series engines. This third party covers the full principal institutions that: proposal would require modifications amount of the Farmers’ note; (1) Are not covered by the provisions and functional tests of the wiring of the (3) Acceptable insurance covers the of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(M) of this section, wire integration unit and the air supply principal amount of each Farmers’ note; but otherwise meet similar capital, risk control test unit (ASCTU) of the engine (4) The selling entity or a third party identification and control, and bleed air distribution system. This maintains a reserve of cash or operational standards, or action is necessary to prevent marketable securities in an amount that (2) Carry an investment-grade or inadvertent commanded shutdown of equals or exceeds 10 percent of the higher NRSRO rating, and the engine bleed air distribution systems principal amount of each Farmers’ note; (3) The other financing institution has due to an erroneous ASCTU command. (5) The selling entity or a third party endorsed all obligations to its Farm Such a shutdown could cause holds a subordinated interest that equals Credit funding bank with full recourse. depressurization of the airplane and or exceeds 10 percent of the principal (D) Investments in Farmers’ notes subsequent ice build-up on the engine amount of each Farmers’ note; or that: inlets during descent, which could (6) The entire principal amount of the (1) Provide the Farm Credit System result in ingestion of ice into the Farmers’ notes is covered by a direct lender association full recourse engine(s) and consequent loss of thrust combination of credit enhancements against a seller or has other acceptable on one or more engines. This action is listed in this section. credit enhancements specified in intended to address the identified unsafe condition. Subpart H—Capital Adequacy § 615.5172(d), and (2) The seller is not covered by the DATES: Comments must be received by 9. Amend § 615.5210 by adding new provisions of paragraph N (20-percent September 25, 2003. paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(M) and (N); risk weight), but otherwise meets ADDRESSES: Submit comments in (f)(2)(iii)(C); and (f)(2)(iv)(E) and (F) to similar capital, risk identification and triplicate to the Federal Aviation read as follows: control, and operational standards, or Administration (FAA), Transport (3) The credit provider carries an Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, § 615.5210 Computation of the permanent investment-grade or higher NRSRO capital ratio. Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM– rating. 173–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., * * * * * (iv) * * * Renton, Washington 98055–4056. (f) * * * (E) Claims on other financing Comments may be inspected at this (2) * * * institutions that do not otherwise location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., (ii) * * * qualify for a lower risk weight category (M) Claims on other financing Monday through Friday, except Federal under this section. institutions provided that: holidays. Comments may be submitted (F) Investments in Farmers’ notes that (1) The other financing institution via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments do not otherwise qualify for a lower risk qualifies as an OECD bank or it is may also be sent via the Internet using weight under this section. owned and controlled by an OECD bank the following address: 9-anm- that guarantees the claim, or * * * * * [email protected]. Comments sent (2) The other financing institution has Dated: August 6, 2003. via fax or the Internet must contain a rating in one of the highest three Jeanette C. Brinkley, ‘‘Docket No. 2002–NM–173–AD’’ in the investment-grade rating categories from Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. subject line and need not be submitted a NRSRO or the claim is guaranteed by [FR Doc. 03–20360 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] in triplicate. Comments sent via the a parent company with such a rating, Internet as attached electronic files must BILLING CODE 6705–01–P and be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or (3) The other financing institution has 2000 or ASCII text. endorsed all obligations it pledges to its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The service information referenced in funding Farm Credit bank with full the proposed rule may be obtained from recourse. Federal Aviation Administration Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, (N) Investments in Farmers’ notes P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington that: 14 CFR Part 39 98124–2207. This information may be (1) Provide the Farm Credit System examined at the FAA, Transport direct lender association full recourse [Docket No. 2002–NM–173–AD] Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind against a seller or has other acceptable RIN 2120–AA64 Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. credit enhancements specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don § 615.5172(d), and Airworthiness Directives; Boeing (2) Are guaranteed by an OECD bank Eiford, Aerospace Engineer, Systems Model 747–400, –400D, and –400F and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, or other institution that qualifies for a Series Airplanes Equipped With 20-percent risk weight under this FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification General Electric (GE) or Pratt & Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, section, or Whitney (P&W) Series Engines (3) Are sold by entities that: Washington 98055–4056; telephone (i) Are rated in one of the highest AGENCY: Federal Aviation (425) 917–6465; fax (425) 917–6590. three investment-grade rating categories Administration, DOT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47514 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Comments Invited When the ASCTU is in the identified individual AD; however, this AD Interested persons are invited to configuration, as found in the airplane identifies the office authorized to participate in the making of the incident above, it erroneously senses a approve alternative methods of proposed rule by submitting such strut overheat input. When the ASCTU compliance. written data, views, or arguments as identifies a strut overheat condition, the Work Hour Rate Increase they may desire. Communications shall ASCTU will command shutdown of the bleed air distribution systems. The We have reviewed the figures we use identify the Rules Docket number and to calculate the labor rate to do the be submitted in triplicate to the address ASCTU will identify a normal condition instead of a strut overheat condition if required actions. To account for various specified above. All communications inflationary costs in the airline industry, received on or before the closing date the jumper wires are installed properly. Inadvertent commanded shutdown of we find it appropriate to increase the for comments, specified above, will be the engine bleed air distribution systems labor rate used in these calculations considered before taking action on the due to an erroneous ASCTU command, from $60 per work hour to $65 per work proposed rule. The proposals contained could cause depressurization of the hour. The economic impact information, in this action may be changed in light airplane and subsequent ice build-up on below, has been revised to reflect this of the comments received. the engine inlets during descent, which increase in the specified hourly labor Submit comments using the following could result in ingestion of ice into the rate. format: engine(s) and consequent loss of thrust • Organize comments issue-by-issue. Cost Impact on one or more engines. For example, discuss a request to There are approximately 414 change the compliance time and a Explanation of Relevant Service airplanes of the affected design in the request to change the service bulletin Information worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that reference as two separate issues. 70 airplanes of U.S. registry would be • The FAA has reviewed and approved For each issue, state what specific Boeing Service Bulletin 747–36A2136, affected by this proposed AD, that it change to the proposed AD is being Revision 1, dated January 17, 2002, would take approximately 8 work hours requested. per airplane to accomplish the proposed • which describes procedures for Include justification (e.g., reasons or modifications and resistance tests and modifications and functional tests, and data) for each request. post-installation ASCTU tests of the that the average labor rate is $65 per Comments are specifically invited on wiring of the wire integration unit work hour. Required parts would be the overall regulatory, economic, (WIU) and the ASCTU of the engine minimal. Based on these figures, the environmental, and energy aspects of bleed air distribution system. The cost impact of the proposed the proposed rule. All comments modifications include wiring changes modifications on U.S. operators is submitted will be available, both before between the WIU and ASCTU, and estimated to be $36,400, or $520 per and after the closing date for comments, wiring changes to the WIU. airplane. in the Rules Docket for examination by The Boeing service bulletin specifies The cost impact figure discussed interested persons. A report accomplishment of Hamilton above is based on assumptions that no summarizing each FAA-public contact Sundstrand Service Bulletin 36–186, operator has yet accomplished any of concerned with the substance of this dated March 30, 2001. The Hamilton the proposed requirements of this AD proposal will be filed in the Rules Sundstrand service bulletin describes action, and that no operator would Docket. procedures for modification of the accomplish those actions in the future if Commenters wishing the FAA to ASCTU by reworking the circuit card this proposed AD were not adopted. The acknowledge receipt of their comments assemblies of the bleed controllers. cost impact figures discussed in AD submitted in response to this action Accomplishment of the actions rulemaking actions represent only the must submit a self-addressed, stamped specified in the service bulletins is time necessary to perform the specific postcard on which the following intended to adequately address the actions actually required by the AD. statement is made: ‘‘Comments to identified unsafe condition. These figures typically do not include Docket Number 2002–NM–173–AD.’’ incidental costs, such as the time The postcard will be date stamped and Explanation of Requirements of required to gain access and close up, returned to the commenter. Proposed Rule planning time, or time necessitated by Since an unsafe condition has been Availability of NPRMs other administrative actions. identified that is likely to exist or Any person may obtain a copy of this develop on other products of this same Regulatory Impact NPRM by submitting a request to the type design, the proposed AD would The regulations proposed herein FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, require accomplishment of the actions would not have a substantial direct ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. specified in the service bulletins effect on the States, on the relationship 2002–NM–173–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, described previously. between the national Government and SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. the States, or on the distribution of Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the power and responsibilities among the Discussion Proposed AD various levels of government. Therefore, The FAA has received a report from On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a it is determined that this proposal one operator that, on two separate new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR would not have federalism implications occasions, there was a loss of airflow 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the under Executive Order 13132. from all four bleed air distribution FAA’s airworthiness directives system. For the reasons discussed above, I systems on a Model 747 series airplane. The regulation now includes material certify that this proposed regulation (1) Investigation revealed that there were that relates to altered products, special is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ incorrect connections of certain jumper flight permits, and alternative methods under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not wires to the air supply control test unit of compliance. Because we have now a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT (ASCTU) that caused it to indicate an included this material in part 39, we no Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 erroneous strut overheat condition. longer need to include it in each FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47515

promulgated, will not have a significant Credit for Original Issue of Boeing Service beginning of your comments. You may economic impact, positive or negative, Bulletin also submit comments on the Internet at on a substantial number of small entities (b) Modifications and tests accomplished http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the under the criteria of the Regulatory before the effective date of this AD per public docket containing the proposal, Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–36A2136, any comments received, and any final regulatory evaluation prepared for this dated April 12, 2001, are considered disposition in person in the Dockets action is contained in the Rules Docket. acceptable for compliance with the Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., corresponding actions specified in paragraph A copy of it may be obtained by (a) of this AD. Monday through Friday, except Federal contacting the Rules Docket at the holidays. The Docket Office (telephone location provided under the caption Part Installation 1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level ADDRESSES. (c) As of the effective date of this AD, no of the Department of Transportation person may install on any airplane an NASSIF Building at the above address. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 ASCTU having a part number listed in the An informal docket may also be Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation ‘‘Old Part Number’’ column in the table examined during normal business hours safety, Safety. specified in paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton at the office of the Regional Air Traffic The Proposed Amendment Sundstrand Service Bulletin 36–186, dated Division, Federal Aviation March 30, 2001. Administration, Manager, Operations Accordingly, pursuant to the Branch, AAL–530, Federal Aviation authority delegated to me by the Alternative Methods of Compliance Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Administrator, the Federal Aviation (d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587. Administration proposes to amend part Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations FAA, is authorized to approve alternative (14 CFR part 39) as follows: methods of compliance for this AD. Derril Bergt, AAL–531, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Issued in Renton, Washington, on August Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 5, 2003. DIRECTIVES telephone number (907) 271–2796; fax: Kalene C. Yanamura, (907) 271–2850; email: 1. The authority citation for part 39 Acting Manager, Transport Airplane [email protected]. Internet address: continues to read as follows: Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. [FR Doc. 03–20389 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P § 39.13 [Amended] Comments Invited 2. Section 39.13 is amended by Interested parties are invited to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION adding the following new airworthiness participate in this proposed rulemaking directive: Federal Aviation Administration by submitting such written data, views, Boeing: Docket 2002–NM–173–AD. or arguments as they may desire. Applicability: Model 747–400, –400D, and 14 CFR Part 71 Comments that provide the factual basis –400F series airplanes; as listed in Boeing supporting the views and suggestions Service Bulletin 747–36A2136, Revision 1, [Docket No. FAA–2003–15694; Airspace presented are particularly helpful in dated January 17, 2002; certificated in any Docket No. 03–AAL–12] developing reasoned regulatory category. decisions on the proposal. Comments Compliance: Required as indicated, unless Proposed Establishment of Class E accomplished previously. Airspace; Chevak, AK are specifically invited on the overall To prevent inadvertent commanded regulatory, aeronautical, economic, shutdown of the engine bleed air distribution AGENCY: Federal Aviation environmental, and energy-related systems due to an erroneous air supply Administration (FAA), DOT. aspects of the proposal. control test unit (ASCTU) command, which ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Communications should identify both could cause depressurization of the airplane docket numbers and be submitted in and subsequent ice build-up on the engine SUMMARY: This action proposes to triplicate to the address listed above. inlets during descent, which could result in establish new Class E airspace at Commenters wishing the FAA to ingestion of ice into the engine(s) and Chevak, AK. Two new Standard acknowledge receipt of their comments consequent loss of thrust on one or more Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) engines, accomplish the following: on this notice must submit with those are being published for the Chevak comments a self-addressed, stamped Modifications/Tests Airport. There is no existing Class E postcard on which the following (a) Within 18 months after the effective airspace to contain aircraft executing the statement is made: ‘‘Comments to date of this AD: Do the modifications and new instrument approaches at Chevak, Docket No. FAA–2003–15694/Airspace functional tests of the wiring of the wire AK. Adoption of this proposal would Docket No. 03–AAL–12.’’ The postcard integration unit (WIU) and the ASCTU of the result in the establishment of Class E engine bleed air distribution system specified will be date/time stamped and returned airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) to the commenter. in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this above the surface at Chevak, AK. AD, per the Accomplishment Instructions of All communications received on or Boeing Service Bulletin 747–36A2136, DATES: Comments must be received on before the specified closing date for Revision 1, dated January 17, 2002. or before September 25, 2003. comments will be considered before (1) Do the wiring changes between the WIU ADDRESSES: Send comments on the taking action on the proposed rule. The and ASCTU and the wiring changes to the proposal to the Docket Management proposal contained in this notice may WIU. System, U.S. Department of be changed in light of comments (2) Remove the existing ASCTU and install Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 received. All comments submitted will a new or reworked ASCTU. (3) Before further flight after Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC be available for examination in the accomplishment of paragraphs (a)(1) and 20590–0001. You must identify the public docket both before and after the (a)(2) of this AD: Do the resistance tests and docket number FAA–2003–15694/ closing date for comments. A report post-installation tests. Airspace Docket No. 03–AAL–12, at the summarizing each substantive public

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47516 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

contact with FAA personnel concerned CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace airspace within the Hooper Bay, Alaska Class with this rulemaking will be filed in the designations listed in this document E airspace area. docket. would be published subsequently in the * * * * * Order. Availability of Notice of Proposed Issued in Anchorage, AK, on August 4, The FAA has determined that this Rulemakings (NPRM’s) 2003. proposed regulation only involves an Judith G. Heckl, An electronic copy of this document established body of technical Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan may be downloaded through the regulations for which frequent and Region. Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently routine amendments are necessary to [FR Doc. 03–20398 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] published rulemaking documents can keep them operationally current. It, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P also be accessed through the FAA’s web therefore —(1) is not a ‘‘significant page at http://www.faa.gov or the regulatory action’’ under Executive Superintendent of Document’s web page Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies Additionally, any person may obtain and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February Federal Aviation Administration a copy of this notice by submitting a 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant request to the Federal Aviation preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 14 CFR Part 71 Administration, Office of Air Traffic the anticipated impact is so minimal. Airspace Management, ATA–400, 800 [Docket No. FAA–2003–15693; Airspace Since this is a routine matter that will Docket No. 03–AAL–13] Independence Avenue, SW., only affect air traffic procedures and air Washington, DC 20591 or by calling navigation, it is certified that this rule, Proposed Establishment of Class E (202) 267–8783. Communications must when promulgated, will not have a Airspace; Akiak, AK identify both docket numbers for this significant economic impact on a notice. Persons interested in being substantial number of small entities AGENCY: Federal Aviation placed on a mailing list for future under the criteria of the Regulatory Administration (FAA), DOT. NPRMs should contact the FAA’s Office Flexibility Act. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish new Class E airspace at Akiak, 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Airspace, Incorporation by reference, AK. Two new Standard Instrument Distribution System, which describes Navigation (air). the application procedure. Approach Procedures (SIAP) are being The Proposed Amendment published for the Akiak Airport. There The Proposal In consideration of the foregoing, the is no existing Class E airspace to contain The FAA is considering an Federal Aviation Administration aircraft executing the new instrument amendment to the Code of Federal proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as approaches at Akiak, AK. Adoption of Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by follows: this proposal would result in the establishing new Class E airspace at establishment of Class E airspace Chevak, AK. The intended effect of this PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the proposal is to establish Class E airspace CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND surface at Akiak, AK. upward from 700 ft. above the surface, CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; DATES: Comments must be received on to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING or before September 25, 2003. operations at Chevak, AK. POINTS ADDRESSES: Send comments on the The FAA Instrument Flight proposal to the Docket Management Procedures Production and 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR System, U.S. Department of Maintenance Branch has developed two part 71 continues to read as follows: Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 new SIAPs for the Chevak Airport. The Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC new approaches are (1) Area Navigation 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 20590–0001. You must identify the (Global Positioning System) (RNAV 1963 Comp., p. 389. docket number FAA–2003–15693/ GPS) Runway (RWY) 14, original; and § 71.1 [Amended] Airspace Docket No. 03–AAL–13, at the (2) RNAV (GPS) Runway 32, original. beginning of your comments. You may 2. The incorporation by reference in New Class E controlled airspace also submit comments on the Internet at 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation extending upward from 700 ft. above the http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the Administration Order 7400.9K, surface within the Chevak, Alaska area public docket containing the proposal, Airspace Designations and Reporting would be created by this action. The any comments received, and any final Points, dated August 30, 2002, and proposed airspace is sufficient to disposition in person in the Dockets effective September 16, 2002, is to be contain aircraft executing the new Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., amended as follows: instrument procedures for the Chevak Monday through Friday, except Federal Airport. * * * * * holidays. The Docket Office (telephone The area would be depicted on 1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level aeronautical charts for pilot reference. Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the of the Department of Transportation The coordinates for this airspace docket surface of the earth. NASSIF Building at the above address. are based on North American Datum 83. An informal docket may also be The Class E airspace areas designated as * * * * * examined during normal business hours 700/1200 foot transition areas are AAL AK E5 Chevak, AK [New] at the office of the Regional Air Traffic published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Chevak Airport, AK Division, Federal Aviation Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations (Lat. 61°32′01″ N., long. 165°35′01″ W.) Administration, Manager, Operations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, That airspace extending upward from 700 Branch, AAL–530, Federal Aviation 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, which is incorporated by reference in 14 radius of the Chevak Airport excluding that Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47517

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Independence Avenue, SW., the anticipated impact is so minimal. Derril Bergt, AAL–531, Federal Aviation Washington, DC 20591 or by calling Since this is a routine matter that will Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, (202) 267–8783. Communications must only affect air traffic procedures and air Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; identify both docket numbers for this navigation, it is certified that this rule, telephone number (907) 271–2796; fax: notice. Persons interested in being when promulgated, will not have a (907) 271–2850; email: placed on a mailing list for future significant economic impact on a [email protected]. Internet address: NPRM’s should contact the FAA’s substantial number of small entities http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, under the criteria of the Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to request a copy of Advisory Circular Flexibility Act. No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Comments Invited Rulemaking Distribution System, which List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Interested parties are invited to describes the application procedure. participate in this proposed rulemaking Airspace, Incorporation by reference, The Proposal by submitting such written data, views, Navigation (air). or arguments as they may desire. The FAA is considering an The Proposed Amendment Comments that provide the factual basis amendment to the Code of Federal supporting the views and suggestions Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by In consideration of the foregoing, the presented are particularly helpful in establishing new Class E airspace at Federal Aviation Administration developing reasoned regulatory Akiak, AK. The intended effect of this proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as decisions on the proposal. Comments proposal is to establish Class E airspace follows: are specifically invited on the overall upward from 700 ft. above the surface, regulatory, aeronautical, economic, to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, environmental, and energy-related operations at Akiak, AK. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND aspects of the proposal. The FAA Instrument Flight CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Communications should identify both Procedures Production and AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING docket numbers and be submitted in Maintenance Branch has developed two POINTS triplicate to the address listed above. new SIAPs for the Akiak Airport. The Commenters wishing the FAA to new approaches are (1) Area Navigation 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR acknowledge receipt of their comments (Global Positioning System) (RNAV part 71 continues to read as follows: on this notice must submit with those GPS) Runway (RWY) 03, original; and comments a self-addressed, stamped (2) RNAV (GPS) Runway 21, original. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, postcard on which the following New Class E controlled airspace 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– statement is made: ‘‘Comments to extending upward from 700 ft. above the 1963 Comp., p. 389. Docket No. FAA–2003–15693/Airspace surface within the Akiak, Alaska area § 71.1 [Amended] Docket No. 03–AAL–13.’’ The postcard would be created by this action. The will be date/time stamped and returned proposed airspace is sufficient to 2. The incorporation by reference in to the commenter. contain aircraft executing the new 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation All communications received on or instrument procedures for the Akiak Administration Order 7400.9K, before the specified closing date for Airport. Airspace Designations and Reporting comments will be considered before The area would be depicted on Points, dated August 30, 2002, and taking action on the proposed rule. The aeronautical charts for pilot reference. effective September 16, 2002, is to be proposal contained in this notice may The coordinates for this airspace docket amended as follows: are based on North American Datum 83. be changed in light of comments * * * * * received. All comments submitted will The Class E airspace areas designated as be available for examination in the 700/1200 foot transition areas are Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending public docket both before and after the published in paragraph 6005 in FAA upward from 700 feet or more above the closing date for comments. A report Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations surface of the earth. summarizing each substantive public and Reporting Points, dated August 30, * * * * * contact with FAA personnel concerned 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, AAL AK E5 Akiak, AK [New] with this rulemaking will be filed in the which is incorporated by reference in 14 docket. CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace Akiak Airport, AK designations listed in this document (Lat. 60°54′10″ N., long. 161°13′50″ W.) Availability of Notice of Proposed would be published subsequently in the That airspace extending upward from 700 Rulemakings (NPRM’s) Order. feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile An electronic copy of this document The FAA has determined that this radius of the Akiak Airport excluding that may be downloaded through the proposed regulation only involves an airspace within the Bethel, Alaska Class E Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently established body of technical airspace area. regulations for which frequent and published rulemaking documents can * * * * * also be accessed through the FAA’s web routine amendments are necessary to page at http://www.faa.gov or the keep them operationally current. It, Issued in Anchorage, AK, on August 4, Superintendent of Document’s web page therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant 2003 at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. regulatory action’’ under Executive Judith G. Heckl, Additionally, any person may obtain Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan a copy of this notice by submitting a rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies Region. request to the Federal Aviation and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February [FR Doc. 03–20399 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Administration, Office of Air Traffic 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Airspace Management, ATA–400, 800 preparation of a regulatory evaluation as

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47518 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION by submitting such written data, views, The Proposal or arguments as they may desire. The FAA is considering an Federal Aviation Administration Comments that provide the factual basis amendment to the Code of Federal supporting the views and suggestions Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by 14 CFR Part 71 presented are particularly helpful in establishing new Class E airspace at [Docket No. FAA–2003–15091; Airspace developing reasoned regulatory Kotlik, AK. The intended effect of this Docket No. 03–AAL–8] decisions on the proposal. Comments proposal is to establish Class E airspace, are specifically invited on the overall from 700 feet above the surface, to Proposed Establishment of Class E regulatory, aeronautical, economic, Airspace; Kotlik, AK contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) environmental, and energy-related operations at Kotlik, AK. aspects of the proposal. AGENCY: Federal Aviation The FAA Instrument Flight Communications should identify both Administration (FAA), DOT. Procedures Production and docket numbers and be submitted in ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Maintenance Branch has developed two triplicate to the address listed above. new SIAPs for the Kotlik Airport. The SUMMARY: This action proposes to Commenters wishing the FAA to new approaches are (1) Area Navigation establish new Class E airspace at Kotlik, acknowledge receipt of their comments AK. Two new Standard Instrument (Global Positioning System) (RNAV on this notice must submit with those GPS) Runway (RWY) 2, original; and (2) Approach Procedures (SIAP) are being comments a self-addressed, stamped published for the Kotlik Airport. There RNAV (GPS) Runway 20, original. New postcard on which the following Class E controlled airspace extending is no existing Class E airspace to contain statement is made: ‘‘Comments to aircraft executing the new instrument upward from 700 feet above the surface Docket No. FAA–2003–15091/Airspace within a 7.3 mile radius of the Kotlik approaches at Kotlik, AK. Adoption of Docket No. 03–AAL–8.’’ The postcard this proposal would result in the Airport would be created by this action. will be date/time stamped and returned The proposed airspace is sufficient to establishment of 700 ft. Class E airspace to the commenter. at Kotlik, AK. contain aircraft executing the new instrument procedures for the Kotlik DATES: Comments must be received on All communications received on or Airport. or before September 25, 2003. before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before ADDRESSES: Send comments on the The area would be depicted on proposal to the Docket Management taking action on the proposed rule. The aeronautical charts for pilot reference. System, U.S. Department of proposal contained in this notice may The coordinates for this airspace docket Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 be changed in light of comments are based on North American Datum 83. Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC received. All comments submitted will The Class E airspace areas designated as 20590–0001. You must identify the be available for examination in the 700/1200 foot transition areas are docket number FAA–2003–15091/ public docket both before and after the published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Airspace Docket No. 03–AAL–8, at the closing date for comments. A report Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations beginning of your comments. You may summarizing each substantive public and Reporting Points, dated August 30, also submit comments on the Internet at contact with FAA personnel concerned 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the with this rulemaking will be filed in the which is incorporated by reference in 14 public docket containing the proposal, docket. CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document any comments received, and any final Availability of Notice of Proposed disposition in person in the Dockets would be published subsequently in the Rulemakings (NPRM’s) Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Order. Monday through Friday, except Federal An electronic copy of this document The FAA has determined that this holidays. The Docket Office (telephone may be downloaded through the proposed regulation only involves an 1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently established body of technical of the Department of Transportation published rulemaking documents can regulations for which frequent and NASSIF Building at the above address. also be accessed through the FAA’s web routine amendments are necessary to An informal docket may also be page at http://www.faa.gov or the keep them operationally current. It, examined during normal business hours Superintendent of Document’s web page therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant at the office of the Regional Air Traffic at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. regulatory action’’ under Executive Division, Federal Aviation Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Administration, Manager, Operations Additionally, any person may obtain rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies Branch, AAL–530, Federal Aviation a copy of this notice by submitting a and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, request to the Federal Aviation 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587. Administration, Office of Air Traffic preparation of a regulatory evaluation as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Airspace Management, ATA–400, 800 the anticipated impact is so minimal. Derril Bergt, AAL–531, Federal Aviation Independence Avenue, SW., Since this is a routine matter that will Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Washington, DC 20591 or by calling only affect air traffic procedures and air Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; (202) 267–8783. Communications must navigation, it is certified that this rule, telephone number (907) 271–2796; fax: identify both docket numbers for this when promulgated, will not have a (907) 271–2850; email: notice. Persons interested in being significant economic impact on a [email protected]. Internet address: placed on a mailing list for future substantial number of small entities http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. NPRM’s should contact the FAA’s under the criteria of the Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, Flexibility Act. to request a copy of Advisory Circular List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Comments Invited No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Interested parties are invited to Rulemaking Distribution System, which Airspace, Incorporation by reference, participate in this proposed rulemaking describes the application procedure. Navigation (air).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47519

The Proposed Amendment DATES: Submit any comments by is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 In consideration of the foregoing, the September 10, 2003. U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1) and (k)(2). Federal Aviation Administration ADDRESSES: Address all comments to (b) Exemptions from the particular proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as Mary Cahill, Management and Planning subsections are justified for the follows: Staff, Justice Management Division, following reasons: Department of Justice, 1331 (1) Subsection (c)(3). To provide the PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, subject of a criminal, civil, or CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND DC 20530 (1400 National Place administrative matter or case under CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Building). investigation with an accounting of disclosures of records concerning him AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: POINTS or her could inform that individual of Mary Cahill, (202) 307–1823. the existence, nature, or scope of an 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The actual or potential criminal or civil part 71 continues to read as follows: Department proposes to exempt violation to gain valuable information Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, JUSTICE/CRT–001 from 5 U.S.C. 552a concerning the nature and scope of the 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); investigation, to determine whether he 1963 Comp., p. 389. (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g). The or she is the subject of the investigation, Department proposes to exempt and seriously impede law enforcement § 71.1 [Amended] JUSTICE/CRT–007 from 5 U.S.C. 552a efforts by permitting the record subject 2. The incorporation by reference in (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4). The exemptions and other persons to whom he or she 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation will be applied only to the extent that might disclose the records to avoid Administration Order 7400.9K, information in a record is subject to criminal penalties, civil remedies, or Airspace Designations and Reporting exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j) administrative measures. Points, dated August 30, 2002, and and (k). The Department also proposes (2) Subsection (c)(4). This subsection effective September 16, 2002, is to be to remove the exemptions to the former is inapplicable to the extent that an amended as follows: Civil Rights Division system of records exemption is being claimed for * * * * * entitled ‘‘Freedom of Information/ subsection (d). Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending Privacy Act Records (JUSTICE/CRT– (3) Subsection (d)(1). Disclosure of upward from 700 feet or more above the 010)’’ at 28 CFR 16.90 (e) and (f). The investigatory information could surface of the earth. records in CRT–010 are now covered by interfere with the investigation, reveal * * * * * DOJ–004, and the exemptions are stated the identity of confidential sources, and in 28 CFR 16.130. result in an unwarranted invasion of the AAL AK E5 Kotlik, AK [New] This order relates to individuals privacy of others. Disclosure of Kotlik Airport, AK rather than small business entities. classified national security information (Lat. 63°01′50″ N., long. 163°31′58″ W.) Nevertheless, pursuant to the would cause damage to the national That airspace extending upward from 700 requirements of the Regulatory security of the United States. In feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, this addition, these records may be subject radius of the Kotlik Airport. order will not have a significant impact to protective orders entered by federal * * * * * on a substantial number of small courts to protect their confidentiality. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on July 29, 2003. entities. Further, many of the records contained Judith G. Heckl, List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 in this system are copies of documents which are the property of state agencies Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Administrative Practices and Region. and were obtained under express or Procedures, Courts, Freedom of implied promises to strictly protect their [FR Doc. 03–20401 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Information, and Privacy. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P confidentiality. Pursuant to the authority vested in the (4) Subsection (d)(2). Amendment of Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and the records could interfere with ongoing delegated to me by Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE criminal or civil law enforcement Order No. 793–78, it is proposed to proceedings and impose an impossible 28 CFR Part 16 amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: administrative burden by requiring 1. The authority for part 16 continues investigations to be continuously [AAG/A Order No. 016–2003] to read as follows: reinvestigated. (5) Subsection (d)(3) and (4). These Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, subsections are inapplicable to the AGENCY: Department of Justice. 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, and 9701. extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) ACTION: Proposed Rule. 2. Section 16.90 is revised to read as and (2). follows: (6) Subsection (e)(1). It is often SUMMARY: The Department of Justice impossible to determine in advance if proposes to amend the Privacy Act § 16.90 Exemption of Civil Rights Division investigatory records contained in this exemptions to two Civil Rights Division Systems. system are accurate, relevant, timely systems of records, entitled Central Civil (a) The following system of records is and complete, but, in the interests of Rights Division Index File and exempted from subsections (c)(3) and effective law enforcement, it is Associated Records (JUSTICE/CRT– (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), necessary to retain this information to 001), and Files on Employment Civil (5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act aid in establishing patterns of activity Rights Matters Referred by the Equal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j) and (k): and provide investigative leads. Employment Opportunity Commission Central Civil Rights Division Index File (7) Subsection (e)(2). To collect (JUSTICE/CRT–007), as described in and Associated Records (JUSTICE/CRT– information from the subject individual today’s notice section of the Federal 001). These exemptions apply only to could serve notice that he or she is the Register. the extent that information in a record subject of a criminal investigation and

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47520 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

thereby present a serious impediment to the Commission pursuant to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. such investigation. authority. Barry Dragon, Bridge Branch, 909 SE. (8) Subsection (e)(3). To inform (4) Subsection (d)(3) and (4). These 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131, individuals as required by this subsections are inapplicable to the telephone number 305–415–6743. subsection could reveal the existence of extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a criminal or civil investigation and and (2). Request for Comments compromise investigative efforts. Dated: July 24, 2003. We encourage you to participate in (9) Subsection (e)(5). It is often Paul R. Corts, impossible to determine in advance if this rulemaking by submitting Assistant Attorney General for comments and related material. If you investigatory records contained in this Administration. system are accurate, relevant, timely do so, please include your name and [FR Doc. 03–20341 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] and complete, but, in the interests of address, identify the docket number for effective law enforcement, it is BILLING CODE 4410–13–P this rulemaking (CGD07–03–118), necessary to retain this information to indicate the specific section of this aid in establishing patterns of activity document to which each comment and provide investigative leads. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND applies, and give the reason for each (10) Subsection (e)(8). To serve notice SECURITY comment. Please submit all comments could give persons sufficient warning to and related material in an unbound Coast Guard 1 evade investigative efforts. format, no larger than 8 ⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like (11) Subsection (g). This subsection is 33 CFR Part 117 inapplicable to the extent that the to know they reached us, please enclose system is exempt from other specific [CGD07–03–118] a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all subsections of the Privacy Act. RIN 1625–AA09 (c) The following system of records is comments and material received during the comment period. We may change exempted from subsections (d)(1), (2), Drawbridge Operation Regulations; this proposed rule in view of them. (3) and (4) of the Privacy Act pursuant Miami River, Miami-Dade County, FL to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k): ‘‘Files on Public Meeting AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Employment Civil Rights Matters We do not now plan to hold a public ACTION: Referred by the Equal Employment Notice of proposed rulemaking. meeting. But you may submit a request Opportunity Commission (JUSTICE/ for a meeting by writing to Bridge CRT–007).’’ These exemptions apply SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating regulations of all Branch, at the address under only to the extent that information in a ADDRESSES, explaining why one would record is subject to exemption pursuant drawbridges on the Miami River from the mouth of the river to and including be beneficial. If we determine that one to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2). would aid this rulemaking, we will hold (d) Exemptions from the particular the NW. 27th Avenue Bridge, mile 3.7, Miami, Florida. The proposed rule one at a time and place announced by subsections are justified for the a later notice in the Federal Register. following reasons: would add a one-hour closure period (1) Subsection (d)(1). Disclosure of during the noon hour and place the Background and Purpose Brickell Avenue Bridge on an hour and investigatory information could Ten bridges along the Miami River fall half-hour schedule. Draws would open interfere with the investigation, reveal under existing regulation 33 CFR at any time for tugs, tugs with tows, and the identity of confidential sources, and 117.305. These bridges carry commuter emergency vessels. This action is result in an unwarranted invasion of the traffic into and out of the downtown intended to provide scheduled openings privacy of others. In addition, these Miami area and its neighboring business for Brickell Avenue vehicle traffic but records may be subject to protective districts. The current regulation requires not interfere with commercial tugs and orders entered by federal courts to the draw of each bridge from the mouth tugs with tows that operate during protect their confidentiality. Further, of the Miami River to and including the certain tidal conditions along the Miami many of the records contained in this NW. 27th Avenue Bridge, mile 3.7 at River. system are copies of documents which Miami, to open on signal; except that, are the property of state agencies and DATES: Comments and related material from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. were obtained under express or implied must reach the Coast Guard on or before to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday promises to strictly protect their October 10, 2003. except Federal holidays, the draws need confidentiality. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments not open for the passage of vessels. (2) Subsection (d)(2). Amendment of and related material to Commander Public vessels of the United States and the records could interfere with ongoing (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 vessels in emergency situations criminal or civil law enforcement SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL involving danger to life or property are proceedings and impose an impossible 33131. Commander (obr) maintains the passed at any time. administrative burden by requiring public docket for this rulemaking. First, the proposed rule would add an investigations to be continuously Comments and material received from additional one-hour closure period for reinvestigated. the public, as well as documents the noon rush hour, Monday through (3) Subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4). indicated in this preamble as being Friday except Federal holidays, to all This system contains investigatory available in the docket, will become part ten of these bridges in order to provide material compiled by the Equal of docket (CGD07–03–118) and are relief for vehicular traffic. This would Opportunity Commission pursuant to its available for inspection or copying at be in addition to the existing morning authority under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8. Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard and late afternoon closure periods. Titles 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), 42 U.S.C. District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Miami, Second, the first bridge at the mouth of 2000e-8(e), and 44 U.S.C. 3508 make it Florida 33131 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 the river, the Brickell Avenue Bridge, unlawful to make public in any manner p.m., Monday through Friday, except which has a vertical clearance of 26 feet whatsoever any information obtained by Federal holidays. at mean high water and a horizontal

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47521

clearance of 90 feet, would open only on DHS is unnecessary. The proposed rule If the rule would affect your small the hour and half-hour. According to makes only minor changes to the business, organization, or governmental bridge tender logs, the Brickell Avenue existing bridge operation schedules by jurisdiction and you have questions Bridge currently opens fewer than two adding a closure period at noon, but concerning its provisions or options for times per hour. The Brickell Bridge exempts commercial tugs and tugs with compliance, please contact the person carries the majority of the vehicular tows. It also proposes to schedule hour listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION traffic utilizing the ten bridges along the and half-hour openings for the Brickell CONTACT. Miami River, and the proposed rule Avenue Bridge that currently opens would provide commuters opportunity fewer than twice an hour according to Collection of Information to time their arrivals and departures. bridge tender logs. Two openings will This proposed rule would call for no Draws would open at any time for tugs, continue to be available with the new new collection of information under the tugs with tows, and emergency vessels. schedule change. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 This third modification would alleviate Small Entities U.S.C. 3501–3520). the burden on commercial tugs and tugs with tows that only navigate the river Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Federalism during certain tidal conditions. All the (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered A rule has implications for federalism closure periods and the opening whether this proposed rule would have under Executive Order 13132, schedule in the proposed rule would a significant economic impact on a Federalism, if it has a substantial direct not prohibit these vessels from passage substantial number of small entities. effect on State or local governments and when optimal tidal conditions conflict The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises would either preempt State law or small businesses, not-for-profit with the rule. These changes would be impose a substantial direct cost of organizations that are independently in effect from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m., compliance on them. We have analyzed owned and operated and are not Monday through Friday except Federal this proposed rule under that Order and dominant in their fields, and holidays. have determined that it does not have governmental jurisdictions with implications for federalism. Discussion of Proposed Rule populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard proposes the The Coast Guard certifies under 5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act following changes to the regulations U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule governing the ten bridges on the Miami would not have a significant economic The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act River from the mouth to and including impact on a substantial number of small of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires the 27th Avenue Bridge, mile 3.7 at entities, because the proposed rule only Federal agencies to assess the effects of Miami: the addition of a closure period makes a slight change to the existing their discretionary regulatory actions. In from 12:05 p.m. to 12:59 p.m., Monday bridge operation schedules. The particular, the Act addresses actions through Friday except Federal holidays; proposed rule may affect the following that may result in the expenditure by a the addition of an hour and half-hour entities, some of which might be small State, local, or tribal government, in the opening schedule for the Brickell entities: the owners or operators of aggregate, or by the private sector of Avenue Bridge from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. vessels and vehicles intending to transit $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Monday through Friday except Federal under and over the bridges on the Though this proposed rule will not holidays; and the exception for tugs and Miami River, including the Brickell result in such an expenditure, we do tugs with tows from these regulations. Avenue Bridge during the hours of 7 discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere These changes would ease vehicular a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday in this preamble. traffic congestion in downtown Miami except Federal holidays, as well as some Taking of Private Property by providing an additional closure waterfront facility owners on the Miami period for all ten bridges and timed River. The Brickell Avenue Bridge This proposed rule would not effect a openings on the major thoroughfare at currently opens less than twice an hour taking of private property or otherwise the Brickell Avenue Bridge, while still and, under the proposed rule, will have taking implications under meeting the reasonable needs of provide a schedule of two openings per Executive Order 12630, Governmental navigation on the Miami River, in part hour. Tugs and tugs with tows will Actions and Interference with by allowing tugs and tugs with tows to benefit from the proposed rule, because Constitutionally Protected Property be excepted from the new schedule. they will be exempt from scheduled Rights. openings and closure periods. Civil Justice Reform Regulatory Evaluation If you think that your business, This proposed rule is not a organization, or governmental This proposed rule meets applicable ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and that this rule would have a Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Regulatory Planning and Review, and significant economic impact on it, Reform, to minimize litigation, does not require an assessment of please submit a comment (see eliminate ambiguity, and reduce potential costs and benefits under ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it burden. section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office qualifies and how and to what degree Protection of Children of Management and Budget has not this rule would economically affect it. reviewed it under that Order. It is not We have analyzed this proposed rule ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory Assistance for Small Entities under Executive Order 13045, policies and procedures of the Under section 213(a) of the Small Protection of Children from Department of Homeland Security Business Regulatory Enforcement Environmental Health Risks and Safety (DHS). Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Risks. This proposed rule is not an We expect the economic impact of we want to assist small entities in economically significant rule and does this proposed rule to be so minimal that understanding this proposed rule so that not create an environmental risk to a full Regulatory Evaluation under the they can better evaluate its effects on health or risk to safety that may regulatory policies and procedures of them and participate in the rulemaking. disproportionately affect children.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47522 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Indian Tribal Governments 2. Revise § 117.305 to read as follows: DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before This proposed rule does not have § 117.305 Miami River, Florida. tribal implications under Executive October 10, 2003. * * * * * Order 13175, Consultation and ADDRESSES: You may mail comments Coordination with Indian Tribal (a) The draws of each bridge from the and related material to Commander Governments, because it would not have Miami Avenue Bridge, mile 0.3, to and (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 a substantial direct effect on one or including N.W. 27th Avenue Bridge, SE. 1st Ave, Room 432, Miami, Florida more Indian tribes, on the relationship mile 3.7 at Miami, shall open on signal; 33131. Commander (obr) maintains the between the Federal Government and except that, from 7:35 a.m. to 8:59 a.m., public docket for this rulemaking. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 12:05 p.m. to 12:59 p.m. and 4:35 p.m. Comments and material received from power and responsibilities between the to 5:59 p.m., Monday through Friday the public, as well as documents Federal Government and Indian tribes. except Federal holidays, the draws need indicated in the preamble as being not open for the passage of vessels. available in the docket, will become part Energy Effects Public vessels of the United States, tugs of this docket and will be available for We have analyzed this proposed rule and tugs with tows, and vessels in an inspection or copying at Commander under Executive Order 13211, Actions emergency involving danger to life or (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 Concerning Regulations That property shall be passed at any time. SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (b) Brickell Avenue Bridge, mile 0.1, Florida 33131, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 Distribution, or Use. We have at Miami, shall open on signal; except p.m., Monday through Friday, except determined that it is not a ‘‘significant that, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday Federal holidays. through Friday except Federal holidays, energy action’’ under that order, because FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ the draw need open only on the hour Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard under Executive Order 12866 and is not and half-hour. From 7:35 a.m. to 8:59 District, Bridge Branch, 909 SE. 1st Ave. likely to have a significant adverse effect a.m., 12:05 p.m. to 12:59 p.m. and 4:35 Miami, FL 33131, telephone number on the supply, distribution, or use of p.m. to 5:59 p.m., Monday through 305–415–6743. Friday except Federal holidays, the energy. The Administrator of the Office SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; of Information and Regulatory Affairs draw need not open for the passage of has not designated it as a significant vessels. Public vessels of the United Request for Comments States, tugs and tugs with tows, and energy action. Therefore, it does not We encourage you to participate in vessels in an emergency involving require a Statement of Energy Effects this rulemaking by submitting danger to life or property shall be under Executive Order 13211. comments and related material. If you passed at any time. Environment do so, please include your name and Dated: July 28, 2003. address, identify the docket number for We have analyzed this rule under H. E. Johnson, Jr., this rulemaking (CGD07–03–094), Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, indicate the specific section of this which guides the Coast Guard in Seventh Coast Guard District. document to which each comment complying with the National [FR Doc. 03–20335 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] applies, and give the reason for each Environmental Policy Act of 1969 BILLING CODE 4910–15–P comment. Please submit all comments (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and and related material in an unbound have concluded that there are no factors format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, in this case that would limit the use of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND suitable for copying. If you would like a categorical exclusion under section SECURITY to know they reached us, please enclose 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this a stamped, self-addressed postcard or rule is categorically excluded, under Coast Guard envelope. We will consider all figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the comments and material received during Instruction, from further environmental 33 CFR Part 117 the comment period. We may change documentation. Under figure 2–1, this proposed rule in view of them. paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an [CGD07–03–094] ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ Public Meeting and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion RIN 1625–AA09 We do not now plan to hold a public Determination’’ are not required for this meeting. However, you may submit a rule. Drawbridge Operation Regulations; request for a meeting by writing to List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Ave, Room 432, Bridges. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Miami, Florida 33131, explaining why For the reasons discussed in the ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. one would be beneficial. If we preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to determine that one would aid this amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to rulemaking, we will hold one at a time change the operating regulations of the PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE and place announced by a later notice CSX Railroad Swingbridge, across Rice OPERATION REGULATIONS in the Federal Register. Creek, mile 0.8, Putnam County, Background and Purpose 1. The authority citation for part 117 Florida. The proposed rule would continues to read as follows: require the bridge to open on signal The CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of during the day and to open with a 24- Creek, mile 0.8, is a railroad Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 hour advance notice at all other times. swingbridge with a vertical clearance of CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued This proposed rule would meet the 2 feet at mean high water and a under authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. reasonable needs of navigation on Rice horizontal clearance of 30 feet. The 5039. Creek. current operating regulations published

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47523

in 33 CFR 117.5 require the bridge to impact on a substantial number of small Unfunded Mandates Reform Act open on signal. This regulatory proposal entities, because the proposed rule still The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would ease the burden of having a full provides for daily openings on signal of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires time bridge tender on site. For the last during the most heavily traveled time Federal agencies to assess the effects of three years, requests to open the bridge periods. The rest of the time, the Bridge their discretionary regulatory actions. In have been for intermittent tug and barge would open with a 24-hour advance particular, the Act addresses actions traffic between 4 p.m. and 8 a.m. The notice. Accordingly, the only impact of that may result in the expenditure by a CSX Railroad, and the tug and barge this proposed rule would be that a state, local, or tribal government, in the companies that pass through the bridge vessel would need to provide notice that aggregate, or by the private sector of service the same customer upstream it required passage between the hours of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. from the bridge and are able to 4:01 p.m. and 7:59 a.m. Though this proposed rule would not coordinate their operating schedules for If you think that your business, result in such an expenditure, we do timely bridge openings. This proposed organization, or governmental discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere rule would continue to meet the jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity in this preamble. reasonable needs of navigation for this and that this rule would have a Bridge. significant economic impact on it, Taking of Private Property please submit a comment (see Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would not effect a ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it taking of private property or otherwise The proposed rule would require the qualifies and how and to what degree have taking implications under bridge to open on signal from 8 a.m. to this proposed rule would economically Executive Order 12630, Governmental 4 p.m. From 4:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., the affect it. Actions and Interference with bridge need open only with a 24-hour Assistance for Small Entities Constitutionally Protected Property advance notice by calling 1–800–232– Rights. 0142. This schedule would meet the Under section 213(a) of the Small reasonable needs of navigation. Business Regulatory Enforcement Civil Justice Reform Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule meets applicable we want to assist small entities in standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of This proposed rule is not a understanding this proposed rule so that Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under they can better evaluate its effects on Reform, to minimize litigation, section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, them and participate in the rulemaking. eliminate ambiguity, and reduce Regulatory Planning and Review, and If this proposed rule would affect your burden. does not require an assessment of small business, organization, or potential costs and benefits under governmental jurisdiction and you have Protection of Children section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office questions concerning its provisions or We have analyzed this proposed rule of Management and Budget has not options for compliance, please consult under Executive Order 13045, reviewed it under that Order. It is not the person listed under FOR FURTHER Protection of Children from ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory INFORMATION CONTACT. Small businesses Environmental Health Risks and Safety policies and procedures of the may send comments on the actions of Risks. This rule is not an economically Department of Homeland Security Federal employees who enforce, or significant rule and would not create an (DHS). otherwise determine compliance with, environmental risk to health or risk to We expect the economic impact of Federal regulations to the Small safety that might disproportionately this proposed rule to be so minimal that Business and Agriculture Regulatory affect children. a full Regulatory Evaluation under the Enforcement Ombudsman and the Indian Tribal Governments regulatory policies and procedures of Regional Small Business Regulatory DHS is unnecessary. The proposed rule Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman This proposed rule does not have would provide for openings on signal evaluates these actions annually and tribal implications under Executive during the most heavily traveled time rates each agency’s responsiveness to Order 13175, Consultation and periods and not differ from the current small business. If you wish to comment Coordination with Indian Tribal regulations governing the operation of on actions by employees of the Coast Governments, because it would not have this Bridge. The Bridge would open Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888– a substantial direct effect on one or with advanced notice during all other 734–3247). more Indian tribes, on the relationship times. between the Federal Government and Collection of Information Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Small Entities This proposed rule would call for no power and responsibilities between the Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act new collection of information under the Federal Government and Indian tribes. (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Energy Effects whether this proposed rule would have U.S.C. 3501–3520). a significant economic impact on a We have analyzed this proposed rule substantial number of small entities. Federalism under Executive Order 13211, Actions The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises A rule has implications for federalism Concerning Regulations That small businesses, not-for-profit under Executive Order 13132, Significantly Affect Energy Supply, organizations that are independently Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Distribution, or Use. We have owned and operated and are not effect on State or local governments and determined that it is not a ‘‘significant dominant in their fields, and would either preempt State law or energy action’’ under that order, because governmental jurisdictions with impose a substantial direct cost of it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ populations of less than 50,000. compliance on them. We have analyzed under Executive Order 12866 and is not The Coast Guard certifies under 5 this proposed rule under that Order and likely to have a significant adverse effect U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule have determined that it does not have on the supply, distribution, or use of would not have a significant economic implications for federalism. energy. The Administrator of the Office

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47524 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

of Information and Regulatory Affairs DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and specifically provided by Congress.’’ has not designated it as a significant 16 U.S.C. 1a–1. energy action. Therefore, it does not National Park Service Salt Creek is the most extensive require a statement of Energy Effects perennial water source and riparian under Executive Order 13211. 36 CFR Part 7 ecosystem in Canyonlands National RIN 1024–AC87 Park, other than the Green and Colorado Environment Rivers. The Salt Creek ‘‘road’’ is an unpaved and ungraded jeep trail that We have analyzed this rule under Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System runs in and out of Salt Creek and, at Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, various locations, the trail’s path is in which guides the Coast Guard in AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. the creek bed. It requires a 4-wheel complying with the National ACTION: Proposed rule. drive vehicle to drive, and vehicle use Environmental Policy Act of 1969 of the trail periodically resulted in SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and vehicles breaking down or becoming (NPS) proposes to amend its regulations have concluded that there are no factors stuck and requiring NPS assistance for for Canyonlands National Park by in this case that would limit the use of removal. Salt Creek is also the heart of prohibiting motor vehicles in Salt Creek a categorical exclusion under section the Salt Creek Archeological District, Canyon above Peekaboo campsite, in the 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this the area with the highest recorded Needles district. This action implements rule is categorically excluded, under density of archeological sites in the the selected alternative of the Middle figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Park. A tributary canyon to Salt Creek Salt Creek Canyon Access Plan contains the spectacular Angel Arch. Instruction, from further environmental Environmental Assessment (EA). documentation. Under figure 2–1, Until 1998, street-legal motor vehicles DATES: Written comments will be paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an were permitted to travel along and in accepted by mail, fax, or electronic mail the Salt Creek streambed for ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ through October 10, 2003. and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion approximately 7.2 miles above the ADDRESSES: Comments should be Peekaboo campsite, and an additional Determination’’ are not required for this addressed to: Canyonlands National one mile up the Angel Arch tributary rule. Park, Attn: Salt Creek Rule, 2282 SW canyon. The Salt Creek road does not List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Resource Boulevard, Moab, Utah 84532. provide a route for motorized transit Fax: (435) 719–2300; Email: through the Park or to any inholdings Bridges. [email protected]. within the Park. For the reasons discussed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The previous management plan preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to Superintendent, Canyonlands National affecting Salt Creek (the Canyonlands amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: Park, 2282 SW Resource Boulevard, National Park Backcountry Management Moab, Utah 84532; Telephone: (435) Plan) was completed in January 1995. PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 719–2101; Fax: (435) 719–2300; Email: This plan, among other things, OPERATION REGULATIONS [email protected]. established a permit system and a daily limit on the number of motor vehicles SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress 1. The authority citation for part 117 authorized to use the Salt Creek road created Canyonlands National Park in continues to read as follows: above Peekaboo Springs. The Southern 1964 in order to preserve its Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) filed Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of ‘‘superlative scenic, scientific, and a broad challenge to the Backcountry Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 archeological features for the Management Plan in Federal district CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued inspiration, benefit, and use of the court. Among other things, SUWA under authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. public.’’ 16 U.S.C. 271. The Park is to alleged that continued vehicular use of 5039. be administered subject to the 1916 NPS Salt Creek would cause impairment of 2. Section 117.324 is added to read as Organic Act as amended, which states unique park resources and thus would follows: in part that the fundamental purpose of violate the 1916 National Park Service parks is ‘‘to conserve the scenery and Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1–4). § 117.324 Rice Creek. the natural and historic objects and the In its June 1998 decision, the U.S. The CSX Railroad Swingbridge, mile wild life therein and to provide for the District Court for the District of Utah enjoyment of the same in such manner 0.8, in Putnam County, shall open on interpreted the Organic Act to and by such means as will leave them signal from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., daily. From unambiguously prohibit activities in unimpaired for the enjoyment of future national parks that would permanently 4:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., daily, the Bridge generations.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1. This impair unique park resources, and shall open with a 24-hour advance provision of the Organic Act was concluded that the NPS’s decision to notice to 1–800–232–0142. supplemented and clarified through allow vehicle travel in Salt Creek would Dated: July 28, 2003. enactment of a 1978 amendment to the cause significant permanent F.M. Rosa, 1970 General Authorities Act which impairment. The court consequently Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander, stated in part that ‘‘the authorization of enjoined the NPS from permitting motor Seventh Coast Guard District. activities shall be construed and the vehicle travel in Salt Creek Canyon [FR Doc. 03–20336 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] protection, management, and above Peekaboo Spring. administration of [Canyonlands] shall Off-highway vehicle groups, BILLING CODE 4910–15–P be conducted in light of the high public interveners in the case, appealed the value and integrity of the National Park district court ruling, and in August 2000 System and shall not be exercised in the United States Court of Appeals for derogation of the values and purpose for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district which (the park) was established, except court decision and remanded it for as may have been or shall be directly further consideration. The circuit court

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47525

ruled that the district court had applied National Environmental Policy Act San Juan County and the State of Utah the wrong standard in its interpretation (NEPA). The district court subsequently have asserted that they hold a right-of- of the Organic Act and should have stayed its proceedings until completion way over the road pursuant to R.S. 2477. more fully considered whether the of this EA. The EA process took R.S. 2477 is a law passed in 1866 that agency’s interpretation of the Act, as advantage of additional scientific provides, ‘‘the right of way for the applied to Salt Creek, was ‘‘based on a information and applied the newly construction of highways over public permissible construction of the statute.’’ stated NPS impairment policy to lands, not reserved for public uses, is The circuit court determined that the analyze, in more depth than had hereby granted.’’ R.S. 2477 was repealed administrative record was not clear previously been possible, the impacts of in 1976, subject to valid existing rights. concerning whether motorized travel in a range of access alternatives for Salt The NPS has sought and examined Salt Creek would cause permanent Creek from Peekaboo camp to the information relevant to the claim that impairment to park resources. The vicinity of Angel Arch (‘‘Middle Salt this route is an R.S. 2477 right-of-way. circuit court agreed with the district Creek Canyon’’). The EA was released Based on this review, the NPS court that the Organic Act prohibited for public review and comment in June concluded that it had not been shown the NPS from permitting ‘‘significant, 2002 and a Finding of No Significant that a valid right-of-way was permanent impairment.’’ However, the Impact (FONSI) was issued in constructed during the period when the circuit court noted that the Organic Act September 2002. lands were unreserved. Promulgation of may also prohibit negative impacts that The EA analyzed three alternatives this rule will not affect the ability of the do not rise to the level of ‘‘significant, permitting vehicle access. Each of these County or State to pursue in an permanent impairment.’’ The circuit alternatives would allow vehicle travel appropriate forum the claim that this is court remanded the case to the district on the Middle Salt Creek Canyon road a valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way. court, with instructions to re-examine under the permit system and daily The proposed rule would prohibit the record to determine whether the vehicle limits of the 1995 Canyonlands/ motorized public use in Salt Creek agency’s conclusion that there was no Orange Cliffs Backcountry Management Canyon above Peekaboo Spring. significant impact on Salt Creek Canyon Plan (BMP). Alternative A would allow Although these regulations do not apply from the decision to allow limited motor vehicle access on the current to motor vehicle use for administrative vehicular traffic in Salt Creek Canyon alignment of the road year-round. purposes, the Park as a matter of policy was adequately supported. The circuit Alternative B would allow vehicle has previously chosen to forgo all such court also instructed the district court to access on the current alignment of the motorized use unless necessary for consider the new NPS Management road each year from October 1 until ice emergency rescue purposes. Policies in regard to ‘‘impairment of makes the creek impassable, or January Public Participation: If you wish to park resources or values,’’ the central 31 of the following year at the latest; comment, you may submit your issue in the case, and vacated the vehicles would be prohibited the comments by any one of several district court’s injunction on motor remainder of the year. Alternative C methods. You may mail comments to vehicle use in Salt Creek Canyon above would realign sections of the road to Canyonlands National Park, 2282 SW Peekaboo Spring. avoid the streambed and riparian area Since the mid-1990s Canyonlands Resource Boulevard, Moab, Utah 84532. where feasible, and would allow year- backcountry planning effort, several You may also comment via the Internet round vehicle access. important changes have occurred. The to [email protected]. Please include National Park Service revised its The fourth alternative analyzed in the your name and return address in your management policies to clarify its EA, Alternative D, would prohibit motor Internet message. Finally, you may interpretation of the statutory provision vehicle access in Middle Salt Creek hand-deliver comments to the Park in prohibiting impairment of park Canyon year-round. Hiking and pack/ the previously provided address. Our resources and values (see http:// saddle stock would continue to be practice is to make comments, including www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.pdf, permitted, under the provisions of the names and home addresses of chapter 1). The vehicle prohibition in backcountry management plan. respondents, available for public review Middle Salt Creek Canyon that began in Under each of the three vehicle during regular business hours. 1998 with the district court’s injunction alternatives, the use of motor vehicles Individual respondents may request that has been the only period of significant was found to cause impairment to park we withhold their home address from length without vehicle traffic since the resources and values because of adverse the rulemaking record, which we will 1964 creation of the Park. This impacts to the Salt Creek riparian/ honor to the extent allowable by law. restriction made it possible to gather wetland ecosystem. Alternative D, There also may be circumstances in information on riparian conditions prohibiting vehicle access, was found which we would withhold from the without the effects of vehicles, through not to cause impairment to park rulemaking record a respondent’s the Park’s ongoing monitoring program resources and values. Consequently, identity, as allowable by law. If you and independent research efforts. In Alternative D was selected in the FONSI wish us to withhold your name and/or 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for implementation. address, you must state this designated critical habitat for the Because each of the three alternatives prominently at the beginning of your threatened Mexican spotted owl, which for vehicle traffic in Middle Salt Creek comment. However, we will not includes Salt Creek Canyon. In addition, Canyon would cause impairment of consider anonymous comments. We vegetation has returned to the vehicle park resources and values, allowing will make all submissions from tracks and water flows have moved motor vehicles under any one of these organizations or businesses, and from sections of the stream channel since alternatives is not permissible under the individuals identifying themselves as motor vehicles were prohibited as a NPS Organic Act. Other roads in the representatives or officials of result of the litigation. Needles District, as well as elsewhere in organizations or businesses, available To take into account these changes Canyonlands National Park, remain for public inspection in their entirety. and to address the impairment question open to motor vehicles. Salt Creek above Drafting Information: The principal following the remand, the NPS initiated Peekaboo remains open to foot and author of this proposed rule is David an EA process in accordance with the pack/saddle stock travel. Wood, Canyonlands National Park.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47526 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Compliance With Other Laws provided in Section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Department shall work cooperatively to Executive Order 12988. minimize trespass situations on roads’’ Regulatory Planning and Review within national parks. (Executive Order 12866) Takings (Executive Order 12630) This document is not a significant In accordance with Executive Order Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order rule and is not subject to review by the 12630 and the Attorney General’s 12988) Office of Management and Budget under Guidelines for the evaluation of Risk In accordance with Executive Order Executive Order 12866. and Avoidance of Unanticipated 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has (1) This rule will not have an effect of Takings, the rule does not have takings determined that this rule does not $100 million or more on the economy. implications. The EA/FONSI and the unduly burden the judicial system and It will not adversely affect in a material impairment finding with respect to meets the requirements of sections 3(a) way the economy, productivity, motorized use of the Salt Creek road and 3(b)(2) of the Order. competition, jobs, the environment, were made as a direct result of the still public health or safety, or state, local, or pending litigation brought by Southern Paperwork Reduction Act Utah Wilderness Alliance challenging tribal governments or communities. This regulation does not require an (2) This rule will not create a serious the permit system which Canyonlands information collection from 10 or more inconsistency or otherwise interfere instituted for motor vehicles to use this parties and a submission under the with an action taken or planned by road. Since this lawsuit was originally Paperwork Reduction Act is not another agency. filed, state and local entities have required. An OMB form 83-I is not (3) This rule does not alter the asserted that the road constitutes an R.S. required. budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 2477 right-of-way, which in this case user fees, or loan programs or the rights would be a right-of-way across public National Environmental Policy Act or obligations of their recipients. lands in favor of the State and local (4) This rule does not raise novel legal county. As noted previously, the NPS This rule is not a major Federal action or policy issues. has concluded that the information significantly affecting the quality of the available to it is not sufficient to human environment. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act demonstrate that a valid right-of-way National Environmental Policy Act, 42 The Department of the Interior was created prior to reservation of these U.S.C. § 4332, NPS has prepared an certifies that this document will not lands and that closure to motor vehicles Environmental Assessment (EA) and a have a significant economic impact on is required to prevent an impermissible Finding of No Significant Impact a substantial number of small entities impairment to park resources. No (FONSI) on the proposed use of Salt under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 evidence exists that either the State or Creek Road. The EA and FONSI may be U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic effects County has ever managed or maintained viewed at http://www.nps.gov/cany or of this rule are local in nature and this road, nor have they commenced copies may be obtained by contacting negligible in scope. There are several administrative or judicial proceedings to Canyonlands National Park. other roads throughout the Park that lead to a determination whether any Government-to-Government commercial motor vehicles may such claims are valid. Nevertheless, Relationship with Tribes continue to use. should it be subsequently determined that the State and County do hold a In accordance with Executive Order Small Business Regulatory Enforcement valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way, the 13175 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination Fairness Act (SBREFA) regulation will be revisited to ensure with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR This rule is not a major rule under 5 that it is consistent with the property 67249), and the President’s U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business rights that are afforded to the holders of memorandum of April 29, 1994, Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. such valid rights-of-way. ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations The rule will have no effect on small or Federalism (Executive Order 13132) with Native American Tribal large businesses. This rule: Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), and 512 a. Does not have an annual effect on In accordance with Executive Order DM 2, we have evaluated potential the economy of $100 million or more. 13132, the rule does not have sufficient effects on federally recognized Indian b. Will not cause a major increase in federalism implications to warrant the tribes and have determined that there costs or prices for consumers, preparation of a Federalism Assessment. are no potential effects. individual industries, Federal, State, or This regulation will not have a local government agencies, or substantial direct effect on the states, or List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 geographic regions. on the distribution of power and District of Columbia, National Parks, c. Does not have significant adverse responsibilities among the various Reporting and recordkeeping effects on competition, employment, levels of government. The rule requirements. investment, productivity, innovation, or addresses the prohibition of motorized 36 CFR part 7 is proposed to be the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to use in part of a canyon in Canyonlands amended as follows: compete with foreign-based enterprises. National Park. Canyonlands has had proprietary jurisdiction over the canyon Unfunded Mandates Reform Act PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, since the creation of the Park in 1964. AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK This rule does not impose an On April 9, 2003, the Department of the SYSTEM unfunded mandate on State, local, or Interior and the State of Utah entered tribal governments or the private sector into a Memorandum of Understanding 1. The authority citation for part 7 of more than $100 million per year. The to implement ‘‘a State and County Road continues to read as follows: rule does not have a significant or Acknowledgment Process.’’ The unique effect on state, local, or tribal Memorandum excludes R.S. 2477 rights- Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code governments or the private sector. The of-way within units of the National Park 8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). Department has determined that this System in Utah and provides that the rule meets the applicable standards ‘‘State, Utah counties and the 2. Add § 7.44 to read as follows:

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47527

§ 7.44 Canyonlands National Park. the fee structure relating to the Administrative Salary (EAS) Schedule, (a) Motor Vehicle Use. Motor vehicles furnishing of documents and records to the class of personnel typically involved are prohibited in Salt Creek Canyon members of the public under the in providing FOIA services. The existing above Peekaboo campsite. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). designations ‘‘clerical’’ and (b) [Reserved] As a result of agency restructuring, ‘‘professional/managerial’’ are Dated: July 18, 2003. responsibility for Postal Service release eliminated. Those terms are often not of information and records management Paul Hoffman, meaningful within this class of policy has shifted from Finance to employees. Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Consumer Affairs. The Chief Privacy Computer search fees, based on the Wildlife and Parks. Officer (CPO), who reports to the Vice Information Services Price List, have [FR Doc. 03–19964 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] President and Consumer Advocate, has been updated with present costs related BILLING CODE 4312–DF–P assumed the release of information/ to current technology. The list has been records management responsibilities replaced with rates to be assessed for formerly held by the Manager, computer processing time and POSTAL SERVICE Administration and FOIA, under the personnel costs when information must Chief Financial Officer and Executive be retrieved by computer, as follows: 39 CFR Parts 224, 261 through 268 Vice President. Under the new organizational Price Unit Release of Information and Records structure, the title ‘‘Freedom of Management Changes Information/Privacy Acts Officer’’ is Computer Processing AGENCY: Postal Service. changed to ‘‘Manager, Records Office.’’ The Manager, Records Office, reports to Mainframe usage ...... $.39 per sec- ACTION: Proposed rule. ond the CPO. Midrange server usage .06 per sec- SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes The CPO is responsible for the ond to revise organizational names and titles issuance of policy on the protection of PC usage ...... 7.00 per 15 relating to the policies for the release of privacy and the release of Postal Service minute information and records management, records, with the power to authorize the Printing computer output .14 per page and revises the fee structure relating to disclosure of such records, and to Magnetic tape produc- 24.00 per vol- the furnishing of documents and records delegate or take appropriate action if tion. ume that policy is not adhered to, or if to members of the public under the Personnel Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We questions of interpretation or procedure are proposing these changes because arise. The CPO directs the activities of High technical ...... $120 per hour organizational names and titles have the Privacy Office and the Records Medium technical ...... 70 per hour changed as a result of agency Office. Low technical ...... 50 per hour restructuring. The revisions reflect to The Manager, Records Office, is whom the public should address issues responsible for establishing procedures Lastly, the fee for business change-of- relating to the release of information and guidelines to ensure that record address information is eliminated. management practices are in and records management. In addition, List of Subjects we are proposing a change to fee compliance with the Privacy Act and structure to permit the recovery of FOIA. The Manager, Records Office, 39 CFR Part 224 current costs incurred in the furnishing may also delegate or take appropriate Organization and functions of records to the public. action if policies are not adhered to, or (Government agencies). if questions of interpretation or DATES: Any interested party may submit 39 CFR Parts 261, 262, and 263 written comments on the proposed procedures arise. This proposal further modifies part modification on or before September 22, Archives and records. 265 to revise the fee structure for 2003. providing documents and records to the 39 CFR Part 264 ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written public under the FOIA. Postal Service Archives and records, Security comments on this proposal to the FOIA fees have not been updated since measures. Records Office, United States Postal 1987, and are substantially below 39 CFR Part 265 Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room allowable costs. 5846, Washington, DC 20260–5846. The proposed FOIA fee structure Administrative practice and Copies of all written comments will be changes in three ways. First, the fees procedure, Courts, Freedom of available at the address in this section will be assessed in half-hour information, Government employees. for public inspection and photocopying increments, as opposed to quarter-hour 39 CFR Parts 266 and 268 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday increments. Second, the fee will through Friday. increase to $32 per hour, to reflect the Privacy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: current cost of providing FOIA services. 39 CFR Part 267 Robert Faruq at 202–268–2608. The third change eliminates the Archives and records, Classified SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘clerical’’ and ‘‘professional/ information, Privacy, Security measures. managerial’’ designations of responders, For the reasons stated in the Proposed Changes merging the two groups into one. The Postal Service is proposing to The use of half-hour increments is preamble, the Postal Service proposes to modify parts 224 and 261–268 of Title consistent with other agency practices amend 39 CFR parts 224, 261, and 262– 39, Code of Federal Regulations, to and will allow for simpler 268 as follows: reflect current organizational names and administrative implementation. The PART 224—[AMENDED] titles, which have changed as a result of proposed $32 per hour fee is based on agency restructuring. The proposal the weighted average hourly salary with 1. The authority citation for part 224 additionally modifies part 265, revising benefits under the Executive and continues to read as follows:

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47528 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 5 U.S.C. App.3; 39 U.S.C. 203, Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552A; 39 U.S.C. Office of Corporate Accounting’’ and 204, 401(2), 403, 404, 409, 1001; Inspector 401. add in their place the words ‘‘Records General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub.L. 95– Office’’. 452, as amended). § 262.2 [Amended] 7. Amend § 262.2 as follows: § 263.4 [Amended] § 224.1 [Amended] a. Redesignate paragraphs (a), (c), and 12. In § 263.4, remove the words 2. In § 224.1, paragraph (a), remove (d) as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). ‘‘Corporate Accounting’’ and add in the words ‘‘a Senior Assistant b. Add new paragraph (a). their place the words ‘‘the Records c. Revise paragraph (b). Postmaster General (SAPMG). The Office’’. group consists of three departments, d. In newly redesignated paragraph each headed by an Assistant Postmaster (e), remove the words ‘‘Manager, § 263.5 [Amended] General and the Office of the Treasurer Corporate Accounting’’ and add in their 13. Amend § 263.5 as follows: and the Records Office. The SAPMG, place the words ‘‘Records Office’’ and a. Remove the words ‘‘Corporate Finance, participates in the planning remove the word ‘‘official’’ and add in Accounting’’ and add in their place the and budget process, and reviews and its place the words ‘‘Records Office is’’. words ‘‘Records Office’’. evaluates the budget requests of each The addition and revision read as b. Remove the digits ‘‘5240’’. region for the areas under control of the follows: c. Remove the words ‘‘to the Records Finance Group.’’ and add in their place § 262.2 Officials. Specialist’’. the words ‘‘Chief Financial Officer and d. Remove the digits ‘‘4869’’ and add (a) Chief Privacy Officer. The Chief in their place the digits ‘‘2608’’. Executive Vice President. The group Privacy Officer (CPO) is responsible for includes the following: Vice President, the issuance of policy on the protection PART 264—[AMENDED] Chief Technology Officer; Vice of privacy and the release of Postal President, Finance Controller; Vice Service records with the power to 14. The authority citation for part 264 President, Treasurer; Vice President, authorize the disclosure of such records continues to read as follows: Supply Management; Manager, and to delegate or take appropriate Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401. Corporate Financial Planning; Manager, action if that policy is not adhered to or Internal Control; and Manager, Finance if questions of interpretation or § 264.3 [Amended] Administration.’’ procedure arise. The CPO directs the 15. In § 264.3, paragraph (a), remove activities of the Privacy Office and the the words ‘‘Corporate Accounting’’ and PART 261—[AMENDED] Records Office. add in their place the words ‘‘Records Office’’. 3. The authority citation part 261 (b) Manager, Records Office. The continues to read as follows: Manager, Records Office, manages the Records Office, and is responsible for PART 265—[AMENDED] Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401. establishing procedures and guidelines 16. The authority citation for part 265 § 261.2 [Amended] to ensure that record management continues to read as follows: practices are in compliance with the 4. In § 261.2, paragraph (b), remove Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3; Privacy Act and FOIA. The Manager, the word ‘‘Finance’’ and add in its place 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 410, 1001, 2601. Records Office, may also delegate or the words ‘‘the Privacy Office’’ . take appropriate action if policies are § 265.3 [Amended] § 261.4 [Amended] not adhered to or if questions of 17. Amend § 265.3 as follows: 5. Amend § 261.4 as follows: interpretation or procedures arise. a. In paragraph (a), remove the words a. In paragraph (a), remove the words * * * * * ‘‘§ 262.2 (a)’’ and add in their place the ‘‘manager, Administration and FOIA, words ‘‘§ 262.2 (c)’’. § 262.4 [Amended] b. In paragraph (b), remove the words under the Chief Financial Officer and 8. Amend § 262.4 as follows: ‘‘Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Senior Vice President,’’ and add in their a. In paragraph (a), remove the words Officer. The USPS Freedom of place the words ‘‘Manager, Records ‘‘office of Corporate Accounting or the Information/Privacy Acts Officer, under Office, under the Privacy Office’’; and National Archives and Records the Manager, Administration and FOIA’’ b. In paragraph (a) remove the word Administration’’ and add in their place and add in their place the words ‘‘finance’’ and add in its place the words the words ‘‘Records Office’’. ‘‘Manager, Records Office. The Postal ‘‘Consumer Affairs’’. b. In paragraph (b), remove the words Service Manager, Records Office, under c. Revise paragraph (b). ‘‘office of Corporate Accounting’’ and the Privacy Office’’. d. Remove paragraph (c). add in their place the words ‘‘Records The revision reads as follows: Office’’. § 265.4 [Amended] 18. Amend § 265.4 as follows: § 261.4 Responsibility. § 262.5 [Amended] a. Remove the words ‘‘USPS Freedom * * * * * 9. In § 262.5, paragraph (d)(2), remove of Information/Privacy Acts Officer’’ (b) The Chief Privacy Officer, under the words ‘‘office of Administration and and add in their place the words the Vice President and Consumer FOIA’’ and add in their place the words ‘‘Manager, Records Office’’. Advocate, is responsible for ‘‘Records Office’. b. Remove the digits ‘‘5202’’. administering records and information management policies and for the PART 263—[AMENDED] § 265.5 [Amended] compliance of all handbooks, directives, 19. In § 265.5, remove the designation 10. The authority citation for 39 CFR ‘‘.gov’’ and add in its place the and instructions in support of this Part 263 continues to read as follows: policy. designation ‘‘.com/foia’’. Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401. PART 262—[AMENDED] § 265.6 [Amended] § 263.3 [Amended] 20. Amend § 265.6 as follows: 6. The authority citation for part 262 11. Amend § 263.3 as follows: In a. In paragraph (b), introductory text, continues to read as follows: paragraph (a), remove the words ‘‘The remove the words ‘‘Office of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47529

Administration and FOIA’’ and add in use and operator’s time) reaches the Price Unit their place the words ‘‘Records Office’’. equivalent dollar amount of the b. In paragraph (d)(1), remove the operator’s basic rate for two hours plus PC usage ...... 7.00 per 15 words ‘‘upon payment of the fee a factor to cover benefits.’’ and add in minute prescribed in § 265.9 (e)(3) and (g)(5),’’. their place the words ‘‘(including the Printing computer output .14 per page cost of personnel and computer Magnetic tape produc- 24.00 per vol- tion. ume § 265.7 [Amended] processing time) reaches the equivalent 21. Amend § 265.7 as follows: dollar amount of personnel fees for two a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the hours.’’ PART 266—[AMENDED] words ‘‘USPS Freedom of Information/ m. In paragraph (g)(4), remove the 26. The authority citation for part 266 Privacy Acts Officer’’ and add in their words ‘‘office of Administration and continues to read as follows: place the words ‘‘Manager, Records FOIA’’ and add in their place the words Office’’. ‘‘Manager, Records Office’’. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a; 39 U.S.C. 401. b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the n. Revise paragraph (g)(5). § 266.3 [Amended] digits ‘‘5202’’. The revisions read as follows: c. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 27. Amend § 266.3 as follows: words ‘‘office of Administration and § 265.9 Schedule of fees. a. In paragraph (a), remove the words FOIA’’ and add in their place the words * * * * * ‘‘Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts ‘‘Records Office’’. (b) * * * Officer. The USPS Freedom of (3) * * * The fee for reviewing Information/Privacy Acts Officer, under § 265.9 [Amended] records located in response to a the Manager, Administration and FOIA’’ 22. Amend § 265.9 as follows: commercial use request is $32 per hour and add in its place the words ‘‘Records a. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), remove the (fractions of an hour are rounded to the Office. The Records Office, within the words ‘‘each quarter hour spent by nearest half hour). Privacy Office’’. b. In paragraph (c) remove the words clerical personnel in searching for * * * * * ‘‘office of Administration and FOIA’’ records is $4.40. When a search cannot (g) * * * and add in their place the words be performed by clerical personnel and (5) Fee for other services. Waivers do ‘‘Records Office’’. must be performed by professional or not apply for fees for address correction c. In paragraph (d)(2) remove the managerial personnel, the fee for each services performed in accordance with words ‘‘Manager, Administration and quarter hour in searching for records is section R900 of the Domestic Mail FOIA’’ and add in their place the words $5.35.’’ and add in their place the words Manual. ‘‘a manual search is $32 per hour ‘‘Chief Privacy Officer’’. * * * * * (fractions of an hour are rounded to the d. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through nearest half hour)’’. § 265.10 [Amended] (vi) to read as follows: b. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), remove the 23. In § 265.10, remove the word § 266.3 Responsibility. words ‘‘runs and operator salary, as ‘‘.gov’’ and add in its place the words * * * * * calculated in accordance with the ‘‘.com/foia’’. (d) * * * Information Services Price List’’ and (2) * * * add in their place the words ‘‘and § 265.12 [Amended] (i) Vice President and Consumer personnel cost’’. 24. Amend § 265.12 as follows: Advocate (Chairman). c. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), remove the a. In paragraph (b)(7), remove the (ii) Chief Postal Inspector. words ‘‘list is’’ and add in their place words ‘‘Freedom of Information/Privacy (iii) Inspector General. the words ‘‘fees are’’. Acts Officer’’ and add in their place the (iv) Senior Vice President, Human d. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), remove the words ‘‘Manager, Records Office’’. Resources. words ‘‘office of Administration and b. In paragraph (b)(7), remove the (v) Vice President, General Counsel. FOIA’’ and add in their place the words digits ‘‘5202’’. (vi) Chief Privacy Officer.’’ ‘‘Records Office’’. 25. Revise Appendix A to read as § 266.4 [Amended] e. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii), remove the follows: phrase ‘‘the per-page fee shall be 28. In § 266.4, paragraph (b)(6)(i),(iii), Appendix A to Part 265—Fees for charged’’ and add the phrase ‘‘the $.15 and (iv), remove the words ‘‘Freedom of Computer Searches per-page fee shall be charged’’; and Information/Privacy Acts Officer’’ and f. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii), add to the When requested information must be add in their place the words ‘‘Manager, third sentence the words ‘‘or her’’ retrieved by computer, rates for personnel Records Office’’. and computer time apply. Estimates are following the word ‘‘his’’. § 266.5 [Amended] g. In paragraph (b)(3), revise the first provided to the requester in advance and are based on the following rates: 29. In § 266.5, paragraph (d), remove two sentences. the words ‘‘office of Administration and h. Remove paragraph (e)(3). Price Unit FOIA’’ and add in their place the words i. In paragraph (g)(1), remove the ‘‘Records Office’’. words ‘‘Fees shall not be’’ and add in Personnel their place the words ‘‘No fees shall be’’. § 266.6 [Amended] j. In paragraph (g)(1), remove the last High technical ...... $120 per hour 30. Amend § 266.6 as follows: sentence. Medium technical ...... 70 per hour a. In paragraph (a), remove the words k. In paragraph (g)(2)(i), remove the Low technical ...... 50 per hour ‘‘Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts words ‘‘the standard rates set out in the Computer Processing Officer’’ and add in their place the Information Services Price List’’ and words ‘‘Manager, Records Office’’. add in their place the words ‘‘fee for Mainframe usage ...... $.39 per sec- b. In paragraph (a), remove the digits computer searches’’. ond ‘‘5202’’. l. In paragraph (g)(2), remove the Midrange server usage .06 per sec- c. In paragraph (d), remove the words words ‘‘(including the cost of equipment ond ‘‘Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47530 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Officer’’ and add in their place the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION commenting on this action should do so words ‘‘Manager, Records Office’’. AGENCY at this time. Please note that if EPA receives any adverse comment on part § 266.7 [Amended] 40 CFR Part 52 of this rule and if that part can be 31. In § 266.7, paragraph (a)(4), [MO 188–1188; FRL–7542–4] severed from the remainder of the rule, remove the words ‘‘office of EPA may adopt as final those parts of Administration and FOIA’’ and add in Approval and Promulgation of the rule that are not the subject of an their place the words ‘‘General Implementation Plans; State of adverse comment. For additional Counsel’’. Missouri information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of § 266.8 [Amended] AGENCY: Environmental Protection this Federal Register. Agency (EPA). Dated: July 28, 2003. 32. In § 266.8, paragraph (b)(3), ACTION: Proposed rule. remove the words ‘‘the per page fee’’ William Rice, and add in their place the words ‘‘$.15 SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. per page fee’’. revision to the Missouri State [FR Doc. 03–20301 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Implementation Plan (SIP) which BILLING CODE 6560–50–P § 266.10 [Amended] establishes a state-wide air emissions 33. In § 266.10, paragraphs (a), (b), banking and trading program. Approval ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and (d), remove the words ‘‘Freedom of of this revision will ensure consistency between the state and Federally- AGENCY Information/Privacy Acts Officer’’ and approved rules, and ensure Federal add in their place the words ‘‘Manager, enforceability of the revised state rule. 40 CFR Part 52 Records Office’’. DATES: Comments on this proposed [FL–078–200335 (b); FRL–7542–1] PART 267—[AMENDED] action must be received in writing by September 10, 2003. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan: Revisions to 34. The authority citation for part 267 ADDRESSES: Comments may be Florida State Implementation Plan: continues to read as follows: submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments Transportation Conformity Rule Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401; Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896. should be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency, Air Agency (EPA). § 267.3 [Amended] Planning and Development Branch, 901 ACTION: Proposed rule. North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 35. In § 267.3, paragraph (a), remove 66101. Electronic comments should be SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to the words ‘‘Freedom of Information/ sent either to [email protected]. or approve the State Implementation Plan Privacy Acts Officer’’ and add in their to http://www.regulations.gov, which is (SIP) revision submitted by the State of place the words ‘‘Chief Privacy Officer’’. an alternative method for submitting Florida for the purpose of establishing transportation conformity rules. In the § 267.5 [Amended] electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the detailed Final Rules Section of this Federal 36. Amend § 267.5 as follows: instructions described in ‘‘What action Register, the EPA is approving the a. In paragraph (e)(3)(i), remove the is EPA taking?’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule words ‘‘Manager, Administration and INFORMATION section of the direct final without prior proposal because the FOIA’’ and add, in their place, the rule which is located in the rules Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse words ‘‘Manager, Records Office’’. section of the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments. A detailed rationale for the b. In paragraph (e)(3)(i), remove the Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603, or by approval is set forth in the direct final digits ‘‘5202’’. e-mail at [email protected]. rule. If no significant, material, and adverse comments are received in PART 268—[AMENDED] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal response to this rule, no further activity Register, EPA is approving the state’s is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 37. The authority citation for part 268 comments, the direct final rule will be continues to read as follows: SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the withdrawn and all public comments Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401; 5 U.S.C. 552a. Agency views this as a noncontroversial received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this rule. § 268.1 [Amended] revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this The EPA will not institute a second 38. In § 268.1, paragraph (b), remove action. A detailed rationale for the comment period on this document. Any the words ‘‘Freedom of Information/ approval is set forth in the direct final parties interested in commenting on this Privacy Acts Officer’’ and add in their rule. If no relevant adverse comments document should do so at this time. place the words ‘‘Manager, Records are received in response to this action, DATES: Written comments must be Office’’. no further activity is contemplated in received on or before September 10, relation to this action. If EPA receives 2003. Stanley F. Mires, relevant adverse comments, the direct ADDRESSES: Comments may be Chief Counsel, Legislative. final rule will be withdrawn and all submitted by mail to: Matt Laurita, Air [FR Doc. 03–20358 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] public comments received will be Quality Modeling and Transportation BILLING CODE 7710–12–P addressed in a subsequent final rule Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, based on this proposed action. EPA will Pesticides and Toxics Management not institute a second comment period Division, U.S. Environmental Protection on this action. Any parties interested in Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47531

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. request, from the EPA Regional Office 1. Electronically Comments may also be submitted listed in the ADDRESSES section of this If you submit an electronic comment electronically, or through hand document. If no adverse comments are as prescribed below, EPA recommends delivery/courier. Please follow the received in response to this action, no that you include your name, mailing detailed instructions described in the further activity is contemplated. If EPA address, and an e-mail address or other direct final rule, Supplementary receives adverse comments, the direct contact information in the body of your Information section [Part (I)(B)(1)(i) final rule will be withdrawn and all comment. Also include this contact through (iii)] which is published in the public comments received will be information on the outside of any disk Rules Section of this Federal Register. addressed in a subsequent final rule or CD ROM you submit, and in any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt based on this proposed rule. EPA will cover letter accompanying the disk or Laurita, Air Quality Modeling and not institute a second comment period. CD ROM. This ensures that you can be Transportation Section, Air Planning Any parties interested in commenting identified as the submitter of the Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics on this action should do so at this time. comment and allows EPA to contact you Management Division, U.S. DATES: Comments must be received in in case EPA cannot read your comment Environmental Protection Agency writing by September 10, 2003. due to technical difficulties or needs Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., further information on the substance of ADDRESSES: Comments may be Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA submitted either by mail or telephone number is (404) 562–9044. will not edit your comment, and any electronically. Written comments Mr. Laurita can also be reached via identifying or contact information should be mailed to Makeba Morris, electronic mail at provided in the body of a comment will Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, [email protected]. be included as part of the comment that Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For is placed in the official public docket. Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 additional information see the direct If EPA cannot read your comment due Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania final rule which is published in the to technical difficulties and cannot 19103. Electronic comments should be Rules Section of this Federal Register. contact you for clarification, EPA may sent either to [email protected] or not be able to consider your comment. Dated: July 31, 2003. to http://www.regulations.gov, which is A. Stanley Meiburg, an alternative method for submitting i. E-mail electronic comments to EPA. To submit Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. Comments may be sent by electronic comments, follow the detailed [FR Doc. 03–20303 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] mail (e-mail) to instructions described in the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P [email protected], attention Supplementary Information section. WV041/046–6015b. EPA’s e-mail system Copies of the documents relevant to this is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION action are available for public you send an e-mail comment directly AGENCY inspection during normal business without going through Regulations.gov, hours at the Air Protection Division, EPA’s e-mail system automatically 40 CFR Part 52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, captures your e-mail address. E-mail Region III, 1650 Arch Street, [WV041/046–6015b; FRL–7525–3] addresses that are automatically Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; West captured by EPA’s e-mail system are Approval and Promulgation of Air Virginia Department of Environmental included as part of the comment that is Quality Implementation Plans; West Protection, Division of Air Quality, 7012 placed in the official public docket. Virginia; Regulation To Prevent and MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, WV Control Particulate Air Pollution From 25304–2943. ii. Regulations.gov Combustion of Fuel in Indirect Heat FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Your use of Regulation.gov is an Exchangers Kathleen Anderson, (215) 814–2173, or alternative method of submitting AGENCY: Environmental Protection by e-mail at electronic comments to EPA. Go directly Agency (EPA). [email protected]. to http://www.regulations.gov, then ACTION: Proposed rule. select ‘‘Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Agency’’ at the top of the page and use SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the further information, please see the the ‘‘go’’ button. The list of current EPA State Implementation Plan (SIP) information provided in the direct final actions available for comment will be revision submitted by the State of West action, with the same title, that is listed. Please follow the online Virginia for the purpose of establishing located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ instructions for submitting comments. regulations for the prevention and section of this Federal Register The system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ control of particulate air pollution from publication. system, which means EPA will not combustion of fuel in indirect heat You may submit comments either know your identity, e-mail address, or exchangers. In the Final Rules section of electronically or by mail. To ensure other contact information unless you this Federal Register, EPA is approving proper receipt by EPA, identify the provide it in the body of your comment. the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final appropriate rulemaking identification rule without prior proposal because the number WV041/046–6015b in the iii. Disk or CD ROM Agency views this as a noncontroversial subject line on the first page of your You may submit comments on a disk submittal and anticipates no adverse comment. Please ensure that your or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing comments. A more detailed description comments are submitted within the address identified in the ADDRESSES of the state submittal and EPA’s specified comment period. Comments section of this document. These evaluation are included in a Technical received after the close of the comment electronic submissions will be accepted Support Document (TSD) prepared in period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file support of this rulemaking action. A required to consider these late format. Avoid the use of special copy of the TSD is available, upon comments. characters and any form of encryption.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47532 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

2. By Mail 2. Describe any assumptions that you anticipates no adverse comments. A used. detailed rationale for the approval is set Written comments should be forth in the direct final rule. If EPA addressed to the EPA Regional office 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your receives no adverse comments, EPA will listed in the ADDRESSES section of this not take further action on this proposed document. views. rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, For public commenters, it is 4. If you estimate potential burden or EPA will withdraw the direct final rule important to note that EPA’s policy is costs, explain how you arrived at your and it will not take effect. EPA will that public comments, whether estimate. address all public comments in a submitted electronically or in paper, 5. Provide specific examples to subsequent final rule based on this will be made available for public illustrate your concerns. proposed rule. The EPA will not viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as 6. Offer alternatives. institute a second comment period on EPA receives them and without change, 7. Make sure to submit your this action. Any parties interested in unless the comment contains comments by the comment period commenting on this action should do so copyrighted material, confidential deadline identified. at this time. business information (CBI), or other 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, information whose disclosure is identify the appropriate regional file/ DATES: Written comments must be restricted by statute. When EPA rulemaking identification number in the received on or before September 10, identifies a comment containing subject line on the first page of your 2003. copyrighted material, EPA will provide response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal ADDRESSES: Comments may be a reference to that material in the submitted either by mail or version of the comment that is placed in Register citation related to your comments. electronically. Written comments the official public rulemaking file. The should be mailed to Raymond Werner, entire printed comment, including the Dated: June 30, 2003. Chief, Air Programs Branch, copyrighted material, will be available Thomas C. Voltaggio, Environmental Protection Agency, at the Regional Office for public Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. Region II Office, 290 Broadway, New inspection. [FR Doc. 03–20305 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] York, New York 10007–1866. Electronic Submittal of CBI Comments BILLING CODE 6560–50–P comments could be sent either to [email protected] or to http:// Do not submit information that you www.regulations.gov, which is an consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION alternative method for submitting You may claim information that you AGENCY electronic comments to EPA. submit to EPA as CBI by marking any Go directly to http:// part or all of that information as CBI (if 40 CFR Part 52 www.regulations.gov, then select you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, ‘‘Environmental Protection Agency’’ at mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM [Region II Docket No. NJ56–250b; FRL– 7527–4] the top of the page and use the ‘‘go’’ as CBI and then identify electronically button. Please follow the on-line within the disk or CD ROM the specific Approval and Promulgation of instructions for submitting comments. information that is CBI). Information so Implementation Plans; Reasonably marked will not be disclosed except in Copies of the State submittals are Available Control Technology for available at the following addresses for accordance with procedures set forth in Oxides of Nitrogen for Specific 40 CFR part 2. inspection during normal business Sources in the State of New Jersey hours: In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any AGENCY: Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency, information claimed as CBI, a copy of Agency (EPA). Region II Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007– the comment that does not contain the ACTION: Proposed rule. information claimed as CBI must be 1866. submitted for inclusion in the official SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to New Jersey Department of public regional rulemaking file. If you approve revisions to the State Environmental Protection, Office of Air submit the copy that does not contain Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone Quality Management, Bureau of Air CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the submitted by the State of New Jersey. Pollution Control, 401 East State Street, outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly These revisions consist of source- CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. that it does not contain CBI. Information specific reasonably available control FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: not marked as CBI will be included in technology (RACT) determinations for Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Air Programs the public file and available for public controlling oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Branch, Environmental Protection inspection without prior notice. If you from seven facilities in New Jersey. Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New have any questions about CBI or the The EPA is also proposing to approve, York, New York 10278, (212) 637–4249 procedures for claiming CBI, please for an eighth facility, New Jersey’s OR at [email protected]. consult the person identified in the FOR revised NOX RACT permit emission SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. limit that EPA previously approved and additional information see the direct EPA is incorporating the revised stricter Considerations When Preparing final rule which is located in the Rules limit into the State’s SIP. Comments to EPA Section of this Federal Register. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ You may find the following section of this Federal Register, EPA is Dated: July 1, 2003. suggestions helpful for preparing your approving the State’s SIP submittals, as Jane M. Kenny, comments: a direct final rule without prior proposal Regional Administrator, Region 2. 1. Explain your views as clearly as because the Agency views them as [FR Doc. 03–20425 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] possible. noncontroversial submittals and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47533

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This comments on the DOT electronic docket AGENCY proposal addresses local rules site. GBUAPCD Rules 218 and 219. In the • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 40 CFR Part 52 Rules and Regulations section of this • Mail: Docket Management Facility; [CA 172–0276b; FRL–7524–8] Federal Register, we are approving U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 these local rules in a direct final action Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Revisions to the California State without prior proposal because we Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– Implementation Plan, Great Basin believe these SIP revisions are not 001. Unified Air Pollution Control District controversial. If we receive adverse • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on comments, however, we will publish a the plaza level of the Nassif Building, AGENCY: Environmental Protection timely withdrawal of the direct final 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Agency (EPA). rule and address the comments in DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday ACTION: Proposed rule. subsequent action based on this through Friday, except Federal proposed rule. We do not plan to open Holidays. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a second comment period, so anyone • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to revisions to the Great Basin Unified Air interested in commenting should do so http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) at this time. If we do not receive adverse online instructions for submitting portion of the California State comments, no further activity is comments. Implementation Plan (SIP). These planned. For further information, please Instructions: All submissions must revisions concern permitting of sources see the direct final action. include the agency name and docket that have the potential to emit above number or Regulatory Identification major source thresholds but do not Dated: June 12, 2003. Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For actually emit pollutants at those levels. Alexis Strauss, detailed instructions on submitting We are proposing to approve local rules Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. comments and additional information under the Clean Air Act as amended in [FR Doc. 03–20427 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] on the rulemaking process, see the 1990 (CAA or the Act). BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Public Participation heading of the DATES: Comments must be received in Supplementary Information section of writing by September 10, 2003. this document. Note that all comments ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Gerardo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION received will be posted without change Rios, Permits Office Chief (AIR–3), U.S. to http://dms.dot.gov. including any Office of the Secretary Environmental Protection Agency, personal information provided. Please Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San see the Privacy Act heading under 49 CFR Part 71 Francisco, CA 94105; Regulatory Notices. [email protected]. [Docket No. OST–2003–15858] Docket: For access to the docket to You can inspect copies of the RIN 2105–AD30 read background documents or submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s comments received, go to http:// technical support documents (TSDs) at dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL– our Region IX office during normal Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of South Dakota: Proposed 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif business hours. You may also see copies Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., of the submitted SIP revisions at the Relocation of Jones, Mellette, and Todd Counties Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 following locations: pm, Monday through Friday, except Permits Office (AIR–3), Air Division, AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Federal Holidays. Environmental Protection Agency, DOT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Joanne Petrie, Office of the Assistant Francisco, CA 94105 Environmental Protection Agency, Air SUMMARY: In response to a concurrent General Counsel for Regulation and Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, resolution of the South Dakota Enforcement, U.S. Department of 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., legislature, DOT proposes to relocate the Transportation, Room 10424, 400 Washington, DC 20460 boundary between mountain time and Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC California Air Resources Board, central time in the State of South 20590, (202) 366–9315, or by email at Stationary Source Division, Rule Dakota. DOT proposes to place all of [email protected]. Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Jones, Mellette, and Todd Counties in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Sacramento, CA 95814 the central time zone. Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended Great Basin Unified Air Pollution DATES: Comments should be received by by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 Control District, 157 Short Street, September 25, 2003 to be assured of U.S.C. 260–64), the Secretary of Bishop, CA 93514 consideration. Comments received after Transportation has authority to issue A copy of the rule may also be available that date will be considered to the regulations modifying the boundaries via the Internet at http:// extent practicable. If the time zone between time zones in the United States www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. boundary is changed as a result of this in order to move an area from one time Please be advised that this is not an rulemaking, the effective date would be zone to another. The standard in the EPA website and may not contain the no earlier than 2 a.m. MDT Sunday, statute for such decisions is ‘‘regard for same version of the rule that was October 26, 2003, which is the the convenience of commerce and the submitted to EPA. changeover from daylight saving to existing junction points and division FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: standard time. points of common carriers engaged in David Wampler, Permits Office, (AIR– ADDRESSES: You may submit comments interstate or foreign commerce.’’ 3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental to DOT DMS Docket OST–2003–15858 Time zone boundaries are set by Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 by any of the following methods: regulation (49 CFR Part 71). Currently, Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. under regulation, Mellette and Todd 94105, (415) 972–3975. Follow the instructions for submitting Counties, and the western portion of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47534 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Jones County, are located in the on the last Sunday in October, except in If the rule would affect your small mountain standard time zone. The any State that has, by law, exempted business, organization, or governmental eastern portion of Jones County is itself from this observance. jurisdiction and you have questions currently located in the central time concerning its provisions or options for Regulatory Analysis and Notices zone. compliance, please call Joanne Petrie at This proposed rule is not a (202) 366–9315. Request for a Change ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under The South Dakota legislature adopted section 3(f) of E.O. Order 12866 and Collection of Information a concurrent resolution (Senate does not require an assessment of This proposed rule would call for no Concurrent Resolution No. 3) potential costs and benefits under new collection of information under the petitioning the Secretary of section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Transportation to place all of Jones, been reviewed by the Office of U.S.C. 3501–3520). Mellette, and Todd counties into the Management and Budget under that central time zone. The resolution was Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the Federalism adopted by the South Dakota Senate on regulatory policies and procedures of We have analyzed this proposed rule February 3, 2003, and concurred by the the Department of Transportation (44 FR under E.O. 12612 and have determined South Dakota House of Representatives 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect that this rule does not have sufficient on February 7, 2003. The resolution the economic impact of this proposed federalism implications to warrant the noted, among other things, that the vast rule to be so minimal that a full preparation of a Federalism Assessment. majority of residents of those counties Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph observe central standard time, instead of 10e of the regulatory policies and Unfunded Mandates mountain standard time, because their procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act commercial and social ties are to rule primarily affects the convenience of of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) and E.O. communities located in the central time individuals in scheduling activities. By 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental zone. It further stated that there would itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its Partnership, (58 FR 58093, October 28, be much less confusion and that it impact is localized in nature. 1993) govern the issuance of Federal would be much more convenient for the Small Entities regulations that require unfunded commerce of these counties if these mandates. An unfunded mandate is a counties were located in the central Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act regulation that requires a State, local, or time zone. A copy of the resolution has (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered tribal government or the private sector been placed in the docket. whether this proposed rule would have to incur direct costs without the Federal a significant economic impact on a Government’s having first provided the Procedure for Changing a Time Zone substantial number of small entities. funds to pay those costs. This proposed Boundary The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises rule would not impose an unfunded Under DOT procedures to change a small businesses, not-for-profit mandate. time zone boundary, the Department organizations, and governmental will generally begin a rulemaking jurisdictions with populations of less Taking of Private Property proceeding if the highest elected than 50,000. This proposal, if adopted, This proposed rule would not effect a officials in the area make a prima facie would primarily affect individuals and taking of private property or otherwise case for the proposed change. DOT has their scheduling of activities. Although have taking implications under E.O. determined that the concurrent it would affect some small businesses, 12630, Governmental Actions and resolution of the South Dakota not-for-profits and, perhaps, several Interference with Constitutionally legislature makes a prima facie case that small governmental jurisdictions, it Protected Property Rights. warrants opening a proceeding to would not be a substantial number. In Civil Justice Reform determine whether the change should addition, the change should have little, be made. Consequently, in this notice of if any, economic impact. This proposed rule meets applicable proposed rulemaking, DOT is proposing Therefore, the Office of the Secretary standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of to make the requested change and is certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to inviting public comment. In addition, proposed rule would not, if adopted, minimize litigation, eliminate we expect to hold one or more hearings have a significant economic impact on ambiguity, and reduce burden. a substantial number of small entities. If in the area that will be chaired by a DOT Protection of Children representative. The time and place of you think that your business, the hearing(s) will be published in a organization, or governmental We have analyzed this proposed rule subsequent Federal Register notice and jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity under E.O. 13045, Protection of be publicized through local media. and that this rule would have a Children from Environmental Health We are proposing that this change go significant economic impact on it, Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not into effect during the next changeover please submit a comment to the Docket an economically significant rule and from daylight saving time to standard Management Facility at the address does not concern an environmental risk time, which is on October 26, 2003. under ADDRESSES. In your comment, to health or risk to safety that may explain why you think it qualifies and disproportionately affect children. Impact on Observance of Daylight how and to what degree this rule would Environment Saving Time economically affect it. This time zone proposal does not Under section 213(a) of the Small This rulemaking is not a major directly affect the observance of daylight Business Regulatory Enforcement Federal action significantly affecting the saving time. Under the Uniform Time Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), quality of the human environment Act of 1966, as amended, the standard we want to assist small entities in under the National Environmental time of each time zone in the United understanding this proposed rule so that Policy Act and, therefore, an States is advanced one hour from 2 a.m. they can better evaluate its effects on environmental impact statement is not on the first Sunday in April until 2 a.m. them and participate in the rulemaking. required.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47535

Consultation and Coordination with 1. The authority citation for Part 71 (b) South Dakota. From the junction Indian Tribal Governments would continue to read: of the North Dakota-South Dakota boundary with the Missouri River E.O. 13175 provides that government Authority: Secs. 1–4, 40 Stat. 450, as amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended; southerly along the main channel of that agencies consult with tribes on issues secs. 2–7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat. river to the northeast corner of Jones that impact the Indian community. The 764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the County; thence west along the northern Department has consulted with the Uniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97– boundary of Jones County; thence south Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council and will 449, 15 U.S.C. 260–267; Pub. L. 99–359; Pub. along the western boundaries of Jones, continue to do so as this rulemaking L. 106–564. 15 U.S.C. 263, 114 Stat. 281149 Mellette and Todd Counties to the progresses. CFR 159(a), unless otherwise noted. South Dakota-Nebraska boundary. 2. Paragraph (b) of § 71.7, Boundary List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71 * * * * * line between central and mountain Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, Time zones. zones, would be revised to read as 2003. follows: For the reasons discussed above, the Rosalind A. Knapp, Office of the Secretary proposes to § 71.7 Boundary line between central and Deputy General Counsel. amend Title 49 CFR Part 71 to read as mountain zones. [FR Doc. 03–20418 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] follows: (a) * * * BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:34 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 47536

Notices Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER members on the Committee. An are distributed in the U.S. and contains documents other than rules or organization may nominate individuals worldwide. (About 10 percent are proposed rules that are applicable to the from within or outside its membership. exported). No authority is being sought public. Notices of hearings and investigations, The Secretary will select members to for activity conducted under FTZ committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of obtain the broadest possible procedures that would result in a petitions and applications and agency representation on the Committee, in change in tariff classification. statements of organization and functions are accordance with the Federal Advisory Zone procedures would exempt AE examples of documents appearing in this Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and U.S. LLC from Customs duty payments on section. Department of Agriculture (USDA) foreign products that are reexported. On Regulation 1041–1. Equal opportunity its domestic sales, the company would practices, in line with the USDA be able to defer duty payments until DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE policies, will be followed in all merchandise is shipped from its facility. appointments to the Committee. To The application indicates that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection ensure that the recommendations of the savings from zone procedures would Service Committee have taken into account the help improve the facilities’ international needs of the diverse groups served by [Docket No. 03–040–1] competitiveness. the Department, membership should Secretary’s Advisory Committee on include, to the extent practicable, In accordance with the Board’s Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases; individuals with demonstrated ability to regulations, a member of the FTZ staff Notice of Solicitation for Membership represent minorities, women, and has been designated examiner to persons with disabilities. investigate the application and report to AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health the Board. Inspection Service, USDA. Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of August 2003 . Public comment is invited from ACTION: Notice of solicitation for Bobby R. Acord, interested parties. Submissions (original membership. Administrator, Animal and Plant Health and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the SUMMARY: We are giving notice that the Inspection Service. Board’s Executive Secretary at one of Secretary anticipates reestablishing the [FR Doc. 03–20375 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] the following addresses: BILLING CODE 3410–34–P Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal 1. Submission Via Express/Package and Poultry Diseases for a 2-year period. Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade The Secretary is soliciting nominations Zones Board, U.S. Department of for membership for this Committee. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Commerce, Franklin Court Building— DATES: Consideration will be given to Foreign-Trade Zones Board Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St., NW., nominations received on or before Washington, DC 20005; or September 25, 2003. [Docket 38–2003] 2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postage ADDRESSES: Nominations should be Foreign-Trade Zone 39—Dallas/Fort Service: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, addressed to the person listed under FOR U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB— FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Worth, Application for Subzone, American Eurocopter LLC (Helicopter Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. NW., Washington, DC 20230. Joe Annelli, Director, Emergency Parts), Grand Prairie, TX Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road An application has been submitted to The closing period for their receipt is Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the October 10, 2003 Rebuttal comments in (301) 734–8073. Board) by the Dallas/Fort Worth response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The International Airport Board, grantee of Secretary’s Advisory Committee on FTZ 39, requesting special-purpose during the subsequent 15-day period (to Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases subzone status for the warehousing and October 27, 2003). (the Committee) advises the Secretary of distribution facilities of American A copy of the application and Agriculture on actions necessary to keep Eurocopter LLC (AE LLC), located in accompanying exhibits will be available foreign diseases of livestock and poultry Grand Prairie, Texas. The application for public inspection at the Office of the from being introduced into the United was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board’s Executive States. In addition, the Committee provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Secretary at address Number 1 listed advises on contingency planning and on Act, as amended (19 U.S.C 81a–81u), above, and the U.S. Department of maintaining a state of preparedness to and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Commerce Export Assistance Center, deal with these diseases, if introduced. part 400). It was formally filed on 711 Houston St., Fort Worth, Texas, The Committee Chairperson and Vice August 4, 2003. 76102. Chairperson shall be elected by the AE LLC’s facility is comprised of one Dated: August 4, 2003. Committee from among its members. site (40.17 acres, 303 employees), Terms expired for the members of the located at 2701 Forum Drive in the City Dennis Puccinelli, Committee in June 2003. We are of Grand Prairie, Texas. Executive Secretary. soliciting nominations from interested The facility distributes, repairs and [FR Doc. 03–20422 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] organizations and individuals to replace services helicopter parts. The products BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:21 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47537

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE honey produced by its supplier, Cixi Scope City Yikang Bee Industry Co., Ltd. (Cixi The merchandise under review is International Trade Administration Yikang). As required by 19 CFR honey from the PRC. The products 351.214(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii)(A), each [A–570–863] covered are natural honey, artificial company identified above has certified honey containing more than 50 percent Honey From the People’s Republic of that it did not export honey to the natural honey by weight, preparations of China: Initiation of New Shipper United States during the period of natural honey containing more than 50 Antidumping Duty Reviews investigation (POI), and that it has never percent natural honey by weight, and been affiliated with any exporter or flavored honey. The subject AGENCY: Import Administration, producer which did export honey merchandise includes all grades and International Trade Administration, during the POI. Each company has colors of honey whether in liquid, Department of Commerce. further certified that its export activities creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk ACTION: Initiation of new shipper are not controlled by the central form, and whether packaged for retail or antidumping duty reviews. government of the PRC, satisfying the in bulk form. The merchandise under requirements of 19 CFR review is currently classifiable under EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2003. 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the item 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Angelica Mendoza or Dena Aliadinov or 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Wai Yuan and Jinfu Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Brandon Farlander at (202) 482–3019 or submitted documentation establishing Although the HTSUS subheading is (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–0182, the date on which the subject provided for convenience and customs respectively; Antidumping and merchandise was first entered for purposes, the written description of the Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group consumption in the United States, the merchandise under review is III, Import Administration, International volume of that first shipment, and the dispositive. Trade Administration, U.S. Department date of the first sale to an unaffiliated of Commerce, 14th Street and customer in the United States. Initiation of Review Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, In accordance with section In accordance with section DC 20230. 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new information on the record, we are shipper reviews of the antidumping The Applicable Statute initiating new shipper reviews for Wai duty order on honey from the PRC. We Unless otherwise indicated, all Yuan and Jinfu. See also Memoranda to intend to issue the preliminary results citations to the statute are references to the File through Richard O. Weible, of these reviews not later than 180 days the provisions effective January 1, 1995, ‘‘New Shipper Review Initiation after the date on which these reviews the effective date of the amendments Checklist,’’ dated July 31, 2003, for each were initiated, and the final results of made to the Tariff Act of 1930, as respective company. The Department is these reviews within 90 days after the amended (the Act) by the Uruguay not initiating new shipper reviews for date on which the preliminary results Round Agreements Act (URAA). In the remaining companies due to were issued. addition, unless otherwise indicated, all deficiencies in each of those companies’ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B) citations to the Department’s regulations certifications.1 of the Department’s regulations, the are references to the provisions codified It is the Department’s usual practice period of review (POR) for a new at 19 CFR part 351 (2003). in cases involving non-market shipper review initiated in the month economies to require that a company immediately following the semiannual Background seeking to establish eligibility for an anniversary month will be the six- The Department received timely antidumping duty rate separate from the month period immediately preceding requests from Anhui Honghui Foodstuff country-wide rate provide evidence of the semiannual anniversary month. (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui), de jure and de facto absence of Therefore, the POR for these new Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods government control over the company’s shipper reviews is: Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Kanghong), Cheng Du export activities. Accordingly, we will Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Wai issue questionnaires to Wai Yuan and Antidumping duty Period to be Yuan), Shanghai Shinomiel Jinfu, including a separate rates section. proceeding reviewed International Trade Corporation If the responses provide sufficient Cheng Du Wai Yuan (Shanghai Shinomiel), Eurasia Bee’s indication that Wai Yuan and Jinfu are Bee Products Co., Products Co., Ltd. (Eurasia), and Jinfu not subject to either de jure or de facto Ltd...... 12/01/02–05/31/03 Trading Co., Ltd. (Jinfu), in accordance government control with respect to their Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. 12/01/02–05/31/03 with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper exports of honey, the review will reviews of the antidumping duty order proceed. If, on the other hand, Wai We will instruct the U.S. Bureau of on honey from the People’s Republic of Yuan and Jinfu do not demonstrate their Customs and Border Protection China (PRC), which has a December eligibility for a separate rate, then they (Customs) to allow, at the option of the annual anniversary month and a June will be deemed not separate from other importer, the posting, until the semiannual anniversary month. See companies that exported during the POI completion of the review, of a single Notice of Amended Final Determination and the review of that respondent will entry bond or security in lieu of a cash of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and be rescinded. deposit for certain entries of the Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from merchandise exported by the above- the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 1 See letters to Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu listed companies. This action is in 63670 (December 10, 2001). Wai Yuan Kanghong, Shanghai Shinomiel, and Eurasia from accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e). As Richard O. Weible, dated July 31, 2003. See also Wai Yuan has certified that it both identified itself as both the exporter and Memoranda to the File through Richard O. Weible, producer of the subject merchandise. ‘‘New Shipper Review Initiation Checklist,’’ dated produced and exported the subject Jinfu identified itself as the exporter of July 31, 2003, for each respective company. merchandise, we will instruct Customs

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47538 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

to limit Wai Yuan’s bonding option only 2003. See Notice of Preliminary 5) PVA for use in the manufacture of an to such merchandise for which it is both Determination of Sales at Less Than excipient or as an excipient in the the producer and exporter. For Jinfu, Fair Value and Postponement of Final manufacture of film coating systems which has identified Cixi Yikang as the Determination: Polyvinyl Alcohol from which are components of a drug or producer of subject merchandise for the the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR dietary supplement, and accompanied sale under review, we will instruct 13674 (March 20, 2003) (Preliminary by an end-use certification. Customs to limit the bonding option Determination). Since the preliminary 6) PVA covalently bonded with cationic only to entries of subject merchandise determination, the following events monomer uniformly present on all from Jinfu that was produced by Cixi have occurred. polymer chains in a concentration equal Yikang. With respect to scope, on March 3, to or greater than one mole percent. Interested parties that need access to 2003, the petitioners agreed to revise the 7) PVA covalently bonded with proprietary information in these new scope of the companion case on PVA carboxylic acid uniformly present on all shipper reviews should submit from Japan to exclude certain types of polymer chains in a concentration equal applications for disclosure under PVA covalently bonded with to or greater than two mole percent, administrative protective orders in diacetoneacrylamide. The petitioners’ certified for use in a paper application. accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and submission was made in response to a 8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol 351.306. This initiation and notice are request by Japan VAM and POVAL Co., uniformly present on all polymer in accordance with section 751(a) of the Ltd., one of the mandatory respondents chains, certified for use in emulsion Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR in the companion Japanese case. polymerization of non-vinyl acetic 351.214(d). Because these comments relate to material. Dated: July 31, 2003. PVA in general, we find that they are 9) PVA covalently bonded with paraffin applicable to this proceeding. Joseph A. Spetrini, uniformly present on all polymer chains Accordingly, as we did in the in a concentration equal to or greater Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, preliminary determination, we have Under Secretary. than one mole percent. modified the scope to conform to that [FR Doc. 03–20423 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] 10) PVA covalently bonded with silan set forth in the companion Japanese uniformly present on all polymer chains BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P proceeding, as described in the ‘‘Scope certified for use in paper coating of the Investigation’’ section of this applications. notice below. See Notice of Final DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 11) PVA covalently bonded with Determination of Sales at Less Than sulfonic acid uniformly present on all International Trade Administration Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from polymer chains in a concentration level Japan, 68 FR 19510 (April 21, 2003). [A–570–874] equal to or greater than one mole In March and April 2003, we percent. conducted verification of the Notice of Final Determination of Sales 12) PVA covalently bonded with questionnaire responses of the sole acetoacetylate uniformly present on all at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl participating respondent in this case, Alcohol from the People’s Republic of polymer chains in a concentration level Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works (SVW). equal to or greater than one mole China We gave interested parties an percent. opportunity to comment on the AGENCY: Import Administration, 13) PVA covalently bonded with preliminary determination. In May, we International Trade Administration, polyethylene oxide uniformly present received case and rebuttal briefs from Department of Commerce. on all polymer chains in a concentration the petitioners (Celanese Chemicals Ltd. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2003. level equal to or greater than one mole and E.I. Dupont de Nemours & percent. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Company) and SVW. The Department 14) PVA covalently bonded with Elizabeth Eastwood or Alice Gibbons at held a public hearing on May 29, 2003, quaternary amine uniformly present on (202) 482–3874 and (202) 482–0498, at the request of SVW. respectively, AD/CVD Enforcement, all polymer chains in a concentration Office 2, Import Administration, Scope of the Investigation level equal to or greater than one mole International Trade Administration, The merchandise covered by this percent. U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th investigation is PVA. This product 15) PVA covalently bonded with Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess diacetoneacrylamide uniformly present Washington, DC 20230. of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or on all polymer chains in a concentration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: diluted with commercial levels of level greater than three mole percent, certified for use in a paper application. Final Determination: defoamer or boric acid, except as noted below. The merchandise under investigation We determine that polyvinyl alcohol The following products are is currently classifiable under (PVA) from the People’s Republic of specifically excluded from the scope of subheading 3905.30.00 of the China (PRC) is being sold, or is likely to this investigation: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the be sold, in the United States at less than 1) PVA in fiber form. United States (HTSUS). Although the fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 HTSUS subheading is provided for 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as mole percent and certified not for use in convenience and customs purposes, the amended (the Act). The estimated the production of textiles. written description of the merchandise margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than 85 under investigation is dispositive. percent and viscosity greater than or the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section Period of Investigation of this notice. equal to 90 cps. 4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than 85 The period of investigation is January Background percent, viscosity greater than or equal 1, 2002, through June 30, 2002, which The preliminary determination in this to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, certified corresponds to the two most recent investigation was issued on March 14, for use in an ink jet application. fiscal quarters prior to the month of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47539

filing of the petition (i.e., September Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel entries of PVA exported by SVW that 2002). Products From The People’s Republic of are entered, or withdrawn from China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and warehouse, for consumption on or after Nonmarket Economy Status for the PRC accompanying decision memorandum at the date of publication of this The Department has treated the PRC Comment 1. For purposes of the final determination in the Federal Register. as a nonmarket economy (NME) country determination of this investigation, we The BCBP shall require a cash deposit in all past antidumping investigations. are using the margin stated in the notice or the posting of a bond equal to the See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of initiation (i.e., 97.86 percent) as estimated amount by which the normal of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure adverse facts available because it is value exceeds the U.S. price as shown Magnesium in Granular Form from the higher than the margin we calculated for below. These instructions suspending People’s Republic of China, 66 FR SVW. liquidation will remain in effect until 49345, 49346 (September 27, 2001). A further notice. designation as a NME remains in effect Analysis of Comments Received The dumping margins are provided until it is revoked by the Department. All issues raised in the case briefs by below: See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. No parties to this proceeding and to which party in this investigation has requested we have responded are listed in the Manufacturer/exporter Margin a revocation of the PRC’s NME status. Appendix to this notice and addressed (percent) Therefore, we have continued to treat in the Decision Memorandum, which is Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon the PRC as an NME in this investigation. adopted by this notice. Parties can find Works ...... 7.40 For further details, see Preliminary a complete discussion of all issues PRC-wide ...... 97.86 Determination, 68 FR at 13676. raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this Separate Rate The PRC-wide rate applies to all public memorandum, which is on file in entries of the subject merchandise In our preliminary determination, we the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of except for entries from SVW. found that SVW had met the criteria for the main Department building. In Disclosure receiving a separate antidumping rate. addition, a complete version of the We have not received any information Decision Memorandum can be accessed We will disclose the calculations since the preliminary determination directly on the Web at http:// performed within five days of the date which would warrant reconsideration of ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and of publication of this notice to parties in our separate-rate determination with electronic version of the Decision this proceeding in accordance with 19 respect to this company. Therefore, we Memorandum are identical in content. CFR 351.224(b). continue to find that SVW should be ITC Notification assigned an individual dumping margin. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination In accordance with section 735(d) of Surrogate Country Based on our analysis of comments the Act, we have notified the For purposes of the final received, we have made certain changes International Trade Commission (ITC) of determination, we continue to find that to the margin calculations. For a our determination. As our final India is the appropriate primary discussion of these changes, see the determination is affirmative, the ITC surrogate country for the PRC. For ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the will, within 45 days, determine whether further discussion and analysis Decision Memorandum. these imports are materially injuring, or regarding the surrogate country threaten material injury to, the U.S. selection for the PRC, see Preliminary Verification industry. If the ITC determines that Determination, 68 FR at 13679. As provided in section 782(i) of the material injury or threat of material Act, we verified the information injury does not exist, the proceeding PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts submitted by the respondent for use in will be terminated and all securities Otherwise Available our final determination. We used posted will be refunded or canceled. If As explained in the Department’s standard verification procedures the ITC determines that such injury Preliminary Determination, SVW was including examination of relevant does exist, the Department will issue an the only exporter to respond to the accounting and production records, and antidumping duty order directing the Department’s questionnaire and original source documents provided by BCBP to assess antidumping duties on cooperate in this investigation. the respondent. all imports of the subject merchandise Therefore, we have continued to entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Continuation of Suspension of calculate a company-specific rate for for consumption on or after the effective Liquidation SVW only. However, in the preliminary date of the suspension of liquidation. determination, we stated that our review In accordance with section of U.S. import statistics from the PRC 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing Notification Regarding APO revealed that SVW did not account for the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border This notice also serves as a reminder all imports into the United States from Protection (BCBP) to continue to to parties subject to administrative the PRC. For this reason, we determined suspend liquidation of all entries of protective order (APO) of their that some PRC exporters of subject PVA from the PRC, except for PVA responsibility concerning the merchandise failed to cooperate in this exported by SVW, that are entered, or disposition of proprietary information investigation. In accordance with our withdrawn from warehouse, for disclosed under APO in accordance standard practice, as adverse facts consumption on or after March 20, with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely available, we are assigning as the PRC- 2003, the date of publication of our notification of return/destruction of wide rate the higher of: (1) the highest preliminary determination. Regarding APO materials or conversion to judicial margin listed in the notice of initiation; SVW, we have calculated a margin for protective order is hereby requested. or (2) the margin calculated for SVW. this final determination which is not de Failure to comply with the regulations See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at minimis. Therefore, we are directing the and the terms of an APO is a Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold- BCBP to begin suspending liquidation of sanctionable violation.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47540 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

This determination is issued and Background (3) PVA with hydrolysis greater than published pursuant to sections 735(d) 85 percent and viscosity greater than or The preliminary determination in this and 777(i)(1) of the Act. equal to 90 cps. investigation was issued on March 14, (4) PVA with a hydrolysis greater than Dated: August 4, 2003. 2003. See Notice of Preliminary 85 percent, viscosity greater than or Joseph A. Spetrini, Determination of Sales at Less Than equal to 80 cps but less than 90 cps, Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Fair Value and Postponement of Final certified for use in an ink jet Under Secretary. Determination: Polyvinyl Alcohol from application. the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 13681 Appendix Issues in the Decision (5) PVA for use in the manufacture of (March 20, 2003) (Preliminary Memorandum an excipient or as an excipient in the Determination). Comments manufacture of film coating systems Since the preliminary determination, which are components of a drug or 1. Valuation of an Input Supplied by a the following events have occurred. On dietary supplement, and accompanied Joint Venture Partner March 3, 2003, the petitioners agreed to by an end-use certification. 2. Treatment of Acetylene Tail Gas as revise the scope of the companion case Co-Product vs. By-Product (6) PVA covalently bonded with on PVA from Japan to exclude certain cationic monomer uniformly present on 3. Cost Allocation Methodology for types of PVA covalently bonded with Acetylene and Acetylene Tail Gas all polymer chains in a concentration diacetoneacrylamide. The petitioners’ equal to or greater than one mole 4. Adjustment of Factors of Production submission was made in response to a for Vinyl Acetate Monomer (VAM) percent. request by Japan VAM and POVAL Co., (7) PVA covalently bonded with 5. Surrogate Value for Activated Carbon Ltd., one of the mandatory respondents 6. Surrogate Value for Natural Gas carboxylic acid uniformly present on all 7. Valuation of N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone in the companion Japanese case. polymer chains in a concentration equal (NMP) Because these comments relate to to or greater than two mole percent, 8. Clerical Error in the Preliminary PVA in general, we find that they are certified for use in a paper application. Determination applicable to this proceeding. (8) PVA covalently bonded with thiol 9. Application of a By-Product Credit in Accordingly, as we did in the uniformly present on all polymer the Calculation of the Surrogate preliminary determination, we have chains, certified for use in emulsion Financial Ratios modified the scope to conform to that polymerization of non-vinyl acetic 10. Adjustments to the Surrogate set forth in the companion Japanese material. Financial Ratios for Differences in proceeding, as described below. See (9) PVA covalently bonded with Integration Levels Notice of Final Determination of Sales paraffin uniformly present on all 11. Surrogate Value for Ocean Freight at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl polymer chains in a concentration equal [FR Doc. 03–20319 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Alcohol from Japan, 68 FR 19510 (April to or greater than one mole percent. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 21, 2003). (10) PVA covalently bonded with On March 12, 2003, DC Chemical silan uniformly present on all polymer Company, Ltd. (DC CHEM), the chains certified for use in paper coating DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE mandatory respondent in this applications. investigation, filed a request to exclude International Trade Administration (11) PVA covalently bonded with from the scope of this investigation sulfonic acid uniformly present on all [A–580–850] certain grades of PVA in which the PVA polymer chains in a concentration level is covalently bonded with itaconic acid. equal to or greater than one mole Notice of Final Determination of Sales On March 27, 2003, DC CHEM percent. at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl notified the Department that it no longer (12) PVA covalently bonded with Alcohol From the Republic of Korea intended to participate in this acetoacetylate uniformly present on all AGENCY: Import Administration, investigation. For further discussion, see polymer chains in a concentration level International Trade Administration, the ‘‘Facts Available (FA)’’ section of equal to or greater than one mole Department of Commerce. this notice. percent. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2003. On April 1, 2003, the petitioners (13) PVA covalently bonded with commented on DC CHEM’s exclusion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina polyethylene oxide uniformly present request. For further discussion, see the Itkin or Jill Pollack at (202) 482–0656 on all polymer chains in a concentration ‘‘Scope Comments’’ section of this and (202) 482–4593, respectively, AD/ level equal to or greater than one mole notice. CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import percent. Administration, International Trade Scope of the Investigation (14) PVA covalently bonded with Administration, U.S. Department of quaternary amine uniformly present on The merchandise covered by this Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution all polymer chains in a concentration investigation is PVA. This product Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. level equal to or greater than one mole consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess percent. Final Determination of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or (15) PVA covalently bonded with We determine that polyvinyl alcohol diluted with commercial levels of diacetoneacrylamide uniformly present (PVA) from the Republic of Korea defoamer or boric acid, except as noted on all polymer chains in a concentration (Korea) is being sold, or is likely to be below. level greater than three mole percent, sold, in the United States at less than The following products are certified for use in a paper application. fair value (LTFV), as provided in section specifically excluded from the scope of The merchandise under investigation is 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as this investigation: currently classifiable under subheading amended (the Act). The estimated (1) PVA in fiber form. 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff margins of sales at LTFV are shown in (2) PVA with hydrolysis less than 83 Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section mole percent and certified not for use in Although the HTSUS subheading is of this notice. the production of textiles. provided for convenience and customs

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47541

purposes, the written description of the Facts Available (FA) Corroboration of Information merchandise under investigation is dispositive. The mandatory respondent in this Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes case, DC CHEM, notified the the Department to use as adverse facts Scope Comments Department on March 27, 2003, that it available (AFA) information derived no longer intended to participate in the from the petition, the final On March 12, 2003, DC CHEM filed investigation. Section 776(a)(2) of the determination from the LTFV a request to exclude from the scope of Act provides that, if an interested party: investigation, a previous administrative this investigation certain grades of a (A) Withholds information requested by review, or any other information placed copolymer of PVA in which the PVA is the Department, (B) fails to provide such on the record. covalently bonded with itaconic acid. information by the deadline, or in the On April 1, 2003, the petitioners Section 776(c) of the Act requires the form or manner requested, (C) commented on DC CHEM’s exclusion Department to corroborate, to the extent significantly impedes a proceeding, or request. In their comments, the practicable, secondary information used (D) provides information that cannot be petitioners state that three of the five as FA. Secondary information is defined verified, the Department shall use, grades of PVA listed in DC CHEM’s as ‘‘{i}nformation derived from the subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the exclusion request (i.e., CL–05, CL–05A, petition that gave rise to the Act, facts otherwise available in and CL–05S) are not subject to this investigation or review, the final reaching the applicable determination. investigation because their level of determination concerning the subject hydrolysis is less than 80 percent. In selecting from among the facts merchandise, or any previous review Regarding the remaining grades, the otherwise available, section 776(b) of under section 751 concerning the petitioners comment that PVA the Act authorizes the Department to subject merchandise.’’ See 19 CFR covalently bonded with itaconic acid (a use an adverse inference if the 351.308 (c) and (d); see also the type of carboxylic acid) for use in paper Department finds that an interested Statement of Administrative Action applications is also outside the scope of party failed to cooperate by not acting (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay this investigation. See item 7 in the to the best of its ability to comply with Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ section of a request for information. See, e.g., 103–316 at 870 (1994). Notice of Final Determination of Sales this notice, above. However, the The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ of Less Than Fair Value and Final petitioners do not agree to exclude PVA means that the Department will satisfy covalently bonded with itaconic acid for Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from itself that the secondary information to non-paper applications because, they be used has probative value. See the assert, these products are directly Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). To examine whether the SAA at 870. The SAA also states that competitive with products produced by independent sources used to corroborate the domestic industry. respondent cooperated by acting to the best of its ability under section 776(b) of such evidence may include, for We have analyzed DC CHEM’s request the Act, the Department considers, inter example, published price lists, official and the petitioners’ objections and we alia, the accuracy and completeness of import statistics and customs data, and find no modifications to the scope are submitted information and whether the information obtained from interested warranted. Because PVA covalently respondent has hindered the calculation parties during the particular bonded with itaconic acid for non-paper of accurate dumping margins. See, e.g., investigation. Id. applications is clearly within the scope Notice of Final Determination of Sales In order to determine the probative of the investigation, we find no basis on at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold- value of the margins in the petition for which to exclude these products. Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel use as AFA for purposes of this final Period of Investigation Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5567 determination, we used information (February 4, 2000). submitted by DC CHEM on the record of The period of investigation (POI) is In the instant investigation, the this investigation. We reviewed the July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. accuracy and completeness of the adequacy and accuracy of the This period corresponds to the four submitted information has not been information in the petition during our most recent fiscal quarters prior to the established because the respondent did pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to month of the filing of the petition (i.e., not agree to verification of all of its the extent appropriate information was September 2002). responses. Without verified data on the available for this purpose (see the Analysis of Comments Received record, the Department cannot calculate September 25, 2002, Initiation accurate margins. Therefore, the Checklist, on file in the Central Records On April 11, 2003, we received respondent’s refusal to allow a complete Unit, Room B–099, of the Main comments from the petitioners in verification has hindered the calculation Commerce Department building, for a response to the preliminary of accurate dumping margins and discussion of the margin calculations in determination. Parties can find a impeded the proceeding within the the petition). In accordance with section complete discussion of all issues raised meaning of section 776(a)(2)(C) of the 776(c) of the Act, to the extent in this investigation and the Act. As a result, application of facts practicable, we examined the key corresponding recommendations in the available is appropriate. Moreover, by elements of the export price (EP) and Decision Memo, which is on file in the refusing to allow the Department to normal value (NV) calculations on Central Records Unit, room B–099, of verify all of its responses, the which the margins in the petition were the main Department building. In respondent did not act to the best of its based. See the August 4, 2003, addition, a complete version of the ability as required by section 776(b) of memorandum to the file from the team Decision Memo can be accessed directly the Act. Consequently, we have entitled ‘‘Corroboration of Data on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The determined to make an adverse Contained in the Petition for Assigning paper copy and electronic version of the inference in determining an Facts Available Rates’’ (Corroboration Decision Memo are identical in content. antidumping duty margin for DC CHEM. Memo).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47542 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Export Price petitioners calculated COP based on weighted-average dumping margins With respect to the margins in the their own production experience, established for all exporters and petition, EP was based on POI price adjusted for known differences between producers individually investigated are quotes for the sale of fully-hydrolyzed costs incurred to manufacture PVA in zero or de minimis or are determined PVA produced by DC CHEM to the United States and Korea. We entirely under section 776 of the Act, customers in the United States. The corroborated the COP from the petition the Department may use any reasonable petitioners calculated net U.S. prices for by comparing it to the COP of method to establish the estimated ‘‘All PVA by deducting certain movement comparable products sold by DC CHEM. Others’’ rate for exporters and producers We found that the petitioners’ not individually investigated. This charges and a distributor mark-up, calculated COP was comparable to DC provision contemplates that we weight- where applicable. We corroborated the U.S. prices from CHEM’s COP. Therefore, we find that average margins other than zero, de the petitioners’ calculated COP has minimis, and FA margins to establish the petition by comparing them to probative value. See the Corroboration the ‘‘All Others’’ rate. Where the data do prices of comparable products reported Memo. not permit weight-averaging such rates, by DC CHEM. We found that the Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) the SAA provides that we may use other petitioners’ price quotes were and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners reasonable methods. See the SAA at comparable to the price information based NV for sales in Korea on 873. Because the petition contained two submitted by DC CHEM. Therefore, we constructed value (CV). The petitioners estimated dumping margins, we have find that the petitioners’ information for calculated CV using the same COM, used these two estimated dumping U.S. price has probative value. For SG&A, and financial expense figures margins, as adjusted for the notices of further discussion, see the they used to compute the COP. initiation and final determination, to Corroboration Memo. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the create an ‘‘All Others’’ rate based on a Normal Value Act, the petitioners included in CV an simple average. Therefore, we have amount for profit based on DC CHEM’s The petitioners based NV on a home- calculated the margin of 32.08 percent 2001 financial statements. The market price quote from DC CHEM for as the ‘‘All Others’’ rate. See, e.g., Notice petitioners’ calculation of profit was of Final Determination of Sales at Less fully-hydrolyzed PVA of a comparable based on operating profit rather than the grade to the products exported to the Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative net income of the producer. Therefore, Finding of Critical Circumstances: United States during the POI. This price we recalculated the CV profit rate to quote was contemporaneous with the Elastic Rubber Tape from India, 64 FR include non-operating items. Because 19123, 19124 (April 19, 1999). U.S. price quotes used as the basis for this calculation resulted in a loss, we EP. We corroborated the home-market used a profit rate of zero for purposes Continuation of Suspension of price from the petition by comparing it of initiation. Liquidation to prices of comparable products sold by For purposes of the AFA rate we have In accordance with section DC CHEM. We found that the calculated for this final determination, 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing petitioners’ price quote was comparable however, we do not believe it is the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border to the price information submitted by appropriate to exclude profit from the Protection (BCBP) to continue to DC CHEM. Therefore, we find that the margin calculations because to do so suspend all entries of PVA from Korea petitioners’ information for home- would not be an adverse inference. that are entered, or withdrawn from market price has probative value. See Consequently, we have revised our warehouse, for consumption on or after the Corroboration Memo. calculation of the profit rate to use a rate March 20, 2003, the date of publication In addition, the petitioners alleged derived from the publicly available 2001 of the preliminary determination. The that sales of PVA in the home market financial statements of another Korean BCBP shall continue to require a cash were made at prices below the fully- petrochemical company, LG deposit or the posting of a bond equal absorbed cost of production (COP), Petrochemical. For further discussion, to the estimated amount by which the within the meaning of section 773(b) of see the Decision Memo at Comment 1. normal value exceeds the U.S. price as the Act, and requested that the Therefore, based on our efforts shown below. These instructions Department conduct a country-wide described above to corroborate suspending liquidation will remain in sales-below-cost investigation. Based information contained in the petition effect until further notice. upon a comparison of the prices of the and in accordance with 776(c) of the The dumping margins are provided foreign like product in the home market Act, we consider the margins in the below: to the calculated COP of the product, we notice of initiation, as adjusted, to be found reasonable grounds to believe or corroborated to the extent practicable Manufacturer/exporter Margin suspect that sales of the foreign like for purposes of this final determination. (percent) product were made below the COP, See the Corroboration Memo. within the meaning of section DC Chemical Company, Ltd ...... 38.74 Accordingly, in selecting AFA with All Others ...... 32.08 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. See Notice of respect to DC CHEM, we have applied Initiation of Antidumping Duty the margin rate of 38.74 percent, which ITC Notification Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol From is the highest estimated dumping Germany, Japan, the People’s Republic margin submitted in the petition, used In accordance with section 735(d) of of China, the Republic of Korea, and in the notice of initiation, and the Act, we have notified the Singapore, 67 FR 61591, 61594 (October subsequently adjusted as explained International Trade Commission (ITC) of 1, 2002) (Initiation Notice). Accordingly, above. See the Initiation Notice, 67 FR our determination. As our final the Department initiated a country-wide at 61593, and the Decision Memo at determination is affirmative, the ITC cost investigation. Pursuant to section Comment 1. will, within 45 days, determine whether 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consisted of these imports are materially injuring, or the cost of manufacture (COM), selling, All Others threaten material injury to, the U.S. general and administrative (SG&A) Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act industry. If the ITC determines that expenses, and packing expenses. The provides that, where the estimated material injury or threat of material

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47543

injury does not exist, the proceeding Enforcement, Import Administration, mm or more in thickness, have a width will be terminated and all securities International Trade Administration, which exceeds 150 mm and measures at posted will be refunded or canceled. If U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., the ITC determines that such injury Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., cold-formed products in coils, of any does exist, the Department will issue an Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) uniform solid cross section along their antidumping duty order directing the 482–1503 or (202) 482–2613, whole length, which do not conform to BCBP to assess antidumping duties on respectively. the definition of flat-rolled products), all imports of the subject merchandise SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and angles, shapes and sections. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, The SSB subject to this order is for consumption on or after the effective Background currently classifiable under subheadings date of the suspension of liquidation. On March 7, 2003, the Department 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, Notification Regarding APO published the Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, This notice also serves as a reminder Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the to parties subject to administrative Bar from India (‘‘Preliminary Results’’) Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the protective order (APO) of their in the Federal Register (68 FR 11058). United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the responsibility concerning the In April and May 2003, we conducted HTSUS subheadings are provided for disposition of proprietary information verifications of the sales and cost of convenience and customs purposes, our disclosed under APO in accordance production (‘‘COP’’) questionnaire written description of the scope of this with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely responses submitted by Isibars Limited order is dispositive. notification of return/destruction of (‘‘Isibars’’), Venus Wire Industries Analysis of Comments Received APO materials or conversion to judicial Limited (‘‘Venus’’), and the Viraj Group, protective order is hereby requested. Ltd. (‘‘Viraj’’). We issued verification All issues raised in the case and Failure to comply with the regulations reports in May and June 2003. rebuttal briefs by parties to this and the terms of an APO is a After inviting parties to comment on administrative review are addressed in sanctionable violation. the Preliminary Results of this review, the Issues and Decision Memorandum This determination is issued and Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible for the Final Results of the published pursuant to sections 735(d) Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Administrative Review of Stainless Steel and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., Slater Bar from India (‘‘Decision Dated: August 4, 2003. Steels Corp., Empire Specialty Steel and Memorandum’’) dated August 4, 2003, Joseph A. Spetrini, the United Steelworkers of America which is hereby adopted by this notice. Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, (AFL–CIO/CLC) (collectively, ‘‘the A list of the issues which parties raised Under Secretary. petitioners’’), and Mukand, Ltd. and to which we responded, all of [FR Doc. 03–20320 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] (‘‘Mukand’’), Venus Wire Industries which are in the Decision BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Limited (‘‘Venus’’), and the Viraj Group, Memorandum, is attached to this notice Ltd. (‘‘Viraj’’) filed case and rebuttal as an Appendix. Parties can find a briefs,1 respectively, on June 30 and July complete discussion of all issues raised DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 9, 2003. in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public International Trade Administration Scope of the Order memorandum which is on file in the Merchandise covered by the order is [A–533–810] Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’). the main Department building (‘‘CRU’’). Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final SSB means articles of stainless steel in In addition, a complete version of the Results of Antidumping Duty straight lengths that have been either Decision Memorandum can be accessed Administrative Review hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, directly on the Web at http:// cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper AGENCY: Import Administration, or ground, having a uniform solid cross copy and electronic version of the International Trade Administration, section along their whole length in the Decision Memorandum are identical in Department of Commerce. shape of circles, segments of circles, content. ACTION: Notice of final results of ovals, rectangles (including squares), Facts Otherwise Available antidumping duty administrative triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other review. convex polygons. SSB includes cold- We continue to find that Mukand did finished SSBs that are turned or ground not cooperate to the best of its ability in SUMMARY: On March 7, 2003, the in straight lengths, whether produced this review and are assigning Mukand Department of Commerce published the from hot-rolled bar or from straightened an antidumping duty rate based on total preliminary results of the administrative and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars adverse facts available. See section 776 review of the antidumping duty order of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended on stainless steel bar from India. We that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the effective January 1, 1995 (‘‘the Act’’), by gave interested parties an opportunity to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act comment on the preliminary results and rolling process. Except as specified above, the term (‘‘URAA’’). See also Preliminary Results have made certain changes for the final does not include stainless steel semi- and Decision Memorandum at Comment results. We find that certain companies finished products, cut length flat-rolled 1. reviewed sold stainless steel bar from products (i.e., cut length rolled products India in the United States below normal Fair Value Comparisons which, if less than 4.75 mm in value during the period February 1, thickness, have a width measuring at To determine whether sales of 2001 through January 31, 2002. least 10 times the thickness, or, if 4.75 stainless steel bar from India to the EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2003. United States were made at less than FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole 1 The other company in this review, Isibars fair value, we compared export price Kyle or Ryan Langan, Office 1, AD/CVD Limited, did not file case or rebuttal briefs. (‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47544 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

(‘‘CEP’’) to normal value (‘‘NV’’). Our steelmaking assets. We recalculated assets in order to determine what calculations followed the methodologies Isibars’ reported interest expense ratio portion should be allocated for the POR described in the Preliminary Results, and per-unit interest expense rate to and included it in the G&A expense except as noted below and in the final reflect one interest expense ratio based ratio calculation. We included the results calculation memoranda cited on the highest level of consolidation. POR’s portion of the additional below, which are on file in the CRU. We adjusted Isibars’, Zenstar’s and depreciation expense in the Isinox’ interest expenses, where Export Price and Constructed Export denominator of the G&A expense rate applicable, to include all foreign calculation. Price exchange gains and losses in each For sales by Isibars’ and Venus to the company’s interest expenses. For Isinox, VAL calculated its interest expense United States, we used EP as defined in we excluded foreign exchange gains and rate based on total interest expenses and section 772(a) of the Act. For Viraj’s losses from its G&A expenses. Because total cost of sales (‘‘COS’’) of the Viraj sales to the United States, we used CEP Isibars did not provide the COP data for Group of companies. Because the Viraj as defined in section 772(b) of the Act. one product control number, we Group of companies does not prepare consolidated financial statements, we Isibars assigned that product control number the costs of a similar product. revised VAL’s interest expense rate In the preliminary results, we For a detailed discussion of the above- calculation using only VAL’s interest adjusted Isibars’ U.S. sales price for an mentioned adjustments, see Isibars Cost expense and COS. In addition, we excise tax that appeared to be included of Production and Constructed Value excluded VAL’s waived interest in the price. We are not making this Calculation Adjustments for the Final expenses from its interest expense ratio adjustment for the final results (see Results dated August 4, 2003, and the calculation. Decision Memorandum at Comment 8). Decision Memorandum at Comments 2– We recalculated Isibars’ indirect selling 6. For a detailed discussion of the above- expenses to include bad debts written mentioned adjustments, see Cost of off (see Decision Memorandum at Venus Production and Constructed Value Comment 7). Finally, we revised Isibars’ We adjusted Venus’ reported COM to Calculation Adjustments for the Final reported sales invoice dates and credit include additional material costs based Results (‘‘Viraj Cost Calculation expenses for certain sales. See Isibars on corrected production quantities. We Memorandum’’) dated August 4, 2003, Limited Final Results Calculation adjusted Venus’ reported COM for and the Decision Memorandum at Memorandum (‘‘Isibars Calculation process and yield loss incurred during Comments 11–14. Memorandum’’) dated August 4, 2003. fiscal year (‘‘FY’’) 2001–2002. Because Venus was able to explain its yield loss 2. Results of the COP Test Venus methodology at verification, we allowed Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the For certain U.S. sales, we revised the its scrap offset for the final results. Act, where less than 20 percent of a reported payment date and credit Further, we adjusted Venus’ reported respondent’s sales of a given product are expenses (see Decision Memorandum at fixed overhead per-unit costs for Comment 17). We revised the made at prices below the COP, we do depreciation expenses incurred for FY not disregard any below-cost sales of calculation of indirect selling expenses. 2001–2002. Specifically, we revised the calculation We adjusted the numerator of Venus’ that product because we determine that of directors’ salaries and allocated the reported G&A expenses to include in such instances the below-cost sales indirect selling expenses over the cost of donations and losses on the sale of were not made in ‘‘substantial goods sold for the POR. We revised the assets and to exclude prior-period quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more reported quantity for one U.S. sale and adjustments. We adjusted the of a respondent’s sales of a given revised the sales invoice date on another denominators of Venus’ reported G&A product are at prices less than the COP, U.S. sale. For further discussion of these and interest expense ratios (used to we disregard those sales of that product adjustments, see Venus Wire Industries determine product-specific G&A and because we determine that in such Limited Final Results Calculation interest expenses) to reflect cost of instances the below-cost sales represent Memorandum (‘‘Venus Calculation goods sold for FY 2001–2002. Finally, ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an Memorandum’’) dated August 4, 2003. we recalculated Venus’ reported interest extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In Normal Value expenses to include net foreign exchange gains and losses. such cases, we also determine whether 1. Calculation of COP For a detailed discussion of the above- such sales are made at prices which mentioned adjustments, see Venus Wire Isibars would not permit recovery of all costs Industries Limited Cost of Production within a reasonable period of time, in We adjusted Isibars’ reported cost of and Constructed Value Calculation accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of manufacture (‘‘COM’’) to include Adjustments for the Final Results dated the Act. payments for the lease of steelmaking August 4, 2003, and the Decision Isibars and Venus each made more assets. We also adjusted Isibars’ Memorandum at Comments 15–19. reported COM for the yield loss than 20 percent of their comparison incurred on the variable and fixed Viraj market sales, for certain products, at overhead cost of billets used in the We revised Viraj Alloys Limited’s prices less than the COP and, thus, we production of subject merchandise. We (‘‘VAL’’) reported depreciation expense disregarded these sales from the adjusted the denominators of Isibars’ to account for an additional calculation of NV. We found that Viraj reported general and administrative depreciation expense that resulted from did not make more than 20 percent of (‘‘G&A’’) and interest expense ratios a change in depreciation methods. its sales of any product at prices less (used to determine product-specific Because this depreciation expense than the COP. So, we have included all G&A and interest expenses) to exclude covers multiple accounting periods, we of Viraj’s home market sales in the administrative labor costs and to amortized the amount based on the calculation of NV, in accordance with include the payment for the lease of average remaining life of VAL’s fixed section 773(b)(1).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47545

3. Calculation of NV Weighted- others’’ rate established in the less-than- average fair-value investigation. See Stainless Isibars Exporter/manufacturer margin Steel Bar from India; Final percentage We accounted for rebates in the Determination of Sales at Less Than calculation of NV. (We overlooked Isibars Limited ...... 4.59 Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, rebates inadvertently in our calculations Mukand, Ltd ...... 21.02 1994). for the preliminary results.) We revised Venus Wire Industries Limited *0.02 These cash deposit requirements shall the sizes and control numbers reported Viraj Group, Ltd ...... 0.00 remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative for certain sales due to minor *(De minimis) corrections presented at verification. We review. recalculated indirect selling expenses to Assessment Rates Notification to Importers include bad debts written off (see The Department shall determine, and This notice serves as a final reminder Decision Memorandum at Comment 3). the United States Bureau of Customs Also, we recalculated imputed credit to importers of their responsibility and Border Protection (‘‘BCBP’’) shall under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a expenses, and we adjusted certain sales assess, antidumping duties on all quantities for returned sales. In certificate regarding the reimbursement appropriate entries. In accordance with of antidumping duties prior to addition, we revised payment dates and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have payment terms for certain sales. For a liquidation of the relevant entries calculated exporter/importer (or during this review period. Failure to further discussion of these adjustments, customer)-specific assessment rates for see Isibars Calculation Memorandum. comply with this requirement could merchandise subject to this review. To result in the Secretary’s presumption Venus determine whether the duty assessment that reimbursement of antidumping rates were de minimis, in accordance duties occurred and the subsequent We revised the calculation of indirect with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR selling expenses. Specifically, we assessment of doubled antidumping 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer duties. revised Venus’ calculation of directors’ (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates salaries and allocated the indirect by aggregating the dumping margins Notification Regarding APOs selling expenses over the cost of goods calculated for all U.S. sales to that This notice also serves as a reminder sold for the POR (see Venus Calculation importer (or customer) and dividing this to parties subject to administrative Memorandum). amount by the total value of the sales to protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their Viraj that importer (or customer). Where an responsibility concerning the return or importer (or customer)-specific ad destruction of proprietary information We revised a sales invoice date based valorem rate was greater than de disclosed under APO in accordance on information provided at verification. minimis, we calculated a per-unit with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues See Viraj Group, Ltd. Final Results assessment rate by aggregating the to govern business proprietary Calculation Memorandum dated August dumping margins calculated for all U.S. information in this segment of the 4, 2003. sales to that importer (or customer) and proceeding. Timely written notification Calculation of Constructed Value dividing this amount by the total of the return/destruction of APO quantity sold to that importer (or materials or conversion to judicial We calculated constructed value customer). protective order is hereby requested. (‘‘CV’’) based on the same methodology The Department will issue Failure to comply with the regulations described in the Preliminary Results appropriate assessment instructions and terms of an APO is a violation except that we made all of the same directly to the BCBP within 15 days of which is subject to sanction. above-described adjustments to CV that publication of these final results of We are issuing and publishing these we made to COP for Isibars and Venus. review. results and this notice in accordance For Viraj, we adjusted Viraj Impoexpo Cash Deposit Rates with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of Ltd.’’s (‘‘VIL’’) raw material costs based the Act. on VAL’s COP. Thus, we revised VIL’s The following antidumping duty raw material costs to reflect the deposits will be required on all Dated: August 4, 2003. adjustments made to VAL’s G&A and shipments of stainless steel bar from Joseph A. Spetrini, interest expense ratios (see supra at India entered, or withdrawn from Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, ‘‘Calculation of COP’’). In addition, VIL warehouse, for consumption, effective Under Secretary. excluded certain ‘‘usance’’ expenses and on or after the publication date of the Appendix 1 bank charges from the interest expense final results of this administrative Issues in Decision Memorandum ratio calculation. We revised VIL’s review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) interest expense to exclude only the of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Comment 1. Use of Adverse Facts Available bank charges which were reported as Isibars Limited and Mukand, Ltd. will for Mukand Comment 2. Isibars’ Start-up Adjustment selling expenses. For a detailed be the rate indicated above; for Venus Comment 3. Isibars’ Variable and Fixed discussion of the above-mentioned Wire Industries Limited and the Viraj Overhead Costs adjustments, see Viraj Cost Calculation Group, Ltd., which have de minimis or Comment 4. Isibars’ General and Memorandum and the Decision zeros rates, no antidumping duty Administrative Expenses Memorandum at Comments 9 and 11– deposit will be required; (2) for Comment 5. Isibars’ Offsets for 14. previously reviewed or investigated Reimbursements of Insurance Claims companies not listed above, the cash Comment 6. Isibars’ Interest Expenses Final Results of Review deposit rate will continue to be the Comment 7. Isibars’ Indirect Selling Expenses We determine that the following company-specific rate published for the Comment 8. Isibars’ Excise Taxes percentage margins exist for the period most recent period; and (3) the cash Comment 9. Viraj’s Selling Expenses February 1, 2001, through January 31, deposit rate for all other exporters will Comment 10. Collapsing the Viraj Group of 2002: continue to be 12.45 percent, the ‘‘all Companies

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47546 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Comment 11. Viraj’s Calculation of in the ROK are not included in the under subheading 8471.50.0085. Depreciation scope. Although the HTSUS subheadings are Comment 12. Viraj’s Forgiven Interest The scope of this order additionally provided for convenience and customs Expense includes memory modules containing purposes, the Department’s written Comment 13. Viraj’s Unconsolidated DRAMS from the ROK. A memory Financial Statements description of the scope of this order Comment 14. Viraj’s Offset To Interest module is a collection of DRAMS, the remains dispositive. sole function of which is memory. Expenses Countervailing Duty Order Comment 15. Venus’ Scrap Realization Offset Memory modules include single in-line Comment 16. Venus’ General and processing modules, single in-line On July 28, 2003, the Department Administrative Expense Ratio memory modules, dual in-line memory published in the Federal Register (68 Adjustments modules, small outline dual in-line FR 44290), its ‘‘Notice of Amended Comment 17. Venus’ Interest Expense Ratio memory modules, Rambus in-line Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Adjustment memory modules, and memory cards or Determination: Dynamic Random Comment 18. Venus’ Depreciation Expense other collections of DRAMS, whether Access Memory Semiconductors from and Repairs and Maintenance Expense unmounted or mounted on a circuit Comment 19. Venus’ Foreign Exchange Gains the Republic of Korea’’ in which the and Losses board. Modules that contain other parts final countervailing duty rate for Hynix Comment 20. Venus’ Income Tax Provision that are needed to support the function Semiconductor, Inc. and the ‘‘all others’’ of memory are covered. Only those [FR Doc. 03–20321 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] rate were revised. The revised rates are modules that contain additional items BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P listed below. The finding that Samsung which alter the function of the module Electronics Co., Ltd. (‘‘SEC’’) received to something other than memory, such de minimis subsidies did not change. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE as video graphics adapter boards and On August 4, 2003, in accordance cards, are not included in the scope. with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of International Trade Administration This order also covers future DRAMS 1930, as amended by the Uruguay module types. Round Agreements Act effective January [C-580–851] The scope of this order additionally 1, 1995 (‘‘the Act’’), the U.S. includes, but is not limited to, video International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: random access memory and Dynamic Random Access Memory synchronous graphics random access notified the Department that a U.S. Semiconductors from the Republic of memory, as well as various types of industry is ‘‘materially injured,’’ within Korea DRAMS, including fast page-mode, the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A) of extended data-out, burst extended data- the Act, by reason of imports of DRAMS AGENCY: Import Administration, out, synchronous dynamic RAM, from the Republic of Korea. International Trade Administration, Rambus DRAM, and Double Data Rate Therefore, in accordance with section Department of Commerce. DRAM. The scope also includes any 706(a)(3) of the Act, the Department will EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2003. future density, packaging, or assembling direct Customs to assess countervailing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of DRAMS. Also included in the scope duties for all relevant entries of DRAMS Ryan Langan, Jesse Cortes, or Daniel J. of this order are removable memory from the ROK. For all producers and Alexy, Office of Antidumping/ modules placed on motherboards, with exporters of DRAMS from the ROK, Countervailing Duty Enforcement, or without a central processing unit, except for SEC, which is excluded from Group 1, Import Administration, U.S. unless the importer of the motherboards this countervailing duty order, Department of Commerce, Room 3099, certifies with the U.S. Bureau of countervailing duties will be assessed 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, Customs and Border Protection on all unliquidated entries of the subject NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; (‘‘Customs’’) that neither it, nor a party merchandise that are entered, or telephone (202) 482–2613, (202) 482– related to it or under contract to it, will withdrawn from warehouse, for 3986, and (202) 482–1540, respectively. remove the modules from the consumption on or after April 7, 2003, motherboards after importation. The the date on which the Department Scope of Order scope of this order does not include published its notice of affirmative The products covered by this order DRAMS or memory modules that are re- preliminary determination in the are dynamic random access memory imported for repair or replacement. Federal Register. semiconductors (‘‘DRAMS’’) from the The DRAMS subject to this order are On or after the date of publication of Republic of Korea (‘‘ROK’’), whether currently classifiable under subheadings this notice in the Federal Register, assembled or unassembled. Assembled 8542.21.8005 and 8542.21.8021 through Customs officers must require, at the DRAMS include all package types. 8542.21.8029 of the Harmonized Tariff same time as importers would normally Unassembled DRAMS include Schedule of the United States deposit estimated duties, a cash deposit processed wafers, uncut die, and cut (‘‘HTSUS’’). The memory modules equal to the net subsidy rate, as noted die. Processed wafers fabricated in the containing DRAMS from the ROK, below. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate applies to ROK, but assembled into finished described above, are currently all ROK exporters of subject semiconductors outside the ROK are classifiable under subheadings merchandise not specifically listed, also included in the scope. Processed 8473.30.10.40 or 8473.30.10.80 of the except for SEC, which is excluded from wafers fabricated outside the ROK and HTSUS. Removable memory modules this countervailing duty order. The cash assembled into finished semiconductors placed on motherboards are classifiable deposit rates are as follows:

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (formerly, Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.) ...... 44.29 percent All Others44.29 percent.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47547

This notice constitutes the determination to determine whether it Background countervailing duty order with respect conforms with the antidumping or Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the to DRAMS from the ROK, pursuant to countervailing duty law of the country MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct section 706(a) of the Act. Interested that made the determination. the Secretary of Commerce to allow, parties may contact the Central Records Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, upon request, the incidental, but not Unit, Room B-099 of the main which came into force on January 1, intentional taking of small numbers of Commerce Building, for copies of an 1994, the Government of the United marine mammals by U.S. citizens who updated list of countervailing duty States, the Government of Canada and engage in a specified activity (other than orders currently in effect. the Government of Mexico established commercial fishing) within a specified These countervailing duty orders are Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 geographical region if certain findings published in accordance with sections Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). are made and either regulations are 706(a) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR These Rules were published in the issued or, if the taking is limited to 351.211. Federal Register on February 23, 1994 harassment, notice of a proposed Dated: August 5, 2003. (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this authorization is provided to the public Joseph A. Spetrini, matter was requested and terminated for review. Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, pursuant to these Rules. Permission for incidental takings may Under Secretary. Dated: August 5, 2003. be granted if NMFS finds that the taking [FR Doc. 03–20421 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Caratina L. Alston, will have no more than a negligible BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. impact on the species or stock(s) and [FR Doc. 03–20349 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] will not have an unmitigable adverse BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P impact on the availability of the species DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and International Trade Administration DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE requirements pertaining to the North American Free Trade Agreement monitoring and reporting of such taking National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel are set forth. Administration NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible Reviews: Notice of Termination of impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as: [I.D. 061203I] Panel Review an impact resulting from the specified AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United Small Takes of Marine Mammals activity that cannot be reasonably expected States Section, International Trade to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely Incidental to Specified Activities; affect the species or stock through effects on Administration, Department of Movement of Steel Drilling Caisson annual rates of recruitment or survival. Commerce. through the Beaufort Sea from Cross Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA ACTION: Notice of Consent Motion to Island, McCovey Prospect to Herschel established an expedited process by Terminate the Panel Review of the final Island, Yukon Territory which citizens of the United States can antidumping duty administrative review apply for an authorization to of the dumping order made by the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and incidentally take small numbers of International Trade Commission, marine mammals by harassment. The respecting Carbon and Certain Alloy Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Steel Wire Rod from Mexico (Secretariat any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance File No. USA–MEX–2002–1904–10). ACTION: Notice of issuance of incidental which (i) has the potential to injure a marine harassment authorization. mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of [‘‘Level A harassment’’]; or (ii) has the Consent Motion to Terminate the Panel SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions potential to disturb a marine mammal or Review by the complainants, the panel of the Marine Mammal Protection Act marine mammal stock in the wild by causing review is terminated as of August 5, (MMPA) as amended, notification is disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 2003. No panel has been appointed to hereby given that an Incidental but not limited to, migration, breathing, this panel review. Pursuant to Rule Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [‘‘Level B harassment’’]. 71(2) of the Rules of Procedure for small numbers of marine mammals by harassment incidental to harbor Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a Article 1904 Binational Panel Review, 45–day time limit for NMFS review of this panel review is terminated. activities related to the movement of the steel drilling caisson (SDC) through the an application followed by a 30–day FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public notice and comment period on Caratina L. Alston, United States Beaufort Sea has been issued to EnCana Oil and Gas, Inc. (EnCana). any proposed authorizations for the Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite incidental harassment of small numbers DATES: Effective from August 1, 2003 to 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, of marine mammals. Within 45 days of July 31, 2004 Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. the close of the comment period, NMFS ADDRESSES: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter A copy of the IHA and/or must either issue or deny issuance of 19 of the North American Free-Trade the application is available by writing to the authorization. Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a Ms. Kaja Brix, Acting Chief, Marine mechanism to replace domestic judicial Mammal Conservation Division, Office Summary of Request review of final determinations in of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 On May 14, 2003, NMFS received an antidumping and countervailing duty East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD application from EnCana requesting an cases involving imports from a NAFTA 20910–3225, or by telephoning one of authorization for the harassment of country with review by independent the contacts listed here. small numbers of five species of marine binational panels. When a Request for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: mammals incidental to movement of the Panel Review is filed, a panel is Kimberly Skrupky, (301) 713–2322, ext SDC from Cross Island, McCovey established to act in place of national 163 or Brad Smith, (907) 271–3023. Prospect, AK through the Beaufort Sea courts to review expeditiously the final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to Herschel Island, Yukon Territory and

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47548 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

associated activities beginning on prior to coming out of cold stack in Mitigation August 1, 2003. The SDC will lift-off preparation for movement that is During mobilization of the SDC from from its current location and will be expected to commence on or about Cross Island at the McCovey Prospect towed to the new set down location. August 1st. through the Beaufort Sea to Herschel Once the SDC reaches Herschel Island, Comment 2: NMFS may wish to Island, EnCana will have on-board it will go into cold stack mode. suggest to the applicant that it conduct marine mammal monitors throughout Helicopter supported one-day an acoustic monitoring program, in the transit. The program will commence reconnaissance trips to the SDC may addition to the proposed visual with the reoccupation of SDC at the occur to check on winterization monitoring. Acoustic monitoring would current McCovey deployment and will conditions on-board the SDC. A detailed provide more data on the actual acoustic continue on a nearly 24–hour basis until description of these activities proposed source levels associated with the the rig exits U.S. waters and goes into for 2003–2004 is contained in the proposed activity. cold stack mode in Canada. application (Lynx Enterprises, Inc., Response: In 1991, ARCO Alaska, EnCana proposes to mitigate the 2003), which is available upon request Incorporated conducted a marine potential negative impacts from its (see ADDRESSES). mammal monitoring program at Cabot relocation and supply removal activities Description of Marine Mammals prospect in the Beaufort Sea. The by planning the timing of operations in Affected by the Activity marine mammal monitoring program such a way as to reduce the production The Beaufort Sea supports many included the physical acoustic of noise during the fall bowhead whale marine mammals under NMFS characterization of the drilling platform migration. This includes putting the jurisdiction, including bowhead whales and the surrounding area, passive SDC into cold stack mode during the (Balaena mysticetus), beluga whales acoustic monitoring of underwater entire bowhead migration period (Delphinapterus leucas), ringed seals sounds produced by marine mammals, (approximately late-August through (Phoca hispida), bearded seals and surface monitoring for operational mid-October). In addition to these (Erignathus barbatus) and spotted seals and environmental conditions and mitigation measures, EnCana worked (Phoca largha). Descriptions of the marine mammal sightings. Results of with the AEWC, North Slope Borough, biology, distribution, and current status this monitoring program can be found in and other whaling communities and of these species can be found in NMFS the Final Report for the Site Specific amended the existing CAA to include Stock Assessment Reports (2000, 1999, Monitoring Plan for Cabot Prospect by the 2003 relocation to eliminate impacts and 1997). Please refer to those Coastal & Offshore Pacific Corporation. to subsistence hunting of bowheads and documents for more information on A copy of this Final Report can be thereby on bowheads themselves. these species. These documents can be obtained by contacting NMFS (see Monitoring downloaded electronically from: http:// ADDRESSES). As a result of this earlier www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/ acoustical monitoring, an acoustic As part of its application, EnCana will StocklAssessmentlProgram/ monitoring program is not warranted. have a visual monitoring program for individuallsars.html. Comment 3: By monitoring calling assessing impacts to marine mammals during the SDC’s transit from Cross Comments and Responses rates for the relevant species before, during, and after the activity, another Island, McCovey Prospect to Herschel On June 8, 2003 (68 FR 36572), NMFS dataset could be obtained on the Island. published a notice of receipt and a 30– behavioral impacts of the activities. EnCana will initiate a comprehensive day public comment period was training program for all potential marine Response: The monitoring plans for mammal observers that includes provided on the application and EnCana to monitor marine mammal proposed authorization. That notice learning the identification and behavior impacts were the subject of scientific of all local species known to use the described the activity and anticipated peer-review meetings held on 8–9 effects on marine mammals. The only areas where EnCana will be operating. November 2000, in Seattle, WA; October This training will be conducted by comments received were from the 30–31, 2002, in Anchorage, AK; and Marine Mammal Commission professional marine biologists and June 24–25, 2003 in Seattle, WA. Those experienced Native observers (Commission). meetings provided the required dialogue Comment 1: The Commission believes participating in the monitoring program. necessary for ensuring that monitoring that the NMFS’s preliminary The observer protocol is to scan the area programs in Arctic waters provided the determinations are reasonable, provided around vessels and the SDC with necessary information to ensure that that the proposed mitigation and binoculars of sufficient power. Range impacts are (or are not) negligible. monitoring activities are adequate to finding equipment will be supplied to NMFS continues to encourage the detect marine mammals in the vicinity observers in order to better estimate Commission’s participation in these of the proposed operations and to distances. Observers would collect data meetings. ensure that marine mammals are not on the presence, distribution, and being taken in unanticipated ways or Comment 4: NMFS should also ensure behavior of marine mammals relative to numbers. Clarification should be that the application has completed EnCana activities as well as climatic provided concerning the circumstances negotiations with the Alaska Eskimo conditions at the time of marine under which such monitoring would Whaling Commission (AEWC) and mammal sightings. Observations would not occur, and a determination made as affected villages Whaling Captains be made on a nearly 24–hour basis from to whether non-negligible impacts or Associations to amend the existing the time the SDC leaves Cross Island taking other than by harassment may Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) until the SDC crosses the Canadian occur during such periods. and Plan of Cooperation, prior to border or, if the backup deployment in Response: The monitoring on the SDC granting the authorization. U.S. waters is used, is placed in cold will continue 24 hours per day except Response: EnCana amended the stack mode. If the backup deployment when the SDC is in cold-stack between existing CAA and Plan of Cooperation in U.S. waters is used and re-supply approximately August 31, 2003 and with the AEWC on June 9, 2003, as efforts are necessary between the end of mid-October. Monitoring will begin just required under this IHA. the fall bowhead whale harvest and ice-

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47549

over, observers would be re-deployed on through the Beaufort Sea to Herschel SUMMARY: In compliance with the the SDC and supply vessels. All Island, Yukon Territory, and associated Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. personnel stationed aboard the SDC activities will result, at worst, in a 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that during the open water season of 2003 temporary modification in behavior by the Information Collection Request (ICR) would also receive training on marine certain species of whales and pinnipeds. abstracted below has been forwarded to mammal monitoring and utilize marine While behavioral modifications may be the Office of Management and Budget mammal reporting forms to document made by these species to avoid the (OMB) for review and comment. The any incidental takes of marine resultant noise or visual cues, this ICR described the nature of the mammals. behavioral change is expected to have a information collection and its expected negligible impact on the survival and costs and burden; it includes the actual Reporting recruitment of stocks. data collection instruments [if any]. All monitoring data collected will be While the number of potential DATES: Comments must be submitted on reported to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and incidental harassment takes will depend or before September 10, 2003. Wildlife Service on a weekly basis. on the year-to-year distribution and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EnCana must provide a final report on abundance of marine mammals in the Steven A. Grossman at CFTC, (202) 418– 2003–2004 activities to NMFS within 90 area of operations, due to the 5192; FAX; (202) 418–5529; e-mail: days of the completion of the activity. distribution and abundance of marine [email protected] and refer to OMB This report will provide dates and mammals during the projected period of Control No. 3038–0031. locations of the SDC movements and activity and the location of the proposed other operational activities, weather SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: activity, the number of potential Title: Procurement Contracts, OMB conditions, dates and locations of any harassment takings is estimated to be activities related to monitoring the Control No. 3038–0031. This is a request small. In addition, no take by injury for extension of a currently approved effects on marine mammals, and the and/or death is anticipated, and there is methods, results, and interpretation of information collection. no potential for temporary or permanent Abstract: This information collection all monitoring activities, including hearing impairment as a result of the estimates of the level and type of take, consists of procurement activities activities. No rookeries, mating grounds, relating to solicitations, amendments to species name and numbers of each areas of concentrated feeding, or other species observed, direction of solicitations, requests for quotations, areas of special significance for marine construction contracts, awards of movement of species, and any observed mammals occur within or near the changes or modifications in behavior. contracts, performance bonds, and relocation route. payment information for individuals Endangered Species Act (ESA) The measures undertaken to ensure (vendors) or contractors engaged in Consultation that the SDC relocation will not have an providing supplies or services. adverse impact on subsistence activities A biological opinion on oil and gas An agency may not conduct or are the CAA, Plan of Cooperation, and exploration was issued on May 25, sponsor, and a person is not required to an operation schedule prior to the 2001. NMFS has issued an Incidental respond to, a collection of information annual bowhead whale subsistence Take Statement, pursuant to section 7 of unless it displays a currently valid OMB hunt, as amended on June 9, 2003. the ESA. control number. The OMB control Authorization numbers for the CFTC’s regulations National Environmental Policy Act were published on December 30, 1981. (NEPA) Authority: NMFS has issued an IHA to See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The In 1997, NMFS prepared and released EnCana for the harassment of marine Federal Register notice with a 60-day an EA that addressed the impacts on the mammals incidental to movement of a SDC comment period soliciting comments on human environment from issuance of an from Cross Island, McCovey Prospect, AK this collection of information was authorization for taking marine through the Beaufort Sea to Herschel Island, published on June 4, 2003 (68 FR Yukon Territory, and associated activities. mammals incidental to moving an oil The issuance of this IHA is contingent upon 33479). drilling structure through the Beaufort incorporation of the previously mentioned Burden statement: The respondent Sea during the summer and conducting mitigation, monitoring, and reporting burden for this collection is estimated to oil exploration activities in the eastern requirements. average 2 hours per response. This estimate includes the time needed to Beaufort Sea and the alternatives to that Dated: August 5, 2003. proposed action. A Finding of No review instructions; develop, acquire Donna Wieting, Significant Impact was signed on install, and utilize technology and September 25, 1997. Because the action Acting Office Director, Office of Protected systems for the purposes of collecting, Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. discussed in this document is not validating, and verifying information, substantially different from the 1997 [FR Doc. 03–20388 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] processing and maintaining information action, and because no significant new BILLING CODE 3510–22–S and disclosing and providing scientific information or analyses have information; adjust the existing ways to been developed in the past several years comply with any previously applicable significant enough to warrant new instructions and requirements; train COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING NEPA documentation, this action is personnel to be able to respond to a COMMISSION categorically excluded from further collection of information; and transmit review under NOAA Administrative Agency Information Collection or otherwise disclose the information. Order 216–6. A copy of that EA is Activities Under OMB Review Respondents/Affected Entities: 180. available upon request (see ADDRESSES). Estimated number of responses: 180. AGENCY: Estimated total annual burden on Determinations Commodity Futures Trading Commission. respondents: 360 hours. NMFS has determined that the short- Frequency of collection: annually. ACTION: Notice; Information Collection term impact of SDC mobilization from Send comments regarding the burden 3038–0031, procurement contracts. Cross Island, McCovey Prospect, AK estimated or any other aspect of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47550 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

information collection, including An agency may not conduct or DATES: Interested persons are invited to suggestions for reducing the burden, to sponsor, and a person is not required to submit comments on or before the addresses listed below. Please refer respond to, a collection of information September 10, 2003. to OMB Control No. 3038–0031 in any unless it displays a currently valid OMB ADDRESSES: Written comments should correspondence. control number. The OMB control be addressed to the Office of Steven A. Grossman, Commodity numbers for the CFTC’s regulations Information and Regulatory Affairs, Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st were published on December 30, 1981. Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 and See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Officer, Department of Education, Office Office of Information and Regulatory Federal Register notice with a 60-day of Management and Budget, 725 17th Affairs, Office of Management and comment period soliciting comments on Street, NW., Room 10235, New Budget, Attention: Desk Office for this collection of information was Executive Office Building, Washington, CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC published on June 4, 2003 (68 FR DC 20503 or should be electronically 20503. 33478). mailed to the Internet address Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, Burden statement: The respondent [email protected]. 2003. burden for this collection is estimated to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section average 1 hour per response. This Catherine D. Dixon, 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of estimate includes the time needed to Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that review instructions; develop, acquire, [FR Doc. 03–20343 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] the Office of Management and Budget install, and utilize technology and BILLING CODE 6351–01–M (OMB) provide interested Federal systems for the purposes of collecting, agencies and the public an early validating, and verifying information, opportunity to comment on information processing and maintaining information COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING collection requests. OMB may amend or and disclosing and providing COMMISSION waive the requirement for public information; adjust the existing ways to consultation to the extent that public Agency Information Collection comply with any previously applicable participation in the approval process Activities Under OMB Review instructions and requirements; train would defeat the purpose of the personnel to be able to respond to a AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading information collection, violate State or collection of information; and transmit Commission. Federal law, or substantially interfere or otherwise disclose the information. ACTION: with any agency’s ability to perform its Notice; Information Collection Respondents/Affected Entities: 3 3038–0019, Stocks of Grain in Licensed Estimated number of responses: 156. statutory obligations. The Leader, Warehouses. Estimated total annual burden on Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information SUMMARY: In compliance with the respondents: 156 hours. Frequency of collection: Weekly. Officer, publishes that notice containing Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. proposed information collection 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the requests prior to submission of these the Information Collection Request (ICR) requests to OMB. Each proposed abstracted below has been forwarded to information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to information collection, grouped by the Office of Management and Budget office, contains the following: (1) Type (OMB) for review and comment. The the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038–0019 in any of review requested, e.g., new, revision, ICR describes the nature of the extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) information collection and its expected correspondence. Judith Payne, Commodity Futures Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) costs and burden; it includes the actual Description of the need for, and data collection instruments [if any]. Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 and Office proposed use of, the information; (5) DATES: Comments must be submitted on Respondents and frequency of or before September 10, 2003. of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, collection; and (6) Reporting and/or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Attention: Desk Office for CFTC, 725 Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites Judith Payne at CFTC (202) 418–5286; 17th Street, Washington, DC 20503. public comment. FAX: (202) 418–5527; e-mail: Dated: August 5, 2003. [email protected] and refer to OMB Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, Control No. 3038–0019. 2003 Angela C. Arrington, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Catherine D. Dixon, Leader, Regulatory Information Management Title: Stocks of Grain in Licensed Assistant Secretary of the Commission. Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Warehouses, OMB Control No. 3038– [FR Doc. 03–20344 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Institute of Education Sciences 0019. This is a request for extension of BILLING CODE 6351–01–M Type of Review: Extension. a currently approved information Title: NCES Quick Response collection. Information System. Abstract: Under Commission Rule DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Frequency: One time. 1.44, 17 CFR 1.44, contract markets Affected Public: Individuals or must require operators of warehouses Submission for OMB Review; households; not-for-profit institutions; regular for delivery to keep records on Comment Request State, local or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or stocks of commodities and make reports LEAs. on call by the Commission. The rule is AGENCY: Department of Education. Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour designed to assist the Commission in SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory Burden: prevention of market manipulation and Information Management Group, Office Responses: 10,518. is promulgated pursuant to the of the Chief Information Officer invites Burden Hours: 7,889. Commission’s rulemaking authority comments on the submission for OMB Abstract: The Quick Response contained in section 5a of the review as required by the Paperwork Information System consists of two Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 7a. Reduction Act of 1995. survey system components—Fast

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47551

Response Survey System for schools, opportunity to comment on information Requests for copies of the proposed districts, libraries and the Postsecondary collection requests. OMB may amend or information collection request may be Education Quick Information System for waive the requirement for public accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, postsecondary institutions. The two consultation to the extent that public by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending survey systems are intended to be low participation in the approval process Collections’’ link and by clicking on burden, quick turnaround methods of would defeat the purpose of the link number 2327. When you access the information collection on education information collection, violate State or information collection, click on issues for which there is a policy need Federal law, or substantially interfere ‘‘Download Attachments ‘‘to view. and no current relevant data. Surveys with any agency’s ability to perform its Written requests for information should that have been conducted in these statutory obligations. The Leader, be addressed to Vivian Reese, systems include surveys of Regulatory Information Management Department of Education, 400 Maryland telecommunications in schools, distance Group, Office of the Chief Information Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional education and remedial activities in Officer, publishes that notice containing Office Building 3, Washington, DC postsecondary institutions. proposed information collection 20202–4651 or to the e-mail address Requests for copies of the submission requests prior to submission of these [email protected]. Requests may also for OMB review; comment request may requests to OMB. Each proposed be electronically mailed to the Internet be accessed from http:// information collection, grouped by address [email protected] or faxed to edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the office, contains the following: (1) Type 202–708–9346. Please specify the ‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and of review requested, e.g., new, revision, complete title of the information by clicking on link number 2286. When extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) collection when making your request. you access the information collection, Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Comments regarding burden and/or click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to Description of the need for, and the collection activity requirements view. Written requests for information proposed use of, the information; (5) should be directed to Kathy Axt at her should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Respondents and frequency of e-mail address [email protected]. Department of Education, 400 Maryland collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Individuals who use a Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites telecommunications device for the deaf Office Building 3, Washington, DC public comment. The Department of (TDD) may call the Federal Information 20202–4651 or to the e-mail address Education is especially interested in Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– [email protected]. Requests may also public comment addressing the 8339. be electronically mailed to the Internet following issues: (1) Is this collection [FR Doc. 03–20339 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] necessary to the proper functions of the address OCIO_RIMG_ed.gov or faxed to BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 202–708–9346. Please specify the Department; (2) will this information be complete title of the information processed and used in a timely manner; collection when making your request. (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comments regarding burden and/or (4) how might the Department enhance the collection activity requirements the quality, utility, and clarity of the Notice of Proposed Information should be directed to Kathy Axt at her information to be collected; and (5) how Collection Requests might the Department minimize the e-mail address [email protected]. AGENCY: Department of Education. Individuals who use a burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use ACTION: Notice of proposed information telecommunications device for the deaf collection requests. (TDD) may call the Federal Information of information technology. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– Dated: August 5, 2003. SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory 8339. Angela C. Arrington, Information Management Group, Office [FR Doc. 03–20338 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Leader, Regulatory Information Management of the Chief Information Officer, invites Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. comments on the proposed information BILLING CODE 4000–01–P collection requests as required by the Office of Innovation and Improvement Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Type of Review: New. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DATES: An emergency review has been Title: Credit Enhancement for Charter requested in accordance with the Act Notice of Proposed Information School Facilities Program Performance (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), since public Collection Requests Report. harm is reasonably likely to result if Frequency: Semi-Annually, annually, normal clearance procedures are AGENCY: one time material events. Department of Education. followed. Approval by the Office of SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Gov’t, Management and Budget (OMB) has Information Management Group, Office been requested by September 15, 2003. of the Chief Information Officer, invites SEAs or LEAs. Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour A regular clearance process is also comments on the proposed information beginning. Interested persons are collection requests as required by the Burden: Responses:16. invited to submit comments on or before Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Burden Hours: 151. October 10, 2003. DATES: Interested persons are invited to Abstract: ED will use the information ADDRESSES: Written comments submit comments on or before October through this report to monitor and regarding the emergency review should 10, 2003. evaluate competitive grants. These be addressed to the Office of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section grants are made to private, non-profits; Information and Regulatory Affairs, 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of governmental entities; and consortia of Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer: 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that these organizations. These organizations Department of Education, Office of the Office of Management and Budget will use the funds to leverage private Management and Budget; 725 17th (OMB) provide interested Federal capital to help charter schools construct, Street, NW., Room 10235, New agencies and the public an early acquire, and renovate school facilities. Executive Office Building, Washington,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47552 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

DC 20503 or should be electronically Additional Information: The ACTION: Notice of proposed information mailed to the internet address Department is requesting emergency collection requests. [email protected]. processing for the Reading First Annual Performance Report. The requested SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section approval date is September 15, 2003. Information Management Group, Office 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of Emergency processing is necessary of the Chief Information Officer, invites 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires based on potential public harm. States comments on the proposed information that the Director of OMB provide receiving Reading First grants are collection requests as required by the interested Federal agencies and the required by statute to submit an annual Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. public an early opportunity to comment performance report. This report is due DATES: An emergency review has been on information collection requests. The within 60 days of the end of the Federal requested in accordance with the Act Office of Management and Budget grant period, which ends on September (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), since public (OMB) may amend or waive the 30, 2003. It is necessary to publish the harm is reasonably likely to result if requirement for public consultation to annual performance report prior to the normal clearance procedures are the extent that public participation in end of the grant period in order for followed. Approval by the Office of the approval process would defeat the States to comply with this requirement. Management and Budget (OMB) has purpose of the information collection, Continued funding of Reading First been requested by September 15, 2003. violate State or Federal law, or State grants is dependent upon A regular clearance process is also substantially interfere with any agency’s submission of this annual report beginning. Interested persons are ability to perform its statutory documenting progress States are making invited to submit comments on or before obligations. The Leader, Regulatory in improving student achievement in October 10, 2003. Information Management Group, Office reading. ADDRESSES: Written comments of the Chief Information Officer, Frequency: Annually. regarding the emergency review should publishes this notice containing be addressed to the Office of proposed information collection Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. Information and Regulatory Affairs, requests at the beginning of the Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer: Departmental review of the information Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Department of Education, Office of collection. Each proposed information Management and Budget; 725 17th collection, grouped by office, contains Responses: 55. Burden Hours: 1,100. Street, NW., Room 10235, New the following: (1) Type of review Executive Office Building, Washington, Requests for copies of the proposed requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, DC 20503 or should be electronically information collection request may be existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) mailed to the Internet address accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, Summary of the collection; (4) [email protected]. Description of the need for, and by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending proposed use of, the information; (5) Collections’’ link and by clicking on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Respondents and frequency of link number 2305. When you access the 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or information collection, click on 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires Recordkeeping burden. ED invites ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. that the Director of OMB provide public comment. Written requests for information should interested Federal agencies and the The Department of Education is be addressed to Vivian Reese, public an early opportunity to comment especially interested in public comment Department of Education, 400 Maryland on information collection requests. The addressing the following issues: (1) Is Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office of Management and Budget this collection necessary to the proper Office Building 3, Washington, DC (OMB) may amend or waive the functions of the Department; (2) will 20202–4651 or to the e-mail address requirement for public consultation to this information be processed and used [email protected]. Requests may also the extent that public participation in in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate be electronically mailed to the internet the approval process would defeat the _ of burden accurate; (4) how might the address OCIO [email protected] or faxed to purpose of the information collection, Department enhance the quality, utility, 202–708–9346. Please specify the violate State or Federal law, or and clarity of the information to be complete title of the information substantially interfere with any agency’s collected; and (5) how might the collection when making your request. ability to perform its statutory Department minimize the burden of this Comments regarding burden and/or obligations. The Leader, Regulatory collection on respondents, including the collection activity requirements Information Management Group, Office through the use of information should be directed to Kathy Axt at her of the Chief Information Officer, technology. e-mail address [email protected]. publishes this notice containing Individuals who use a proposed information collection Dated: August 6, 2003. telecommunications device for the deaf requests at the beginning of the Angela C. Arrington, (TDD) may call the Federal Information Departmental review of the information Leader, Regulatory Information Management Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– collection. Each proposed information Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. 8339. collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review Office of Elementary and Secondary [FR Doc. 03–20436 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Education requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, BILLING CODE 4000–01–P existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Type of Review: New. Summary of the collection; (4) Title: Reading First Annual Description of the need for, and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Performance Report. proposed use of, the information; (5) Abstract: This Annual Performance Notice of Proposed Information Respondents and frequency of Report will allow the Department of Collection Requests collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Education to collect information Recordkeeping burden. ED invites required by the Reading First statute. AGENCY: Department of Education. public comment.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47553

The Department of Education is Responses: 5,550. Burden Hours: Estimated Available Funds: The especially interested in public comment 978. Administration has requested addressing the following issues: (1) Is Requests for copies of the proposed $2,715,000 for GPA Program new this collection necessary to the proper information collection request may be awards for FY 2004. The actual level of functions of the Department; (2) will accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, funding, if any, depends on final this information be processed and used by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending congressional action. However, we are in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate Collections’’ link and by clicking on inviting applications to allow enough of burden accurate; (4) how might the link number 2209. When you access the time to complete the grant process, if Department enhance the quality, utility, information collection, click on Congress appropriates funds for this and clarity of the information to be ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. program. collected; and (5) how might the Written requests for information should Estimated Range of Awards: Department minimize the burden of this be addressed to Vivian Reese, $50,000—$80,000. collection on respondents, including Department of Education, 400 Maryland Estimated Average Size of Awards: through the use of information Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional $68,000. technology. Office Building 3, Washington, DC Estimated Number of Awards: 40. Dated: August 6, 2003. 20202–4651 or to the e-mail address Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Angela C. Arrington, [email protected]. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet Leader, Regulatory Information Management address [email protected] or faxed to Project Period: Up to 12 months. Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Page Limit: The application narrative 202–708–9346. Please specify the is where you, the applicant, address the Institute of Education Sciences complete title of the information selection criteria that reviewers use to collection when making your request. Type of Review: New. evaluate your application. You must Comments regarding burden and/or Title: What Works Clearinghouse limit the narrative to the equivalent of the collection activity requirements Database Forms and Customer Survey. no more than 35 pages, using the should be directed to Kathy Axt at her Abstract: The What Works following standards: Clearinghouse (WWC) public e-mail address [email protected]. • A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5’’ x 11’’, on one side submission databases will allow Individuals who use a only, with 1’’ margins at the top, members of the public to submit telecommunications device for the deaf bottom, and both sides. nominations for studies, interventions, (TDD) may call the Federal Information • Double space (no more than three and topics that they would like the Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– lines per vertical inch) all text in the WWC to review. The evaluation 8339. application narrative, including titles, database will enable the WWC to [FR Doc. 03–20437 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] headings, footnotes, quotations, provide the public with a directory of BILLING CODE 4000–01–P references, and captions. However, you available outcome evaluations. Data may single space all text in charts, from the customer survey will be used tables, figures and graphs. to create indicators of how successfully DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION • Use a font that is either 12-point or the WWC is meeting the needs of larger or no smaller than 10 pitch various groups of its users. [CFDA No. 84.021A] (characters per inch). However you may Additional Information: The Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad use a 10-point font in charts, tables, Department is requesting emergency Program figures, and graphs. processing for this information The page limit does not apply to the collection with an OMB approval date AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary cover sheet; the budget section, of September 11. The time required for Education, Department of Education. including the narrative budget the normal clearance process may cause ACTION: Notice inviting applications for justification; the assurances and a delay in the collection that could new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2004. certifications; the one-page abstract or potentially result in public harm. The the appendices. However, you must What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was Purpose of Program: The Fulbright- include your complete response to the conceptualized to help education Hays Group Projects Abroad (GPA) selection criteria in the application decision makers—primarily Program supports overseas projects in narrative. practitioners and policymakers— training, research, and curriculum We will reject your application if— respond to the emphasis in No Child development in modern foreign • You apply these standards and Left Behind to use scientifically based languages and area studies for groups of exceed the page limit; or • research to select effective education teachers, students, and faculty engaged You apply other standards and interventions. The WWC will provide in a common endeavor. Projects may exceed the equivalent of the page limit. educators, policymakers, and the public include short-term seminars, curriculum Applicable Regulations: (a) The with a central, independent, and trusted development, or group research or Education Department General source scientific evidence of what works study. This competition will not Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in in education. The work of the WWC and support advanced overseas intensive 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, thus, the products cannot proceed language projects. 86, 97, 98, and 99; and (b) The without some input from the public. Eligible Applicants: (1) Institutions of regulations for this program in 34 CFR Frequency: Semi-Annually. higher education, (2) State departments part 664. Affected Public: Individuals or of education, (3) nonprofit private Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 households; Businesses or other for- educational organizations, and (4) apply to institutions of higher education profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal consortia of these entities. only. Government; State, local or Tribal Gov’t, Applications Available: August 18, SEAs or LEAs. 2003. Priorities Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Deadline for Transmittal of Absolute Priority: This competition Burden: applications: October 14, 2003. focuses on projects designed to meet the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47554 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

priority in the regulations for this interested parties the opportunity to and solicit suggestions for its program (34 CFR 664.32(a)(2)). comment on proposed regulations. However, improvement. Specific geographic regions of the these amendments make procedural changes If you participate in e-Application, world: A group project funded under only and do not establish new substantive please note the following: this priority must focus on one or more policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), • When you enter the e-Application the Secretary has determined that proposed system, you will find information about of the following geographic regions of rulemaking is not required. the world: Africa, East Asia, South Asia, its hours of operation. We strongly Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the We are requiring that applications for recommend that you do not wait until Western Hemisphere (Central and South grants for FY 2004 under the GPA the application deadline date to initiate America, Mexico, and the Caribbean), Program be submitted electronically an e-Application package. • East Central Europe and Eurasia, and using e-Application available through You will not receive additional the Near East. the Department’s e-GRANTS system. point value because you submit a grant Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we The e-GRANTS system is accessible application in electronic format, nor consider only applications that meet the through its portal page at: http://e- will we penalize you if you submit an priority. grants.ed.gov. application in paper format. • You must submit all documents Competitive Priority: Within the An applicant who is unable to submit electronically, including the absolute priority specified in this an application through the e-GRANTS Application for Federal Education application notice we will focus on system may submit a written request for Assistance (ED 424), Budget projects that meet the following a waiver of the electronic submission Information—Non-Construction competitive priority. requirement. In the request, the Short-term seminars that develop and Programs (ED 524), and all necessary applicant should explain the reason or assurances and certifications. improve foreign language and area reasons that prevent the applicant from • studies at elementary and secondary Your e-Application must comply using the Internet to submit the with any page limit requirements schools. application. The request should be Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), described in this notice. addressed to: Dr. Lungching Chiao, U.S. • After you electronically submit 664.30(b), and 664.31(g) we award up to Department of Education, 1990 K Street, five (5) points to an application, your application, you will receive an NW., Suite 6066, Washington, DC automatic acknowledgement, which depending upon how well the 20006–8521. Please submit your request will include a PR/Award number (an application meets the priority. no later than two weeks before the identifying number unique to your Invitational Priority: Within the application deadline date. absolute priority specified in this application). If, within two weeks of the • Within three working days after application notice, we are particularly application deadline date, an applicant submitting your electronic application, interested in applications that meet the is unable to submit an application fax a signed copy of the Application for following invitational priority. electronically, the applicant must Federal Education Assistance (ED 424) Group study projects that provide submit a paper application by the to the Application Control Center after opportunities for nationally recruited application deadline date in accordance following these steps: undergraduate students to study in a with the transmittal instructions in the 1. Print ED 424 from e-Application. foreign country for either a semester or application package. The paper 2. The institution’s Authorizing a full academic year. application must include a written Representative must sign this form. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not request for a waiver documenting the 3. Place the PR/Award number in the give an application that meets the reasons that prevented the applicant upper right hand corner of the hard invitational priority a competitive or from using the Internet to submit the copy signature page of the ED 424. absolute preference over other application. 4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the applications. Application Control Center at (202) Pilot Project for Electronic Submission Application Procedures 260–1349. of Applications • We may request that you give us The Government Paperwork original signatures on other forms at a Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, (Pub. In FY 2004, the Department is continuing to expand its pilot project of later date. L. 105–277) and the Federal Financial • Application Deadline Date electronic submission of applications to Assistance Management Improvement Extension in Case of System include additional formula grant Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106–107) encourage Unavailability: If you are prevented us to undertake initiatives to improve programs and additional discretionary from submitting your application on the our grant processes. Enhancing the grant competitions. The GPA Program— application deadline date because the ability of individuals and entities to CFDA 84.021A is one of the programs e-Application system is unavailable, we conduct business with us electronically included in the pilot project. If you are will grant you an extension of one is a major part of our response to these an applicant under the GPA Program, business day in order to transmit your Acts. Therefore, we are taking steps to you must submit your application to us application electronically, by mail, or by adopt the Internet as our chief means of in electronic format or receive a waiver. hand delivery. For us to grant this conducting transactions in order to The pilot project involves the use of extension— improve services to our customers and the Electronic Grant Application System 1. You must be a registered user of to simplify and expedite our business (e-Application). Users of e-Application e-Application, and have initiated an processes. will be entering data on-line while e-Application for this competition; and completing their applications. You may 2. (a) The e-Application system must Note: Some of the procedures in these not e-mail a soft copy of a grant instructions for transmitting applications be unavailable for 60 minutes or more differ from those in the Education application to us. The data you enter on- between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 Department General Administrative line will be saved into a database. We p.m., Washington, DC, time, on the Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 75.102). Under request your participation in e- application deadline date; or the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Application. We shall continue to (b) The e-Application system must be 553) the Department generally offers evaluate the success of e-Application unavailable for any period of time

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47555

during the last hour of operation (that is, Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ TRACKING SYSTEM’’ in the subject for any period of time between 3:30 and index.html. line of the electronic comment. 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time) on the During and after the comment period, Program Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452. application deadline date. you may inspect all comments about The Department must acknowledge Dated: August 6, 2003. this notice in room 3630, Mary E. and confirm these periods of Sally L. Stroup, Switzer Building, 330 C Street, SW., unavailability before granting you an Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Washington, DC, between the hours of extension. To request this extension or Education. 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, to confirm the Department’s [FR Doc. 03–20434 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Monday through Friday of each week acknowledgement of any system BILLING CODE 4000–01–P except Federal holidays. availability, you must contact either (1) Assistance to Individuals With The person listed elsewhere in this Disabilities in Reviewing the notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Rulemaking Record CONTACT or (2) the e-GRANTS help desk at 1–888–336–8930. Privacy Act of 1974; System of On request, we will supply an You may access the electronic grant Records appropriate aid, such as a reader or application for the GPA Program at: print magnifier, to an individual with a AGENCY: Office of Special Education and http://e-grants.ed.gov. disability who needs assistance to Rehabilitative Services, Department of review the comments or other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Education. Lungching Chiao, U.S. Department of documents in the public rulemaking ACTION: Notice of a new system of Education, International Education and record for this notice. If you want to records. Graduate Programs Service, 1990 K schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed Street, NW., Suite 6066, Washington, SUMMARY: In accordance with the DC 20006–8521. Telephone: (202) 502– under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Privacy Act of 1974, as amended CONTACT. 7624 or via Internet: (Privacy Act), the Department of [email protected]. Education (Department) publishes this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you use a telecommunications notice of a new system of records for Larry Wexler. Telephone: (202)–205– device for the deaf (TDD), you may call tracking telephone calls and 5390. If you use a telecommunications the Federal Information Relay Service correspondence from State personnel device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. and parents about disability issues the Federal Information Relay Service Individuals with disabilities may related to children with disabilities. (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. obtain this document in an alternative Individuals with disabilities may format (e.g., Braille, large print, DATES: The Department seeks comments obtain this document in an alternative audiotape, or computer diskette) on on the new system of records described format (e.g., Braille, large print, request to the program contact person in this notice, in accordance with the audiotape, or computer diskette) on listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION requirements of the Privacy Act. We request to the contact person listed in CONTACT. must receive your comments on or the preceding paragraph. before September 10, 2003. Individuals with disabilities may SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: obtain a copy of the application package The Department filed a report in an alternative format by contacting describing the system of records covered Introduction that person. However, the Department is by this notice with the Chair of the The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)) not able to reproduce in an alternative Senate Committee on Governmental requires the Department to publish in format the standard forms included in Affairs, the Chair of the House the Federal Register this notice of a new the application package. Committee on Government Reform, and system of records maintained by the the Administrator of the Office of Department. The Department’s Electronic Access to This Document Information and Regulatory Affairs, regulations implementing the Privacy You may view this document, as well Office of Management and Budget Act are contained in the Code of Federal as all other Department of Education (OMB) on August 6, 2003. This system Regulations (CFR) in 34 CFR part 5b. documents published in the Federal of records will become effective at the The Privacy Act applies to a record Register, in text or Adobe Portable later date of—(1) The expiration of the about an individual that contains Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 40-day period for OMB review on individually identifiable information at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ September 15, 2003 or (2) September 10, that is retrieved by a unique identifier legislation/FedRegister. 2003, unless the system of records needs associated with each individual, such as To use PDF you must have Adobe to be changed as a result of public a name or social security number. The Acrobat Reader, which is available free comment or OMB review. information about each individual is at this site. If you have questions about ADDRESSES: Address all comments about called a ‘‘record,’’ and the system, using PDF, call the U.S. Government this system of records to Larry Wexler, whether manual or computer-based, is Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– Deputy, Monitoring & State called a ‘‘system of records.’’ The 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, Improvement Planning Division, Office Privacy Act requires each agency to DC, area at (202) 512–1530. of Special Education, Office of Special publish notices of systems of records in You may also view this document in Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Federal Register and to prepare PDF at the following site: http:// U.S. Department of Education, 400 reports to OMB whenever the agency www.ed.gov/offices/HEP/iegps/. Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3630, publishes a new or altered system of Note: The official version of this document Mary E. Switzer Building, Washington, records. Each agency is also required to is the document published in the Federal DC 20202. If you prefer to send your send copies of the report to the chair of Register. Free Internet access to the official comments through the Internet, use the the Senate Committee on Governmental edition of the Federal Register and the Code following address: [email protected]. Affairs and the chair of the House of Federal Regulations is available on GPO You must include the term ‘‘OSEP Committee on Governmental Reform.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47556 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Electronic Access to This Document system also allows OSEP to maintain a made on a case-by-case basis or, if the You may view this document, as well detailed history of the interactions Department has complied with the as other Department of Education between callers and/or writers and the computer matching requirements of the documents published in the Federal CSS. Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1998, under a Register in text or Adobe Portable CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: computer matching agreement. Document Format (PDF) on the Internet This system consists of records at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ (1) Freedom of Information Act relating to inquiries or complaints made (FOIA) Advice Disclosure. The legislation/FedRegister. to OSEP staff, including but not limited To use PDF you must have Adobe Department may disclose records to DOJ to: the writer’s and/or caller’s name; the and OMB if the Department seeks Acrobat Reader, which is available free name, age and type of disability of the at this site. If you have questions about advice regarding whether records child about whom the writer/caller is maintained in the system of records using PDF, call the U.S. Government inquiring about; the writer’s or caller’s Printing Office (GPO), toll-free, at 1– must be released under the FOIA and address, including an e-mail address; the Privacy Act of 1974. 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, the school district involved in the DC, area at (202) 512–1530. (2) Disclosure to the DOJ. The inquiry or complaint; the writer’s or Department may disclose records to the Note: The official version of this document caller’s phone number; the issue that the DOJ to the extent necessary for is the document published in the Federal writer and/or caller is raising; a obtaining DOJ advice on any matter Register. Free Internet access to the official recommendation from the CSS for relevant to an audit, inspection, or other version of the Federal Register and the Code further action; and comments from the of Federal Regulations is available on GPO inquiry related to the programs covered CSS. by this system. Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ This notice does not cover records, index.html. (3) Contract Disclosure. If the including but not limited to letters, e- Department contracts with an entity for Dated: August 6, 2003. mails and facsimiles, sent by the purposes of performing any function Robert H. Pasternack, individuals to the Secretary, Deputy that requires disclosure of records in Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Secretary, Senior Officers such as the this system to employees of the Rehabilitative Services. Assistant Secretary of OSERS and the contractor, the Department may disclose For reasons discussed in the Director of OSEP for whom the the records to those employees. Before preamble, the Assistant Secretary for Department controls responses to such entering into such a contract, the Special Education and Rehabilitative inquiries. Further, this notice does not Department shall require the contractor Services (OSERS) of the U.S. cover the official correspondence files of to maintain Privacy Act safeguards as Department of Education (the OSEP, specifically the hard copies of required under 5 U.S.C. 552a(m) with Department) publishes a notice of a new official documents and electronic respect to the records in the system. system of records to read as follows: images of certain incoming and outgoing (4) Litigation and Alternative Dispute documents. These records are Resolution (ADR) Disclosures. 18–16–01 considered covered by the Department’s (a) Introduction. In the event that one system of records 18–01–01, Secretary’s SYSTEM NAME: of the following parties is involved in Communication Control System. litigation or ADR, or has an interest in OSEP Customer Service Tracking litigation or ADR, the Department may System. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: disclose certain records to the parties Title I of the Individuals with described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as of this routine use under the conditions None. amended, 20 U.S.C. Section 1402. specified in those paragraphs: SYSTEM LOCATION(S): PURPOSE(S): (i) The Department, or any of its Monitoring and State Improvement This system of records is maintained components; or Planning Division, Office of Special to provide its customers (parents, (ii) Any Department employee in his Education Programs (OSEP), Office of advocates and others) with more or her official capacity; or Special Education and Rehabilitative responsive, consistent service; to better (iii) Any Department employee in his Services (OSERS), Mary E. Switzer track the large number of calls and other or her official capacity where the DOJ is Building, 330 C Street, SW., Room 3630, inquiries received; to provide trend requested to provide or arrange for Washington, DC 20202. analysis by issue; to develop a profile of representation of the employee; (iv) Any Department employee in his CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE the issues that arise in a certain State; to assist OSEP as a management tool in or her individual capacity where the SYSTEM: Department has agreed to represent the This system covers parents, the preparation of reports, and to monitor State implementation of the employee; or advocates, State personnel and other (v) The United States where the IDEA. third parties who contact OSEP with Department determines that the inquiries or complaints related to ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE litigation is likely to affect the special education. OSEP staff, especially SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Department or any of its components. the Customer Service Specialists (CSS), THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: (b) Disclosure to the DOJ. If the receive letters, e-mails, facsimiles and The Department of Education Department determines that disclosure telephone calls from State personnel (Department) may disclose information of certain records to the DOJ is relevant and parents about disability issues contained in a record in this system of and necessary to litigation or ADR, and related to children with disabilities. records under the routine uses listed in is compatible with the purpose for These complaints and inquiries are this system of records without the which the records were collected, the tracked by an electronic system that consent of the individual if the Department may disclose those records maintains customer demographic data, disclosure is compatible with the as a routine use to the DOJ. as well as information on the content of purposes for which the record was (c) Adjudicative disclosures. If the the complaints and inquiries. The collected. These disclosures may be Department determines that disclosure

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47557

of certain records to an adjudicative POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Records will be deleted or destroyed body before which the Department is RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND when the agency determines they are no authorized to appear, an individual or DISCLOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: longer needed for administrative, legal, STORAGE: entity designated by the Department or audit, or other operational purposes. otherwise empowered to resolve or The information in the tracking mediate disputes is relevant and system will be stored on a server SYSTEM MANAGERS AND ADDRESS: necessary to the litigation or ADR, the maintained by the Department of Deputy, MSIP Division, Office of Department may disclose those records Education. Records generated by the Special Education Programs, Office of as a routine use to the adjudicative system will be maintained electronically body, individual, or entity. on the server. Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, (d) Parties, counsels, representatives RETRIEVABILITY: Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 3630, and witnesses. If the Department This system will only be accessible to 330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC determines that disclosure of certain Departmental contractors and 20202. records to a party, counsel, employees of OSEP. Each record in this representative or witness is relevant and system can be retrieved by entering in NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: necessary to the litigation or ADR, the any of the categories of information Department may disclose those records listed under the ‘‘Categories of Records If you wish to determine whether a as a routine use to the party, counsel, In This System’’ in this notice. record exists about you in the system of representative or witness. records, provide the system manager SAFEGUARDS: (5) Research Disclosure. The with your name or your child’s name Department may disclose records to a The primary users of this system, and your address. Your request for researcher if an appropriate official of Monitoring and State Improvement notification must also meet the the Department determines that the Planning Division (MSIP) employees in requirements of the regulations at 34 individual or organization to which the OSEP, will enter a unique user ID as CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. well as a password to enter the system. disclosure would be made is qualified to You may also present your request in This user ID and password will be in carry out specific research related to person or make your request in writing addition to the user ID and password functions or purposes of this system of to the system manager at the above that all Department employees must records. The official may disclose address. enter to access the Department’s records from this system of records to computer system. Users will be required that researcher solely for the purpose of RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: to change their passwords periodically, carrying out that research related to the and they will not be allowed to repeat Request to access a record must also functions or purposes of this system of old passwords. Any individual reasonably specify the record contents records. The researcher shall be attempting to log on who fails is locked sought and otherwise meet the required to maintain Privacy Act out of the system after three attempts. requirements of the regulations at 34 safeguards with respect to the disclosed Access after that time requires CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. records. intervention by the system manager. (6) Congressional Member Disclosure. The computer system employed by CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The Department may disclose records to the U.S. Department of Education offers If you wish to change the content of a Member of Congress from the record a high degree of resistance to tampering a record in this system of records, you of an individual in response to an and circumvention. This security must contact the system manager at the inquiry from the Member made at the system limits data access to Department above address and follow the steps written request of that individual. The and contract staff on a ‘‘need to know’’ outlined in the Notification procedure. Member’s right to the information is no basis and controls individual users’ Requests to amend a record must also greater than the right of the individual ability to access and alter records within who requested it. the system. reasonably identify the record, specify The location of the server includes the information being contested, (7) Enforcement Disclosure. In the provide in writing your reasons for event that information in this system of safeguards and firewalls, including the physical security of the server room. In requesting the change, and otherwise records indicates, either on its face or in meet the regulations at 34 CFR 5b.7. connection with other information, a addition, the server is located in a secure room, with limited access only violation or potential violation of any RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: applicable statute, regulation, or order through a special pass. Further, all of a competent authority, the physical access to the site where the Information in this system is obtained Department may disclose the relevant server is maintained is controlled and from parents, advocates, and other third records to the appropriate agency, monitored by security personnel who parties that contact OSEP with concerns whether foreign, Federal, State, Tribal, check each individual entering the or complaints related to special or local, charged with the responsibility building for his or her employee or education. of investigating or prosecuting that visitor badge. SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS violation or charged with enforcing or RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: OF THE ACT: implementing the statute, Executive Records in this system will be order, rule, regulation, or order issued retained in accordance with the None. pursuant thereto. National Archives and Records [FR Doc. 03–20435 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Administration (NARA) General DISCLOSURES TO CONSUMER REPORTING BILLING CODE 4000–01–P Records Schedule 20, Item 1.c which AGENCIES: provides disposal authorization for Not applicable to this system of electronic files and hard-copy printouts records. created to monitor system usage.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47558 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a for filing initial comments to and description of the need for and including August 8, 2003. Reply Energy Information Administration proposed use of the information; (7) a comments should be filed on or before categorical description of the likely August 13, 2003. Agency Information Collection respondents; and (8) an estimate of the Magalie R. Salas, Activities: Submission for OMB total annual reporting burden (i.e., the Review; Comment Request estimated number of likely respondents Secretary. [FR Doc. 03–20454 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Energy Information times the proposed frequency of Administration (EIA), Department of response per year times the average BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Energy (DOE). hours per response). 1. DOE–887, ‘‘DOE Customer ACTION: Agency information collection DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY activities: Submission for OMB review; Surveys.’’ Comment request. 2. Energy Information Administration. Federal Energy Regulatory 3. OMB Number 1901–0302. Commission SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the 4. Three-year extension. DOE–887, ‘‘DOE Customer Surveys,’’ to 5. Voluntary. [Docket Nos. EC03–116–000, et al.] the Office of Management and Budget 6. DOE–887 will be used to contact (OMB) for review and a three-year users and beneficiaries of DOE products NewCorp Resources Electric extension under section 3507(h)(1) of or other services to determine how DOE Cooperative, Inc., et al.; Electric Rate the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 can better improve its services to meet and Corporate Filings (Pub. L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). their needs. Information is needed to July 31, 2003. DATES: Comments must be filed by make DOE products more effective, The following filings have been made September 10, 2003. If you anticipate efficient, and responsive and at a lesser with the Commission. The filings are that you will be submitting comments cost. listed in ascending order within each but find it difficult to do so within that 7. Respondents are users and docket classification: period, you should contact the OMB beneficiaries of DOE products and Desk Officer for DOE listed below as services. 1. NewCorp Resources Electric soon as possible. 8. 12,500 hours (50,000 respondents Cooperative, Inc. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Bryon times 1 response per year times .25 [Docket Nos. EC03–116–000 and ER03–1116– Allen, OMB Desk Officer for DOE, hours per response). 000] Office of Information and Regulatory Please refer to the supporting Take notice that on July 25, 2003, Affairs, Office of Management and statement for more information about NewCorp Resources Electric Budget. To ensure receipt of the the types of information collections that Cooperative, Inc. (NewCorp) tendered comments by the due date, submission may be conducted. For instructions on for filing with the Federal Energy by FAX (202–395–7285) or e-mail obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER Regulatory Commission (Commission) ([email protected]) is recommended. INFORMATION CONTACT section. pursuant to Section 203 and 205 of the The mailing address is 726 Jackson Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of Federal Power Act, an application for Place NW., Washington, DC 20503. The the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. approval of the transfer of certain assets OMB DOE Desk Officer may be L. No. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). from Cap Rock Energy, Inc. (CRE) to telephoned at (202) 395–3087. (A copy Issued in Washington, DC, August 1, 2003. NewCorp. In addition, NewCorp of your comments should also be Jay H. Casselberry, proposes to change the service it provided to EIA’s Statistics and provides to its wholesale customer from Methods Group at the address below.) Agency Clearance Officer, Statistics and Methods Group, Energy Information full requirements service under Tariff FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration. WP to transmission service under Requests for additional information [FR Doc. 03–20381 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] NewCorp’s Open Access Transmission should be directed to Herbert Miller. To BILLING CODE 6450–01–P tariff, and also seeks approval of an ensure receipt of the comments by the administrative and maintenance due date, submission by FAX (202–287– services agreement. NewCorp states that 1705) or e-mail DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY it does not propose to increase its ([email protected]) is previously filed and accepted rates in recommended. The mailing address is Federal Energy Regulatory connection with this filing. NewCorp Statistics and Methods Group (EI–70), Commission proposes that these changes be allowed Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of to take effect on September 1, 2003, and [Docket No. PR02–14–001] Energy, Washington, DC 20585–0670. requests waiver of notice requirements Mr. Miller may be contacted by Bridgeline Gas Distribution LLC; to allow this effective date. telephone at (202) 287–1711. Notice Shortening Comment Period Comment Date: August 15, 2003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 2. Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, South section contains the following August 4, 2003. Point Energy Center, LLC, Calpine information about the energy On July 17, 2003, Bridgeline Gas Energy Services, L.P. information collection submitted to Distribution LLC filed an Offer of OMB for review: (1) The collection Settlement in the above-docketed [Docket No. EC03–117–000] numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., proceeding. Included in its filing was a Take notice that on July 25, 2003, the Department of Energy component); request to shorten the period for filing Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, South Point (3) the current OMB docket number (if initial and reply comments in response Energy Center, LLC, and Calpine Energy applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e., to the Offer of Settlement. Since there Services, L.P. (Applicants) tendered for new, revision, extension, or were no protests filed in the docket and filing an application under section 203 reinstatement); (5) response obligation the Commission Staff supports the of the Federal Power Act for approval of (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required Settlement, we are shortening the date the disposition of jurisdictional

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47559

facilities related to generation projects person wishing to become a party must 2. Midwest Independent Transmission located in the States of California and file a motion to intervene. All such System Operator, Inc. Arizona in connection with the motions or protests should be filed on [Docket No. EL03–30–003] financing of certain generation facilities or before the comment date, and, to the Take notice that on July 28, 2003, the in California. extent applicable, must be served on the Midwest Independent Transmission Comment Date: August 15, 2003. applicant and on any other person System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) designated on the official service list. 3. MDU Resources Group, Inc. submitted for filing proposed revisions This filing is available for review at the [Docket No. ES03–41–000] to Section 13.2 of its Open Access Commission or may be viewed on the Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Take notice that on July 25, 2003, Commission’s Web site at http:// Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, in MDU Resources Group, Inc. (MDU) www.ferc.gov , using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. compliance with the Commission’s July submitted an application pursuant to Enter the docket number excluding the 11, 2003 Order on Rehearing, 104 FERC section 204 of the Federal Power Act last three digits in the docket number ¶ 61,075 (2003), to reflect that seeking authorization to issue up to 2.6 field to access the document. For competing requests are those that million in additional shares of common assistance, contact FERC Online involve the same source or sink Control stock, with a par value of $1.00. Support at Area or controllable device/contract MDU also requests a waiver from the [email protected] or toll- path interface. Commission’s competitive bidding and free at (866)208–3676, or for TTY, The Midwest ISO has requested negotiated placement requirements at 18 contact (202)502–8659. Protests and waiver of the sixty (60)-day effective CFR 34.2. interventions may be filed electronically date and an effective date of March 3, Comment Date: August 13, 2003. via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 2003. 4. NewCorp Resources Electric CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the The Midwest ISO has also requested Cooperative, Inc. instructions on the Commission’s Web waiver of the service requirements set site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest [Docket No. ES03–42–000] Commission strongly encourages ISO states that it has electronically Take notice that on July 25, 2003, electronic filings. served a copy of this filing, with NewCorp Resources Electric attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Magalie R. Salas, Cooperative, Inc. (NewCorp) submitted Members, Member representatives of an application pursuant to section 204 Secretary. Transmission Owners and Non- of the Federal Power Act seeking [FR Doc. 03–20347 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO authorization to borrow $31.5 million BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Advisory Committee participants, as under a loan from Beal Bank, S.S.B. well as all state commissions within the NewCorp also requests a waiver from region. In addition, Midwest ISO states the Commission’s competitive bidding DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY that the filing has been electronically and negotiated placement requirements posted on the Midwest ISO’s Web site at 18 CFR 34.2. Federal Energy Regulatory at www.midwestiso.org under the Comment Date: August 15, 2003. Commission heading ‘‘Filings to FERC’’ for other 5. Aquila, Inc. interested parties in this matter. The [Docket No. AC03–69–000, et al.] Midwest ISO also states that it will [Docket No. ES03–43–000] provide hard copies to any interested Take notice that on July 25, 2003, UniSource Energy Corporation, et al.; parties upon request. Aquila, Inc. (Aquila) submitted an Electric Rate and Corporate Filings Comment Date: August 27, 2003. application pursuant to section 204 of 3. Midwest Independent Transmission the Federal Power Act seeking August 1, 2003. System Operator, Inc. authorization to issue (1) no more than The following filings have been made $150 million of long-term convertible with the Commission. The filings are [Docket No. EL03–35–003] debt securities and (2) up to $100 listed in ascending order within each Take notice that on July 29, 2003, million of shares of common stock of docket classification. Midwest Independent Transmission Aquila. System Operator, Inc. tendered for filing Aquila also requests a waiver from the 1. UniSource Energy Corporation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s competitive bidding and [Docket No. AC03–69–000] Commission (Commission) an amended negotiated placement requirements at 18 compliance report pursuant to the CFR 34.2. Take notice that on July 22, 2003, the Commission’s May 21, 2003 order Comment Date: August 18, 2003. UniSource Energy Corporation made a issued in Docket No. EL03–35–000, 103 compliance filing pursuant to the FERC ¶ 61,210 (2003). Standard Paragraph accounting and reporting requirements Comment Date: August 28, 2003. Any person desiring to intervene or to set forth by the Commission in Order 4. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. protest this filing should file with the 631, Accounting, Financial Reporting, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Rate Filing Requirements for Asset [Docket No. ER03–703–001] 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC Retirement Obligations. The Take notice that on July 29, 2003, PJM 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 Commission directed jurisdictional Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), in and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of entities to file journal entries and compliance with the Commission’s May Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 supporting information for any 30, 2003 Order in this proceeding, 103 and 385.214). Protests will be adjustments made that affect net income FERC ¶ 61,250, filed minor revisions to considered by the Commission in as a result of implementing the the Reliability Assurance Agreement determining the appropriate action to be accounting rules contained in Order Among Load-serving Entities in the PJM taken, but will not serve to make 631. Control Area and the PJM West protestants parties t the proceeding. Any Comment Date: August 12, 2003. Reliability Assurance Agreement

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47560 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Among Load-serving Entities in the PJM Texas Central is included. AEPSC states 10. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. West Region. that the Interconnection Agreement [Docket No. ER03–1125–000] PJM states that the compliance tariff provides for the continued Take notice that on July 29, 2003, PJM sheets have an effective date of June 1, interconnection of two existing nuclear Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted 2003, as established by the May 30 powered generating units near for filing an amended interconnection Order. PJM also states that copies of this Wadsworth, Texas. service agreement and an amended filing have been served on all PJM AEPSC seeks an effective date of members and utility regulatory construction service agreement among August 15, 2002 for the Interconnection PJM, Waymart Wind Farm L.P., and PPL commissions in the PJM region and on Agreement and waiver of the all parties listed on the official service Electric Utilities Corporation. Commission’s notice of filing PJM requests a waiver of the list compiled by the Secretary in this requirement because there are no related Commission’s 60-day notice proceeding. rates or charges. requirement to permit a July 14, 2003 Comment Date: August 19, 2003. AEPSC states it has served copies of effective date for the agreements. PJM 5. Pacific Gas and Electric Company the filing on STP Nuclear Operating also states that copies of this filing were [Docket No. ER03–1120–000] Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston served upon the parties to the Electric LLC, Austin Energy, City Public agreements and the state regulatory Take notice that on July 28, 2003, Service of San Antonio and the Public commissions within the PJM region. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Utility Commission of Texas. Comment Date: August 19, 2003. (PG&E) tendered for filing a revision to the Service Agreement for Wholesale Comment Date: August 18, 2003. 11. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Distribution Service (WDT Service 8. Deseret Generation & Transmission [Docket No. ER03–1126–000] Agreement) between PG&E and the Port Co-operative, Inc. Take notice that on July 29, 2003, of Oakland (Port). PG&E states that the [Docket No. ER03–1123–000] Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. WDT Service Agreement is submitted (MSCG), tendered for filing its Rate pursuant to the PG&E Wholesale Take notice that on July 28, 2003, Schedule FERC No. 16. MSCG has Distribution Tariff (WDT), and permits Deseret Generation & Transmission Co- requested that the Commission accept PG&E to recover the ongoing costs for operative, Inc., (Deseret) tendered for the Rate Schedule FERC No. 16 effective service required over PG&E’s filing with the Commission certain July 30, 2003. distribution facilities. PG&E has amendments to its market-based rate MSCG states that a copy of the filing requested certain waivers. authority under Deseret’s FERC Electric was served upon MSCG’s jurisdictional PG&E states that copies of this filing Tariff, Volume No. 3. Deseret seeks customer, Deseret Generation & have been served upon Port, the authority to add a provision to its Transmission Co-operative. California Independent System Operator existing market-based rate tariff that Comment Date: August 12, 2003. Corporation and the California Public expressly permits it to reassign Utilities Commission. transmission capacity to third parties, to 12. ISO New England Inc. Comment Date: August 18, 2003. the extent it is not already permitted to [Docket No. OA97–237–000] 6. PacifiCorp do so. Deseret also seeks to eliminate Take notice that on July 24, 2003, ISO the forms of service agreement attached New England Inc. (the ISO) tendered for [Docket No. ER03–1121–000] to its tariff, as such forms are no longer filing with the Federal Energy Take notice that on July 28, 2003, required, given the Commission’s Regulatory Commission (Commission) PacifiCorp tendered for filing in elimination of the filing requirement for its Market Report for the Third and accordance with 18 CFR 35 of the market-based agreements under Order Fourth Quarters (November 2002— Commission’s Rules and Regulations a No. 2001. Deseret request an effective February 2003). Notice of Cancellation of PacifiCorp’s date of July 31, 2003. Comment Date: August 25, 2003. Rate Schedule No. 254 with Puget Comment Date: August 18, 2003. Sound Power & Light Company effective Standard Paragraph October 31, 2003. 9. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Any person desiring to intervene or to PacifiCorp states that copies of this [Docket No. ER03–1124–000] protest this filing should file with the filing were supplied to Puget Sound Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Take notice that on July 29, 2003, PJM Power & Light Company, the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted Washington Utilities and Transportation 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 for filing two interim interconnection Commission and the Public Utility and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of service agreements between PJM and Commission of Oregon. Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 PSEG Nuclear, LLC, and between PJM Comment Date: August 18, 2003. and 385.214). Protests will be and MM Hackensack Energy, L.L.C., and considered by the Commission in 7. American Electric Power Service a Notice of Cancellation for a certain determining the appropriate action to be Corporation interim interconnection service taken, but will not serve to make agreement that has been superseded. [Docket No. ER03–1122–000] protestants parties to the proceeding. Take notice that on July 28, 2003, PJM requests a waiver of the Any person wishing to become a party American Electric Power Service Commission’s 60-day notice must file a motion to intervene. All such Corporation (AEPSC), as agent for AEP requirement to permit the effective dates motions or protests should be filed on Texas Central Company (Texas Central), agreed to by the parties for the or before the comment date, and, to the submitted for filing the South Texas agreements. PJM also states that copies extent applicable, must be served on the Project Interconnection Agreement (the of this filing were served upon PSEG applicant and on any other person Interconnection Agreement) between Nuclear, LLC, MM Hackensack Energy, designated on the official service list. STP Nuclear Operating Company and L.L.C. and the state regulatory This filing is available for review at the several owners of the interconnected commissions within the PJM region. Commission or may be viewed on the transmission systems among which Comment Date: August 19, 2003. Commission’s Web site at http://

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47561

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. No. EL02–128–000, 104 FERC ¶ 61,006. and that no customers would be harmed Enter the docket number excluding the ISO New England states that copies of by the Third Amendment. last three digits in the docket number the filing have been served on all parties Comment Date: August 20, 2003. field to access the document. For to the above-captioned proceeding. 6. California Power & Light Company assistance, please contact FERC Online Comment Date: September 2, 2003. and Florida Power Corporation Support at 3. Oncor Electric Delivery Company [email protected] or toll- [Docket No. ER03–962–001] free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, [Docket No. ER03–799–001] Take notice that on July 31, 2003, contact (202) 502–8659. Protests and Take notice that on July 30, 2003, Florida Power Corporation, d/b/a interventions may be filed electronically Oncor Electric Delivery Company Progress Energy Florida, Inc., filed via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 (Oncor) tendered for filing a Refund Substitute First Revised Tariff Sheets CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Report of Oncor Electric Delivery Nos. 220 and 248 to correct the instructions on the Commission’s Web Company and designated Transmission designations made in its original, June site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The Service Agreements as directed by the 17, 2003 filing in Docket No. ER03–962– Commission strongly encourages Commission’s Order, 103 FERC 000 consistent with Order No. 614. electronic filings. ¶ 61,393. Comment Date: August 20, Progress Energy Florida, Inc., states 2003. that copies of the filing were served on Magalie R. Salas, the official service list in the above Secretary. 4. New York Independent System referenced proceeding. [FR Doc. 03–20346 Filed 8–11–03; 8:45 am] Operator, Inc. Comment Date: August 14, 2003. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [Docket Nos. ER03–810–001] 7. Southern California Edison Company Take notice that on July 30, 2003, the [Docket No. ER03–1127–000] New York Independent System DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Take notice that on July 30, 2003, Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for Southern California Edison Company Federal Energy Regulatory filing a compliance filing in connection (SCE) tendered for filing a Letter Commission with the Commission’s June 30, 2003, Agreement between SCE and the City of Order in Docket No. ER03–810–000. [Docket No. EF03–2011–000, et al.] Corona, California (Corona). SCE states The NYISO states it has served a copy that the purpose of the Letter Agreement United States Department of Energy, et of this filing to all parties listed on the is to provide an interim arrangement al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings official service list in these proceedings. pursuant to which SCE will commence The NYISO also states that it has served the engineering, design, procurement August 4, 2003. a copy of this filing to all parties that and preparation of specifications for the The following filings have been made have executed Service Agreements interconnection facilities and system with the Commission. The filings are under the NYISO’s Open-Access upgrades necessary to provide listed in ascending order within each Transmission Tariff or Services Tariff, Distribution Service from the California docket classification. the New York State Public Service Independent System Operator Commission and to the electric utility Controlled Grid to a proposed new SCE- 1. U.S. Department of Energy; regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Bonneville Power Administration Corona 12 kV interconnection in the Pennsylvania. City of Corona. SCE also states that [Docket No. EF03–2011–000] Comment Date: August 20, 2003. Corona is planning to construct Take notice that on July 29, 2003, the 5. Northeast Utilities Service Company distribution facilities from the proposed Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) new SCE-Corona 12 kV interconnection tendered for filing a proposed Safety- [Docket No. ER03–907–001] to serve its Wholesale Distribution Net Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause Take notice that on July 30, 2003, Loads in two new developments known (SN CRAC) under the 2002 General Rate Northeast Utilities Service Company as Corona Pointe and Crossroads Schedule Provisions (GRSPs) pursuant (NUSCO), on behalf of The Connecticut Development. to section 7(a)(2) of the Pacific Light and Power Company, Western SCE states that copies of this filing Northwest Electric Power Planning and Massachusetts Electric Company, were served upon the Public Utilities Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.839e(a)(2). Holyoke Power and Electric Company Commission of the State of California BPA seeks interim approval of its and Holyoke Water Power Company and Corona. proposed rates effective September 30, (the NU Companies) submitted for filing Comment Date: August 20, 2003. a third amendment (Third Amendment) 2003, pursuant to Commission 8. American Electric Power Service to the Settlement Agreement approved Regulation 18 CFR 300.20. Pursuant to Corporation Commission Regulation 18 CFR 300.21, by the Commission in Northeast BPA seeks interim approval and final Utilities Service Company, 88 FERC [Docket No. ER03–1128–000] confirmation of the proposed SN CRAC ¶ 61,006 (the Settlement) to extend the Take notice that on July 30, 2003, the adjustment effective October 1, 2003, rates, terms and conditions of the American Electric Power Service through September 30, 2006. Settlement for an additional period of Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing Comment Date: September 3, 2003. forty-five days commencing on July 30, an executed Network Integration 2003. Transmission Service Agreement for 2. Sithe New England Holdings, LLC v. NUSCO states that it does not Buckeye Power, Inc. (Buckeye). AEPSC ISO New England Inc. consider this filing to constitute a rate states that this agreement is pursuant to [Docket No. EL02–128–002] change within the meaning of 18 CFR the AEP Companies’ Open Access Take notice that on August 1, 2003, 35.13 (2002). NUSCO requests that the Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) that ISO New England Inc. (ISO) tendered Commission waive the requirements of has been designated as the Operating for filing its report of compliance to the 18 CFR 35.13. Companies of the American Electric Commission’s directive in its Order on NUSCO also states that a copy of this Power System FERC Electric Tariff, Rehearing, dated July 1, 2003, in Docket filing has been mailed to the service list Third Revised Volume No. 6.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47562 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

AEPSC requests waiver of notice to Inc. and Baltimore Gas and Electric Comment Date: August 20, 2003. permit the Service Agreements to be Company and a notice of cancellation of 15. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. made effective for service on and after an interim ISA that has terminated. July 1, 2003. PJM requests a waiver of the [Docket No. ER03–1135–000] AEPSC states that a copy of the filing Commission’s 60-day notice Take notice that on July 30, 2003, was served upon Buckeye and the state requirement to permit a July 2, 2003 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) utility regulatory commissions of effective date for the ISA. PJM states submitted for filing an executed service Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, that copies of this filing were served agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, upon the parties to the agreements and Transmission Service with Kansas Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. the state regulatory commissions within Municipal Energy Agency (KMEA). SPP Comment Date: August 20, 2003. the PJM region. seeks an effective date of July 1, 2003 for Comment Date: August 20, 2003. 9. Central Hudson Gas & Electric the service agreement. Corporation 12. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. SPP states that copies of this filing were sent to KMEA. [Docket No. ER03–1129–000] [Docket No. ER03–1132–000] Comment Date: August 20, 2003. Take notice that on July 29, 2003, Take notice that on July 30, 2003, PJM Central Hudson Gas & Electric Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted 16. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Corporation (Central Hudson) tendered for filing an interconnection service [Docket No. ER03–1135–000] for filing a Notice of Cancellation of agreement (ISA) among PJM, PSEG FERC Rate Schedule, Original Volume Fossil, L.L.C. and Public Service Electric Take notice that on July 30, 2003, No.1 (Power Sales Tariff) effective and Gas Company and a notice of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) January 1, 1997 in Docket No. ER97– cancellation of an interim ISA that has submitted for filing an executed service 890–000. Central Hudson states that the terminated. agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Power Sales Tariff sets forth the terms PJM requests a waiver of the Transmission Service with Kansas for the sale, by Central Hudson, of Commission’s 60-day notice Municipal Energy Agency (KMEA). SPP surplus capacity and/or energy to requirement to permit a July 2, 2003 seeks an effective date of July 1, 2003 for electric utilities at negotiated rates no effective date for the ISA. PJM states the service agreement. higher than Central Hudson’s cost of that copies of this filing were served SPP states that copies of this filing service. upon the parties to the agreements and were sent to KMEA. Central Hudson states that the the state regulatory commissions within Comment Date: August 20, 2003. cancellation is the result of the sale of the PJM region. the majority of Central Hudson’s electric Comment Date: August 20, 2003. Standard Paragraph generation on January 30, 2001 and 13. PPL Montana, LLC Any person desiring to intervene or to November 7, 2001. protest this filing should file with the Central Hudson requests waiver on [Docket No. ER03–1133–000] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the notice requirements set forth in 18 Take notice that, on July 30, 2003, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC CFR 35.11 of the Regulations to permit PPL Montana, LLC (PPLM) tendered for 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 the cancellation to become effective filing PPLM’s Rate Schedule 13. Rate and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of November 7, 2001. Schedule 13 consists of the 1997 version Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Comment Date: August 20, 2003. of the Pacific Northwest Coordination and 385.214). Protests will be 10. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Agreement (PNCA), as amended, and considered by the Commission in related agreements. PPLM request determining the appropriate action to be [Docket No. ER03–1130–000] acceptance of this new rate schedule taken, but will not serve to make Take notice that on July 30, 2003, PJM designation for the 1997 PNCA to be protestants parties to the proceeding. Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted effective August 1, 2003. Any person wishing to become a party for filing an interconnection service PPLM states that a copy of the filing must file a motion to intervene. All such agreement (ISA) among PJM, PSEG has been served upon all parties to the motions or protests should be filed on Fossil, LLC and Public Service Electric PNCA. or before the comment date, and, to the and Gas Company and a notice of Comment Date: August 20, 2003. extent applicable, must be served on the cancellation for an interim ISA that has 14. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. applicant and on any other person terminated. designated on the official service list. PJM requests a waiver of the [Docket No. ER03–1134–000] This filing is available for review at the Commission’s 60-day notice Take notice that on July 30, 2003, PJM Commission or may be viewed on the requirement to permit a July 2, 2003 Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted Commission’s Web site at http:// effective date for the ISA. PJM states for filing an interconnection service www.ferc.gov , using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. that copies of this filing were served agreement (ISA) among PJM, PSEG Enter the docket number excluding the upon the parties to the agreements and Fossil, L.L.C. and Public Service Electric last three digits in the docket number the state regulatory commissions within and Gas Company and a notice of field to access the document. For the PJM region. cancellation for an interim ISA that has assistance, contact FERC Online Comment Date: August 20, 2003. terminated. Support at 11. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. PJM requests a waiver of the [email protected] or toll- Commission’s 60-day notice free at (866)208–3676, or for TTY, [Docket No. ER03–1131–000] requirement to permit a July 2, 2003 contact (202)502–8659. Protests and Take notice that on July 30, 2003, PJM effective date for the ISA. PJM states interventions may be filed electronically Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted that copies of this filing were served via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 for filing an interconnection service upon the parties to the agreements and CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the agreement (ISA) among PJM, the state regulatory commissions within instructions on the Commission’s Web Constellation Power Source Generation, the PJM region. site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47563

Commission strongly encourages development of gas storage facilities in —Arizona Department of Environmental electronic filings. the Southwest? Quality—TBA What are the concerns of Native 4 PM Question and Answer Session—15 Magalie R. Salas, minutes for questions from the audience Americans in the development of Secretary. 4:15 PM—Closing Remarks natural gas storage facilities in the [FR Doc. 03–20452 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 03–20453 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] southwest? BILLING CODE 6717–01–P BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Transcripts of the conference will be available from Ace-Federal Reporters, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Inc. for a fee. The transcript will be FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS available on the Commission’s FERRIS COMMISSION Federal Energy Regulatory system two weeks after the conference. [CC Docket No. 96–45; DA 03–2330] Commission For additional information, please contact Elizabeth Anklam in the Office of Energy [Docket No. AD03–11–000] Projects at [email protected]. NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners’ Petition for Designation as an Eligible Southwestern Gas Storage Technical Magalie R. Salas, Telecommunications Carrier in the Conference; Notice of Technical Secretary. State of Alabama Conference and Agenda Southwestern Gas Storage Conference AGENCY: Federal Communications August 4, 2003. Agenda; August 26, 2003 Commission. As announced in the Notice of 9 AM Opening Remarks—FERC ACTION: Notice; solicitation of Conference issued on June 19, 2003, 9:15 AM Panel I—Regulatory comments. staff from the Federal Energy Regulatory Perspectives—Panel Members —FERC Certificate Process—Berne Mosley, Commission (Commission) will convene SUMMARY: In this document, the Director, Division of Pipeline Certificates Wireline Competition Bureau seeks a technical conference on August 26, —Certificate Policy Statement—John 2003 at 9 a.m. at the Pointe Hilton Myler, Attorney, Office of the General comment on the NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Squaw Peak Resort, 7677 N. 16th St, Counsel Nextel Partners’ (NEXTEL) petition. Phoenix, AZ 85020, (602) 997–2626, to —Rate Options—Robert Petrocelli, Office NEXTEL is seeking designation as an discuss issues related to natural gas of Markets, Tariffs, and Rates eligible telecommunications carrier storage development in the —Storage Engineering/Technical Review— (ETC) to receive federal universal southwestern United States. By order Elizabeth Anklam, Petroleum Engineer, service support for service offered in issued June 4, 2003, in Docket Nos. Division of Pipeline Certificates those portions of NEXTEL licensed —Environmental Review—Lonnie Lister, CP02–420–000 et al., the Commission service area located in rural and non- Chief, Environmental Branch 3, Office of rural areas in Alabama. directed that a technical conference be Energy Projects held to begin analysis of relevant market —The State Perspective—Marc Spitzer, DATES: Comments are due on or before needs and regulatory options available Chairman Arizona Corporation August 21, 2003. Reply comments are to the Commission to assure the Commission due on or before September 4, 2003. appropriate development of 10:45 AM—Question and Answer Session— ADDRESSES: Federal Communications southwestern natural gas storage 15 minutes for questions from the Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., facilities and markets.1 The conference audience Washington, DC 20554. See Agenda is appended to this Notice. 11 AM—Panel II—Industry Perspectives— Storage Panel Members SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further In the June 19, 2003 Notice, potential —Red Lake Gas Storage—Mark Cook, Vice filing instructions. presenters were asked to consider the President FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: following questions and present their —Copper Eagle Gas Storage—TBA Elizabeth Yockus, Attorney, Wireline responses at the conference, in order to —Unocal Midstream and Trade (Keystone Competition Bureau, more clearly focus the discussion: Gas Storage Facility)—TBA Telecommunications Access Policy What potential projects are currently —EnCana Gas Storage (Wild Goose Storage Division (202) 418–7400, TTY (202) Inc.)—Paul Amirault, Vice President, under consideration by the industry for 418–0484. developing gas storage in the Marketing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Southwest? —Desert Crossing Gas Storage and Transportation System—TBA summary of the Commission’s Public Should the Commission initiate an 12:15 AM—Question and Answer Session— Notice, CC Docket No. 96–45, released open-season approach for storage 15 minutes for questions from the July 16, 2003. On April 4, 2003, NPCR, development proposals, in which all audience Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners (NEXTEL), a potential projects are filed at the same 12:30 PM—Break—Lunch commercial mobile radio service time? 1:30 PM—Panel III—Industry Perspectives— (CMRS) carrier, filed with the What types of storage services are Other Panel Members Commission a petition under section necessary or envisioned? —El Paso Natural Gas Company—TBA 214(e)(6) seeking designation as an Who will contract for these services? —Southwest Gas Corporation—TBA eligible telecommunications carrier What type of storage facilities can —Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District—TBA (ETC) to receive federal universal physically be constructed (i.e. salt —LECG Economics, Finance—James F. service support for service offered in cavern, depleted oil/gas reservoirs, Wilson, Principal designated rural and non-rural areas of aquifer type, etc.)? —International Gas Consulting—Kenneth its licensed service area in the state of What environmental and cultural Beckman, President Alabama. NEXTEL contends that the resources issues would affect the 2:45 PM—Question and Answer Session—15 minutes for questions from the audience Alabama Public Service Commission (Alabama Commission) has provided an 1 For the purpose of this conference, the 3 PM Panel IV—Federal, State and Tribal Southwest is generally defined as west Texas, New Lands Matters Panel Members affirmative statement that it does not Mexico, Arizona, southern Nevada, and southern —Hualapai Nation—TBA regulate CMRS carriers; NEXTEL California. —BLM—TBA satisfies all the statutory and regulatory

VerDate jul<14>2003 19:07 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47564 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

prerequisites for ETC designation; and together with rubber bands or fasteners. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications designating NEXTEL as an ETC will Any envelopes must be disposed of Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., serve the public interest. before entering the building. Washington, DC 20554. See The petitioner must provide copies of Commercial overnight mail (other than SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further its petition to the Alabama Commission. U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and filing instructions. The Commission will also send a copy Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of this Public Notice to the Alabama Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD Katie King or Thomas Buckley, Commission by overnight express mail 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class Attorneys, Wireline Competition to ensure that the Alabama Commission mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail Bureau, Telecommunications Access is notified of the notice and comment should be addressed to 445 12th Street, Policy Division (202) 418–7400, TTY period. SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings (202) 418–0484. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 must be addressed to the Commission’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file summary of the Bureau’s Public Notice, the Secretary, Federal Communications CC Docket No. 96–45, released July 24, comments as follows: comments are due Commission. on or before August 21, 2003, and reply 2003. On January 7, 2003, the Bureau Parties also must send three paper released a Public Notice seeking comments are due on or before copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, September 4, 2003. Comments may be comment on how line count and other Telecommunications Access Policy discrete input values should be updated filed using the Commission’s Electronic Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by for purposes of determining non-rural Federal Communications Commission, high-cost support. Consistent with past filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 445 12th Street SW., Room 5–B540, of Documents in Rulemaking precedent, the Bureau sought comment Washington, DC 20554. In addition, on using year-end 2001 line counts filed Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121, May 1, commenters must send diskette copies 1998. July 31, 2002, as input values for to the Commission’s copy contractor, purposes of estimating average forward- Comments filed through the ECFS can Qualex International, Portals II, 445 be sent as an electronic file via the looking costs and determining support 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, for non-rural carriers during 2003. The Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ Washington, DC 20054. ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of Bureau also sought comment on using Pursuant to section 1.1206 of the the same methodology that it has used an electronic submission must be filed. Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this If multiple docket or rulemaking in the past to update special access proceeding will be conducted as a numbers appear in the caption of this lines. permit-but-disclose proceeding in proceeding, however, commenters must In this Public Notice, the Bureau which ex parte communications are transmit one electronic copy of the seeks additional comment on issues permitted subject to disclosure. comments to each docket or rulemaking raised by parties concerning special number referenced in the caption. In Federal Communications Commission. access line updates in response to the completing the transmittal screen, Paul Garnett, 2003 Line Counts Public Notice, 68 FR commenters should include their full Acting Assistant Division Chief, Wireline 6744, February 10, 2003. The cost model name, U.S. Postal Service mailing Competition Bureau, Telecommunications uses simplifying assumptions to address, and the applicable docket or Access Policy Division. estimate the costs of serving high- rulemaking number. Parties may also [FR Doc. 03–20323 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] capacity special access lines, for submit an electronic comment by BILLING CODE 6712–01–P example by treating DS 3 lines as voice Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions grade equivalents to calculate per-line for e-mail comments, commenters costs. Some commenters contend that should send an e-mail to [email protected], FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS this methodology causes the model to and should include the following words COMMISSION overstate the total number of lines served by non-rural carriers and, in the body of the message, ‘‘get form [CC Docket 96–45; DA 03–2469] .’’ A sample form therefore, to underestimate per-line and directions will be sent in reply. Updating Line Counts Used in costs. Commenters maintain that recent Parties who choose to file by paper Calculating High-Cost Support for DS 3 special access line growth must file an original and four copies of Non-Rural Carriers exacerbates these effects. In addition, each filing. If more than one docket or some commenters argue that allocating rulemaking number appears in the AGENCY: Federal Communications special access lines reported in ARMIS caption of this proceeding, commenters Commission. to wire centers based on the 1999 Data must submit two additional copies for ACTION: Notice; solicitation of Request understates per-line costs in each additional docket or rulemaking comments. rural and high-cost areas by assigning number. Filings can be sent by hand or too many special access lines to these messenger delivery, by commercial SUMMARY: In this document, the areas. overnight courier, or by first-class or Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) Therefore, the Bureau seeks overnight U.S. Postal Service mail seeks additional comment on updating additional comment on updating special (although we continue to experience line counts in the Commission’s access lines in the model for purposes delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service forward-looking cost model for purposes of determining non-rural high-cost mail). The Commission’s contractor, of determining support for non-rural support. The Bureau seeks comment on Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand- carriers following a Commission whether, in light of recent special access delivered or messenger-delivered paper decision in the Ninth Report and Order, line growth trends, zeroing out special filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 64 FR 67416, December 1, 1999, remand access lines in the cost model’s 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite proceeding. calculations would be a reasonable 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing DATES: Comments are due on or before approach to estimating costs using the hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 September 2, 2003. Reply Comments are current model platform. Alternatively, p.m. All hand deliveries must be held due on or before September 10, 2003. the Bureau seeks comment on other

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47565

proposals for estimating special line must submit two additional copies for holding company. The factors that are growth. In the event that the Bureau each additional docket or rulemaking considered in acting on the notices are decides to update special access lines, number. Filings can be sent by hand or set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 consistent with its prior practice, the messenger delivery, by commercial U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). Bureau also seeks comment on whether overnight courier, or by first-class or The notices are available for it should continue to allocate these overnight U.S. Postal Service mail immediate inspection at the Federal updated special access lines to wire (although we continue to experience Reserve Bank indicated. The notices centers based on the 1999 Data Request, delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service also will be available for inspection at or whether it should use an alternative mail). The Commission’s contractor, the office of the Board of Governors. methodology. Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand- Interested persons may express their The Bureau seeks comment on delivered or messenger-delivered paper views in writing to the Reserve Bank whether to update the cost model with filings for the Commission’s Secretary at indicated for that notice or to the offices year-end 2002 line count data filed July 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite of the Board of Governors. Comments 31, 2003 for purposes of estimating 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing must be received not later than August average forward-looking costs and hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 25. 2003. determining support for non-rural p.m. All hand deliveries must be held A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta carriers following a Commission together with rubber bands or fasteners. (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 decision in the Ninth Report and Order Any envelopes must be disposed of Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia remand proceeding. The Bureau notes before entering the building. 30309–4470: that new line count data will be Commercial overnight mail (other than 1. Anita Marie Fontenot (Melancon), available shortly. Moreover, in light of U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and and Dames Fontenot, both of Lafayette, the statutory deadline of October 16, Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Louisiana; Rachel Fontenot Wyble, 2003, for a Commission decision in the Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD Carencro, Louisiana; and Carl Winn remand proceeding, it is unlikely that 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class Fontenot, Chad David Fontenot, Craig the new version of the forward-looking mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail Dwaine Fontenot, David Joseph cost model with updated inputs will be should be addressed to 445 12th Street, Fontenot, and Vickie Lynn Fontenot utilized for purposes of calculating SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings (Bergeron), all of Ville Platte, Louisiana; support until January 1, 2004. must be addressed to the Commission’s to acquire voting shares of Citizens Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of Bancshares, Inc., Ville Platte. Louisiana, of the Commission’s rules, interested the Secretary, Federal Communications and thereby indirectly acquire voting parties may file comments as follows: Commission. shares of Citizens Bank, Ville Platte, Comments are due on or before Parties also must send three paper Louisiana. September 2, 2003, and reply comments copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve are due on or before September 10, Telecommunications Access Policy System, August 5, 2003. 2003. Comments may be filed using the Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Jennifer J. Johnson, Commission’s Electronic Comment Federal Communications Commission, Secretary of the Board. Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 445 12th Street SW., Room 5–B540, copies. See Electronic Filing of Washington, DC 20554. In addition, [FR Doc. 03–20419 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, commenters must send diskette copies BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. to the Commission’s copy contractor, Comments filed through the ECFS can Qualex International, Portals II, 445 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM be sent as an electronic file via the 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ Washington, DC 20054. Formations of, Acquisitions by, and ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of Pursuant to section 1.1206 of the Mergers of Bank Holding Companies an electronic submission must be filed. Commission’s rules, this proceeding If multiple docket or rulemaking will be conducted as a permit-but- The companies listed in this notice numbers appear in the caption of this disclose proceeding in which ex parte have applied to the Board for approval, proceeding, however, commenters must communications are permitted subject pursuant to the Bank Holding Company transmit one electronic copy of the to disclosure. Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) comments to each docket or rulemaking Federal Communications Commission. (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part number referenced in the caption. In 225), and all other applicable statutes William Scher, completing the transmittal screen, and regulations to become a bank commenters should include their full Assistant Division Chief, Wireline holding company and/or to acquire the Competition Bureau, Telecommunications name, U.S. Postal Service mailing Access Policy Division. assets or the ownership of, control of, or address, and the applicable docket or the power to vote shares of a bank or [FR Doc. 03–20324 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] rulemaking number. Parties may also bank holding company and all of the submit an electronic comment by BILLING CODE 6712–01–P banks and nonbanking companies Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions owned by the bank holding company, for e-mail comments, commenters including the companies listed below. should send an e-mail to [email protected], FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM The applications listed below, as well and should include the following words Change in Bank Control Notices; as other related filings required by the in the body of the message, ‘‘get form Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Board, are available for immediate .’’ A sample form Holding Companies inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank and directions will be sent in reply. indicated. The application also will be Parties who choose to file by paper The notificants listed below have available for inspection at the offices of must file an original and four copies of applied under the Change in Bank the Board of Governors. Interested each filing. If more than one docket or Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and persons may express their views in rulemaking number appears in the § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 writing on the standards enumerated in caption of this proceeding, commenters CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47566 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

proposal also involves the acquisition of Parts Open to the Public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a nonbanking company, the review also 1. Approval of minutes of July 24, Requests for additional information includes whether the acquisition of the 2003, Board member meeting. should be addressed to Janis K. nonbanking company complies with the 2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report Pappalardo, Economist, Bureau of standards in section 4 of the BHC Act by the Executive Director. Economics, Federal Trade Commission, (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 3. New system report. 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Room NJ– noted, nonbanking activities will be 4. Review of investment policy. 4136, Washington, DC 20580. conducted throughout the United States. 5. Review of Ernst & Young Telephone: (202) 326–3380; e-mail Additional information on all bank semiannual financial report. [email protected]. holding companies may be obtained Parts Closed to the Public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recent from the National Information Center deceptive lending cases at the FTC and 6. Discussion of personnel matters. website at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/. elsewhere suggest that consumers who Unless otherwise noted, comments CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: do not understand the terms of their regarding each of these applications Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of mortgages can be subject to deception, must be received at the Reserve Bank External Affairs, (202) 942–1640. that deception can occur even when indicated or the offices of the Board of consumers receive the disclosures Governors not later than September 4, Elizabeth S. Woodruff, Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement required by the Truth-in-Lending Act, 2003. 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. (TILA), and that A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Thrift Investment Board. deception about mortgage terms can (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 [FR Doc. 03–20500 Filed 8–7–03; 12:06 pm] result in substantial consumer injury. Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia BILLING CODE 6760–01–M Despite a long history of mortgage 30309–4470: disclosure requirements and many new 1. The Colonial BancGroup, Inc., legislative and regulatory proposals Montgomery, Alabama; to merge with FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION regarding disclosures, little empirical Sarasota Bancorporation, Inc., Sarasota, evidence exists to document the effect Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire Agency Information Collection of current disclosures on consumer 100 percent of the voting shares of Activities; Submission for OMB understanding of mortgage terms, Sarasota Bank, Sarasota, Florida. Review; Comment Request B. Federal Reserve Bank of consumer mortgage shopping behavior, AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission or consumer mortgage choice. Minneapolis (Richard M. Todd, Vice (FTC). President and Community Affairs The FTC proposes a research program ACTION: Notice. Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, designed to learn more about how consumers search for mortgages, what Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291: SUMMARY: The FTC has submitted to the 1. Quality Bankshares, Inc., Fingal, consumers understand or Office of Management and Budget misunderstand about mortgage North Dakota; to merge with Page Bank (OMB) for review under the Paperwork Holding Company, Page, North Dakota, agreements, and how changes in the Reduction Act (PRA) information disclosure process might improve and thereby indirectly acquire Page collection requirements in proposed State Bank, Page, North Dakota. consumer understanding, consumer consumer surveys designed to help the mortgage shopping, and consumers’ C. Federal Reserve Bank of San FTC examine: How consumers search Francisco (Tracy Basinger, Director, ability to avoid deception. The research for and choose mortgages; how also may assist the targeting of the FTC’s Regional and Community Bank Group) consumers use and understand 101 Market Street, San Francisco, enforcement actions by identifying areas information about mortgages, including most prone to consumer California 94105–1579: required disclosures; and whether more 1. Rainier Pacific Financial Group, misunderstanding and lender deception effective disclosures are feasible. To and may help refine disclosure remedies Inc., Fife, Washington; to become a bank conduct the research, the FTC first seeks holding company by acquiring 100 imposed on deceptive lenders. OMB clearance and additional public On April 22, 2003, the FTC sought percent of the voting shares of Rainier comment regarding this notice, which is Pacific Savings Bank, Fife, Washington. public comments on the information the second of two notices required by collection aspects of the proposed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve the PRA for information collection surveys. See 68 FR 19,825. The FTC System, August 5, 2003. requests of this nature. received seven comments on the Jennifer J. Johnson, DATES: Comments must be submitted on proposed information collection Secretary of the Board. or before September 10, 2003. request.1 None of the commenters [FR Doc. 03–20420 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Send written comments to opposed the proposed information BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, collection, and most of them Room H–159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, 1 American Land Title Association (ALTA) FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT or by e-mail to [email protected] as (described as the national trade association of the title insurance industry); East Side Organizing INVESTMENT BOARD prescribed below, and to Records Project (ESOP) (a community-based grassroots Management Center, ATTN: Desk organization in Cleveland, Ohio); Mortgage Bankers Sunshine Act Meeting Officer for the FTC, OMB, Room 10102 Association of America (MBA) (a trade association NEOB, fax: (202) 395–6566. The representing all aspects of real estate finance); The TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m. (EDT), August 18, submissions should include the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) (a non- 2003. profit Massachusetts Corporation specializing in submitter’s name, address, telephone issues faced by low-income consumers); PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room, number and, if available, FAX number Organization for a New Eastside (O.N.E.) (a 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. and e-mail address. All submissions community group in Indianapolis, Indiana); STATUS: Parts will be open to the public Syracuse United Neighbors (SUN) (a grassroots should be captioned ‘‘Mortgage community organization in Syracuse, New York); and parts closed to the public. Disclosure Study—FTC File No. the Texas Association of Mortgage Brokers (TAMB) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: P025505.’’ (a trade association of mortgage brokers in Texas).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47567

enthusiastically endorsed the research. demographic characteristics, the study mortgage transaction within the All three community organizations will not necessarily yield meaningful previous two months and will be asked expressed concern about predatory comparisons across all of the groups the to bring their loan documents to the lending, and commended the commenters recommend. Moreover, a interview. The purpose of the Commission on its research objectives. survey of mortgage originators is beyond interviews is to gain in-depth See ESOP Comment at 1; O.N.E. the proposed study’s scope and knowledge of the extent to which Comment at 1; SUN Comment at 1. See available resources. consumers use, search for, and also TAMB Comment at 3 (‘‘TAMB Pursuant to the OMB regulations that understand mortgage information— commends you for undertaking the implement the PRA (5 CFR part 1320), including information about their own study. It comes at a critical time.’’). the FTC is providing this second recent loans. Although some of the commenters opportunity for public comment while The last phase of the study will suggested that particular concerns be seeking OMB approval to collect the consist of copy test interviews of 800 addressed in the research, none information sought under the proposed consumers who entered into a mortgage expressed reservations about the general consumer surveys. transaction within the previous year. If methodology. For example, MBA wrote: If a comment contains nonpublic possible, approximately half of the ‘‘With regard to research design, MBA information, it must be filed in paper respondents will be subprime borrowers believes that the methodology form, and the first page of the document and half will be prime borrowers. The summarized in the comments request is must be clearly labeled ‘‘confidential.’’ purpose of the copy tests will be to sound.’’ MBA Comment at 2. Comments that do not contain any examine whether alternative disclosures Specific suggestions about the nonpublic information may instead be can improve consumer understanding of research generally reflect a desire to filed in electronic form (in ASCII mortgage terms and help to reduce broaden the scope of the information format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) potential deception about mortgage collection. The NCLC, for example, as part of or as an attachment to e-mail offers. The findings from the focus requested that the research ‘‘... messages directed to the following e- groups and interviews will be used in incorporate all educational and income mail box: [email protected]. Such developing the alternative disclosures levels of consumers, as well as a variety comments will be considered by the used in the copy tests. of languages spoken by American Commission and will be available for All information will be collected on a consumers. Moreover, the sample inspection and copying at its principal voluntary basis and consumers will should include enough of each type of office in accordance with § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) receive usual and customary borrower so that the sample can be of the Commission’s rules of practice, 16 compensation for their participation. stratified and the researchers can look at CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii). For the qualitative research the FTC has and compare subsets of borrowers.’’ 1. Description of the Collection of contracted with a consumer research NCLC Comment at 5. TAMB Information and Proposed Use firm to locate eligible borrowers, recruit recommended that the study be respondents, moderate the focus groups, The FTC proposes to conduct this expanded to include more individuals conduct the interviews, and write a study in two phases: (1) A qualitative and then grouped into transactions report of the findings. For the research phase; and (2) a quantitative involving mortgage bankers, mortgage quantitative research the FTC has also research phase. The qualitative research brokers, large banks and credit unions. contracted with a consumer research phase will include focus groups and in- TAMB Comment at 2. TAMB also firm to locate eligible borrowers and depth interviews. The quantitative recommended in-depth interviews with recruit respondents as well as to research will include copy tests of mortgage originators. TAMB Comment conduct the copy tests and write a brief current and alternative disclosures. at 3. methodological report. The results will Commenters offered certain other Results from the first phase will be used assist the FTC in determining how survey refinements. For example, the to refine the design of the second phase. required disclosures and other NCLC recommended that research on The project will begin with 2 focus information affects consumers’ ability to current disclosures include study of groups. Each group will include 8–10 understand the cost and features of TILA forms, Good Faith Estimates, and consumers who completed a mortgage mortgages. This understanding will the HUD–1. NCLC Comment at 7. The transaction within the previous year. further the FTC’s mission of protecting NCLC also recommended that the One group will be comprised of research examine how consumers subprime borrowers. The second group consumers and competition in this understand key disclosure terms, such will be comprised of prime borrowers. important market. as the annual percentage rate. NCLC The purpose of the focus groups is to 2. Estimated Hours Burden Comment at 7. Moreover, the NCLC and examine how well consumers ALTA believe it important to understand mortgage terms, how Qualitative Research differentiate between refinancing consumers shop for mortgages, if The contractor will recruit 12 transactions and purchase transactions. consumers recognize features of a consumers for each focus group, with ALTA Comment at 1; NCLC Comment at mortgage offer that may significantly the expectation that each group will be 5. increase the cost of the loan, and comprised of 8–10 participants. Recommendations of the commenters whether consumers use and understand Participation by each focus group will will be incorporated into the study to required disclosures. Subprime and require approximately two hours. Thus, the extent possible. To illustrate, FTC prime borrowers will be examined the focus group research will impose a staff intends to examine closely how separately to examine possible burden of up to 40 hours (2 groups × 10 consumers use and understand key differences between these groups of participants per group × 2 hours per mortgage terms. However, given budget consumers. participant). Approximately 36 one- limitations, it will not be possible to The focus group research will be hour long, in-depth interviews will also extend the sample size and study scope followed by a series of approximately 36 be conducted. If all respondents are as was otherwise recommended. For individual, in-depth interviews with a single decision makers, this would total example, although staff intends to different group of borrowers. 36 hours. However, some of the survey consumers of many different Respondents will have completed a interviews may include couples.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47568 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Assuming that half of the interviews Analysis to Aid Public Comment for inspection and copying at its include couples (the upper bound describes both the allegations in the principal office in accordance with offered by the contractor), the draft complaint that accompanies the § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s rules cumulative hours burden for the in- consent agreement and the terms of the of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). consent order—embodied in the consent depth interviews would increase to 54 Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to × × agreement—that would settle these hours ((18 2 hours) + (18 1 hour)). Aid Public Comment Thus, the overall burden for the allegations. The Federal Trade Commission has qualitative research will range from 76 DATES: Comments must be received on accepted for public comment an hours to 94 hours. or before September 1, 2003. Agreement Containing Consent Order Quantitative Research ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper with Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s form should be directed to: FTC/Office Approximately 800 consumers who Association (‘‘IMWA’’ or of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 engaged in a mortgage transaction ‘‘Respondent’’). The Agreement is for Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., settlement purposes only and does not during the prior year will participate in Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed the quantitative phase of the research. constitute an admission by IMWA that in electronic form should be directed to: the law has been violated as alleged in Each copy test interview will be roughly [email protected], as 20–30 minutes long. The estimated the Complaint or that the facts alleged prescribed in the Supplementary in the Complaint, other than hours burden for the quantitative Information section. research ranges from 267 hours (800 jurisdictional facts, are true. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: respondents × 1⁄3 hour per respondent) Dana Abrahamsen, FTC, Bureau of I. The Commission’s Complaint to 400 hours (800 respondents × 1⁄2 hour Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, The proposed Complaint alleges that per respondent). NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– Respondent Iowa Movers and Total 2906. Warehousemen’s Association, a The total estimated hours burden for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant corporation, has violated and is now both phases of the study ranges from to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade 343 hours (76 hours + 267 hours) to 494 Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. Commission Act. Specifically, the hours (94 hours + 400 hours). 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission’s proposed Complaint alleges that rules of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is Respondent has agreed to engage, and 3. Estimated Cost Burden hereby given that the above-captioned has engaged, in a combination and Participation is voluntary and will not consent agreement containing a consent conspiracy, an agreement, concerted require start-up, capital, or labor order to cease and desist, having been action or unfair and unlawful acts, expenditures by respondents. filed with and accepted, subject to final policies and practices, the purpose or Participants will be compensated approval, by the Commission, has been effect of which is to unlawfully hinder, financially for their participation, as placed on the public record for a period restrain, restrict, suppress or eliminate recommended and budgeted for by the of thirty (30) days. The following competition among household goods contractor.2 Analysis to Aid Public Comment movers in the household goods moving describes the terms of the consent industry. By direction of the Commission. agreement, and the allegations in the Respondent is an association Donald S. Clark, complaint. An electronic copy of the organized for and serving its members, Secretary. full text of the consent agreement which are approximately 70 household [FR Doc. 03–20373 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] package can be obtained from the FTC goods movers that conduct business BILLING CODE 6750–01–P Home Page (for August 1, 2003), on the within the State of Iowa. In 2002 IMWA World Wide Web, at ‘‘http:// became a division of the Iowa Motor www.ftc.gov/os/2003/08/index.htm.’’ A Truck Association, but it retains its own FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION paper copy can be obtained from the identity. One of the primary functions of [File No. 021 0115] FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130– IMWA is preparing, and filing with the H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Iowa Department of Transportation’s Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s Washington, DC 20580, either in person Office of Motor Carrier Services, tariffs Association; Analysis To Aid Public or by calling (202) 326–2222. and supplements on behalf of its Comment Public comments are invited, and may members. These tariffs and supplements be filed with the Commission in either contain rates and charges for the AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. paper or electronic form. Comments intrastate and local transportation of ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. filed in paper form should be directed household goods and for related to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room services. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., The proposed Complaint alleges that matter settles alleged violations of Washington, DC 20580. If a comment Respondent is engaged in initiating, federal law prohibiting unfair or contains nonpublic information, it must preparing, developing, disseminating, deceptive acts or practices or unfair be filed in paper form, and the first page and taking other actions to establish and methods of competition. The attached of the document must be clearly labeled maintain collective rates, which have ‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not the purpose or effect of fixing, 2 The contractor has budgeted for incentives to contain any nonpublic information may establishing or stabilizing rates for the compensate recent mortgage customers for their participation in the study. Individual focus group instead be filed in electronic form (in transportation of household goods in the participants will each receive $75. Individuals who ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft State of Iowa. The Respondent files participate in the in-depth interviews will receive Word) as part of or as an attachment to uniform rates and the tariffs contain $100, and couples who complete the in-depth email messages directed to the following rules that limit the extent to which interviews will receive $150. Participants in the quantitative phase of the study will receive a email box: [email protected]. movers can discount from those rates modest honorarium as budgeted for by the Such comments will be considered by when charging consumers for moving contractor. the Commission and will be available services.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47569

The proposed Complaint further Paragraphs V and VI of the proposed Under the first prong of Midcal’s two- alleges that Respondent organizes and Order require Respondent to inform the part test, Respondent would be required conducts meetings that provide a forum Commission of any change in to show that the State of Iowa had for discussion or agreement between Respondent that could affect ‘‘clearly articulated and affirmatively competing carriers concerning or compliance with the Order and to file expressed as state policy’’ the desire to affecting rates and charges for the compliance reports with the replace competition with a regulatory intrastate transportation of household Commission for a number of years. scheme. With regard to this prong, it goods. Paragraph VII of the proposed Order appears that under Iowa law tariffs must The proposed Complaint further states that the Order will terminate in 20 be ‘‘just, reasonable, and alleges that Respondent’s conduct is years. nondiscriminating.’’6 Respondent anticompetitive because it has the effect would meet its burden only if it could III. Opportunity for Modification of the of raising, fixing, and stabilizing the show that this or some other provision Order prices of household goods moves. The of Iowa law constitutes a clear acts of Respondent also have the effect Respondent can seek to modify the expression of state policy to displace of depriving consumers of the benefits proposed Order to permit it to engage in competition and allow for collective of competition. collective rate-making if it can rate-making among competitors. demonstrate that the ‘‘state action’’ Under the second prong of the Midcal II. Terms of the Proposed Consent Order defense would apply to its conduct.2 test, Respondent would be required to The proposed Order would provide The state action doctrine dates back to demonstrate ‘‘active supervision’’ by relief for the alleged anticompetitive the Supreme Court’s 1943 opinion in state officials. The Supreme Court has effects of the conduct principally by Parker v. Brown, which held that, in made clear that the active supervision means of a cease and desist order light of the States’ status as sovereigns, standard is a rigorous one. It is not barring Respondent from continuing its and given basic principles of federalism, enough that the State grants general practice of filing tariffs containing Congress would not have intended the authority for certain business conduct or collective intrastate rates. Sherman Act to apply to the activities that it approves private agreements with Paragraph II of the proposed Order of States themselves.3 The defense also little review. As the Court held in bars Respondent from filing a tariff that has been interpreted in limited Midcal, ‘‘The national policy in favor of contains collective intrastate rates. This circumstances to shield from antitrust competition cannot be thwarted by provision will terminate Respondent’s scrutiny private firms’ activities that are casting such a gauzy cloak of state current practice of filing tariffs that conducted pursuant to state authority. involvement over what is essentially a contain intrastate rates that are the States may not, however, simply private price-fixing arrangement.’’7 product of an agreement among movers authorize private parties to violate the Rather, active supervision is designed to in the State of Iowa. This paragraph also antitrust laws.4 Instead, a State must ensure that a private party’s prohibits Respondent from engaging in substitute its own control for that of the anticompetitive action is shielded from activities such as exchanges of market. antitrust liability only when ‘‘the State information that would facilitate Thus, the state action defense would has effectively made [the challenged] member movers in agreeing on the rates be available to Respondent only if it conduct its own.’’8 contained in their intrastate tariffs. For could demonstrate that its conduct In order for state supervision to be example, the order bars Respondent satisfied the strict two-pronged standard adequate for state action purposes, state from providing to other carriers certain the Supreme Court set out in California officials must engage in a ‘‘pointed re- non-public information.1 It also bars Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal examination’’ of the private conduct.9 In Respondent from maintaining a tariff Aluminum, Inc.: ‘‘the challenged this regard, the State must ‘‘have and committee or agreeing with movers to restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated exercise ultimate authority’’ over the institute any automatic intrastate rate and affirmatively expressed as state challenged anticompetitive conduct.10 increases. policy’’’ and ‘‘the policy must be To do so, state officials must exercise Paragraph III of the proposed Order ‘actively supervised’ by the state ‘‘sufficient independent judgment and requires Respondent to cancel all tariffs itself.’’5 control so that the details of the rates or that it has filed that contain intrastate prices have been established as a collective rates. This provision will 2 16 CFR 2.51. Because the State of Iowa recently product of deliberate state intervention, ensure that the collective intrastate rates enacted legislation expanding the state’s authority not simply by agreement among private to review tariff filings, Respondent may seek to 11 now on file in the State of Iowa will no modify the Order in this instance. (Senate File 97, parties.’’ One asserting the state action longer be in force, allowing for signed into law on March 28, 2003.) We note that defense must demonstrate that the state competitive rates in future individual a change in the statute alone is insufficient to assure agency has ascertained the relevant mover tariffs. Paragraph III of the active state supervision. As explained below, actual supervision, rather than mere statutory authority to proposed Order also requires supervise, is required. We discuss the state action 504 U.S. 621, 633 (1992), where the Court noted Respondent to cancel any provisions in defense below in some detail. See also Indiana that the gravity of the antitrust violation of price its governing documents that permit it Household Movers and Warehousemen, Inc., File fixing requires exceptionally clear evidence of the State’s decision to supplant competition. to engage in activities barred by the No. 021–0115 (Mar. 18, 2003) (proposed consent order) available at . administrative rule specifically allows carriers of Paragraph IV of the proposed Order 3 317 U.S. 341 (1943). household goods to file their tariffs through an agent or another motor carrier, suggesting requires Respondent to send to its 4 Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. at 351 (‘‘[A] state does administrative approval of collective rate filings. members a letter explaining the terms of not give immunity to those who violate the Iowa Administrative Code 761–524.15(325A). Sherman Act by authorizing them to violate it, or the Order. This will make clear to 7 declaring that their action is lawful.’’). Midcal, 445 U.S. at 105–06. members that they can no longer engage 8 5 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980) (‘‘Midcal’’) (quoting City Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 106 (1988). in collective rate-making activities. of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light, 435 U.S. 9 Midcal, 445 U.S. at 106. Accord, Ticor, 504 U.S. 389, 410 (1978)). The ‘‘restraint’’ in this instance is at 634–35; Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. at 100–01. 1 A State statute requires that carriers make their the collective rate-setting. This articulation of the 10 Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. at 101 (emphases tariffs available to the public. Iowa Code section state action doctrine was reaffirmed by the Supreme added). 325D.13. Court in FTC v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. (‘‘Ticor’’), 11 Ticor, 504 U.S. at 634–35.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47570 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

facts, examined the substantive merits must (1) obtain sufficient information to characteristics relevant as the of the private action, assessed whether determine the actual character of the ‘‘beginning point’’ of an effective state that private action comports with the private conduct at issue, (2) measure program: underlying statutory criteria established that conduct against the legislature’s [T]he state’s program is in place, is staffed by the state legislature, and squarely stated policy criteria, and (3) come to a and funded, grants to the state officials ample ruled on the merits of the private action clear decision that the private conduct power and the duty to regulate pursuant to in a way sufficient to establish the satisfies those criteria, so as to make the declared standards of state policy, is challenged conduct as a product of final decision that of the State itself. enforceable in the state’s courts, and deliberate state intervention rather than demonstrates some basic level of activity V. Standard for Active Supervision private choice. directed towards seeing that the private There is no single procedural or actors carry out the state’s policy and not IV. General Characteristics of Active substantive standard that the Supreme simply their own policy * * * 16 Supervision Court has held a State must adopt in Moreover, that body would need to be capable of compiling, and actually compile, At its core, the active supervision order to meet the active supervision an adequate factual record to assess the requirement serves to identify those standard. Satisfying the Supreme nature and impact of the private conduct in responsible for public policy decisions. Court’s general standard for active question. The precise factual record that The clear articulation requirement supervision, described above, is and would be required would depend on the ensures that, if a State is to displace will remain the ultimate test for that substantive norm that the State has provided; national competition norms, it must element of the state action defense. the critical question is whether the record replace them with specific state Nevertheless, in light of the foregoing has sufficient facts for the reviewing body regulatory standards; a State may not principles, the Commission in this sensibly to determine that the State’s Analysis identifies the specific elements substantive regulatory requirements have simply authorize private parties to been achieved. In the typical case in which 12 of an active supervision regime that it disregard federal laws, but must the State has articulated a criterion of genuinely substitute an alternative state will consider in determining whether consumer impact, obtaining reliable, timely, policy. The active supervision the active supervision prong of state and complete economic data would be requirement, in turn, ensures that action is met in future cases (as well as central to the regulatory board’s ability to responsibility for the ultimate conduct in any future action brought by determine if the State’s chosen criterion has can properly be laid on the State itself, Respondent to modify the terms of this been satisfied.17 Timeliness in particular is and not merely on the private actors. As proposed Order). They are three: (1) The an ongoing concern; if the private conduct is development of an adequate factual to remain in place for an extended period of the Court explained in Ticor: time, then periodic state reviews of that States must accept political responsibility for record, including notice and private conduct using current economic data actions they intend to undertake * * * opportunity to be heard; (2) a written are important to ensure that the restraint Federalism serves to assign political decision on the merits; and (3) a specific remains that of the State, and not of the responsibility, not to obscure it * * * For assessment—both qualitative and private actors. States which do choose to displace the free quantitative—of how the private action Additionally, in assembling an adequate market with regulation, our insistence on real comports with the substantive standards factual record, the procedural value of notice compliance with both parts of the Midcal test and opportunity to comment is well will serve to make clear that the State is established by the state legislature. All responsible for the price fixing it has three elements further the central established. These procedural elements, sanctioned and undertaken to control.13 purpose of the active supervision prong which have evolved in various contexts Through the active supervision by ensuring that responsibility for the through common law, through state and federal constitutional law, and through requirement, the Court furthers the private conduct is fairly attributed to the Administrative Procedure Act rulemakings,18 fundamental principle of accountability State. Each will be discussed below. are powerful engines for ensuring that that underlies federalism by ensuring A. Development of an Adequate Factual relevant facts—especially those facts that that, if allowing anticompetitive Record, Including Notice and might tend to contradict the proponent’s conduct proves to be unpopular with a Opportunity to Be Heard contentions—are brought to the state State’s citizens, the state legislators will decision-maker’s attention. not be ‘‘insulated from the electoral To meet the test for active state B. A Written Decision ramifications of their decisions.’’14 supervision, in this case Respondent would need to show that the State had A second important element the In short, clear articulation requires Commission will look to in determining that a State enunciate an affirmative in place an administrative body charged whether there has been active supervision is intent to displace competition and to with the necessary review of filed tariffs whether the state board renders its decision replace it with a stated criterion. Active and capable of developing an adequate in writing. Though not essential, the supervision requires the State to factual record to do so.15 In Ticor, the existence of a written decision is normally examine individual private conduct, Court quoted language from earlier the clearest indication that the board (1) pursuant to that regulatory regime, to lower court cases setting out a list of genuinely has assessed whether the private conduct satisfies the legislature’s stated ensure that it comports with that stated organizational and procedural criterion. Only then can the underlying 15 16 Ticor, 504 U.S. at 637 (citations omitted). conduct accurately be deemed that of At the time of any request for a modification, Respondent will be required to produce evidence of 17 As the Ticor Court held, ‘‘state officials [must] the State itself, and political what the state reviewing agency is likely to do in have undertaken the necessary steps to determine responsibility for the conduct fairly be response to collective rate-making. We recognize the specifics of the price-fixing or ratesetting placed with the State. that this involves some prediction and uncertainty, scheme.’’ Id. at 638. Accordingly, under the Supreme particularly when the Respondent requests an order 18 The Administrative Procedure Act defines a modification on the basis of a state review program rule, in part, as ‘‘the whole or a part of an agency Court’s precedents, to provide that might be authorized but not yet operating, as statement of general or particular applicability and meaningful active supervision, a State the Respondent will still be under order. In such future effect designed to implement, interpret, or cases it may be appropriate for the Respondent to prescribe law or policy.’’ 5 U.S.C. 551(4). Actions 12 Parker , 317 U.S. at 351. show what the state program is designed, directed, ‘‘concerned with the approval of ‘‘tariffs’’ or rate or organized to do. If a particular state agency is schedules filed by public utilities and common 13 504 U.S. at 636. already conducting reviews in some related area, carriers’’ are typical examples of rulemaking 14 See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, evidence of its approach to these tasks will be proceedings. E. Gellhorn & R. Levin, Administrative 168–69 (1992). particularly relevant. Law & Process 300 (1997).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47571

standards and (2) has directly taken analyzed the actual rates charged but consumers. A state statute prohibits responsibility for that determination. also has analyzed the complex rules that movers from charging ‘‘more for the Through a written decision, whether may directly or indirectly impact the transportation of persons or property rejecting or (the more critical context) rates contained in the tariff. than a fair and just rate or charge.’’ 24 approving particular private conduct that If the State has chosen to include in would otherwise violate the federal antitrust Thus, to establish active supervision, laws, the state board would provide analysis its statute a requirement that the Respondent would be obligated to show and reasoning, and supporting evidence, that regulatory body evaluate the impact of that the State, prior to approving the the private conduct furthers the legislature’s particular conduct on ‘‘competition,’’ rates at issue, performed an analysis and objectives.19 ‘‘consumer welfare,’’ or some similar quantification of whether the rates to C. Qualitative and Quantitative Compliance criterion, then—to meet the standard for consumers would be higher than a ‘‘fair with State Policy Objectives active supervision—there should be and just rate.’’ evidence that the State has closely and In determining active supervision, the VI. Opportunity for Public Comment substance of the State’s decision is critical. carefully examined the likely impact of Its fundamental purpose must be to the conduct on consumers. Because the The standards of active supervision determine that the private conduct meets the central purpose of the federal antitrust remain those laid out by the Supreme state legislature’s stated criteria. Federal laws is also to protect competition and Court in Midcal and its progeny. Those antitrust law does not seek to impose federal consumer welfare,21 conduct that would standards have been explained in detail substantive standards on state decision- run counter to those federal laws should above to further illustrate how they making, but it does require that the States— not be lightly assumed to be consistent would apply should Respondent seek to in displacing federal law—meet their own with parallel state goals. Especially stated standards. As the Ticor Court modify this proposed Order. Applying explained: when, as here, the underlying private these standards, the Commission conduct alleged is price fixing—which, believes, will further the principles of Our decisions make clear that the purpose as the Ticor Court noted, is possibly the federalism and accountability of the active supervision inquiry is not to most ‘‘pernicious’’ antitrust offense 22— enunciated by the Supreme Court, will determine whether the State has met some a careful consideration of the specific normative standard, such as efficiency, in its help clarify for States and private regulatory practices. Its purpose is to monetary impact on consumers is parties the reach of federal antitrust law, determine whether the State has exercised critical to any assessment of an overall and will ultimately redound to the sufficient independent judgment and control impact on consumer welfare. To the benefit of consumers. so that the details of the rates or prices have maximum extent practicable, that The proposed Order has been placed been established as a product of deliberate consideration should include an express on the public record for 30 days in order state intervention, not simply by agreement quantitative assessment, based on to receive comments from interested among private parties. Much as in causation reliable economic data, of the specific persons. Comments received during this inquiries, the analysis asks whether the State likely impact upon consumers. has played a substantial role in determining period will become part of the public It bears emphasizing that States need record. After 30 days, the Commission the specifics of the economic policy. The not choose to enact criteria such as question is not how well state regulation will again review the Agreement and works but whether the anticompetitive promoting ‘‘competition’’ or ‘‘consumer comments received, and will decide scheme is the State’s own.20 welfare’’—the central end of federal whether it should withdraw from the Thus, a decision by a state board that antitrust law. A State could instead Agreement or make final the Order assesses both qualitatively and enact some other criterion. Then, the contained in the Agreement. quantitatively whether the ‘‘details of State’s decision would need to assess By accepting the proposed Order the rates or prices’’ satisfy the state whether that objective had been met. subject to final approval, the On the other hand, if a State does not criteria ensures that it is the State, and Commission anticipates that the disavow (either expressly or through the not the private parties, that determines competitive issues described in the promulgation of wholly contrary the substantive policy. There should be proposed Complaint will be resolved. regulatory criteria) that consumer evidence of the steps the State took in The purpose of this analysis is to invite welfare is state regulatory policy, it analyzing the rates filed and the criteria and facilitate public comment must address consumer welfare in its it used in evaluating those rates. There concerning the proposed Order. It is not should also be evidence showing regulatory analysis. In claiming the state action defense, a respondent would intended to constitute an official whether the State independently interpretation of the Agreement and verified the accuracy of financial data need to demonstrate that the state board, in evaluating arguably anticompetitive proposed Order or to modify their terms submitted and whether it relied on conduct, had carefully considered and in any way. accurate and representative samples of expressly quantified the likely impact of By direction of the Commission. data. There should be evidence that the that conduct on consumers as a central Donald S. Clark, State has a thorough understanding of element of deciding whether to approve Secretary. the consequences of the private parties’ 23 that conduct. [FR Doc. 03–20370 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] proposed action. Tariffs, for instance, In the present case, Iowa has chosen BILLING CODE 6750–01–P can be complex, and there should be to give consideration to, among other evidence that the State not only has state interests, the interests of

19 A record preserved by other means, such as FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 21 Indeed, consideration of consumer impact is at audio or video recording technology, might also the heart of ‘‘[a] national policy’’ that preserves ‘‘the [File No. 021 0115] suffice, provided that it demonstrated that the board free market and * * * a system of free enterprise had (1) genuinely assessed the private conduct and without price fixing or cartels.’’ Id. at 632. (2) taken direct responsibility. Such an audio or Minnesota Transport Services 22 Id. at 639 (‘‘No antitrust offense is more video recording, however, will be an adequate Association; Analysis To Aid Public pernicious than price fixing.’’). substitute for a written opinion only when it 23 Comment provides a sufficiently transparent and decipherable This requirement is based on the principle that the national policy favoring competition ‘‘is an view of the decision-making proceeding to facilitate AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. meaningful public review and comment. essential part of the economic and legal system within which the separate States administer their 20 Ticor, 504 U.S. at 634–35. own laws.’’ Id. at 632. 24 Iowa Code section 325D.13.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47572 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. instead be filed in electronic form (in The proposed Complaint further ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft alleges that Respondent organizes and SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this Word) as part of or as an attachment to conducts meetings that provide a forum matter settles alleged violations of email messages directed to the following for discussion or agreement between Federal law prohibiting unfair or e-mail box: [email protected]. competing carriers concerning or deceptive acts or practices or unfair Such comments will be considered by affecting rates and charges for the methods of competition. The attached the Commission and will be available intrastate transportation of household Analysis to Aid Public Comment for inspection and copying at its goods. describes both the allegations in the principal office in accordance with The proposed Complaint further draft complaint that accompanies the section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s alleges that Respondent’s conduct is consent agreement and the terms of the Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). anticompetitive because it has the effect consent order—embodied in the consent of raising, fixing, and stabilizing the agreement—that would settle these Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To prices of household goods moves. The allegations. Aid Public Comment acts of Respondent also have the effect DATES: Comments must be received on The Federal Trade Commission has of depriving consumers of the benefits or before September 1, 2003. accepted for public comment an of competition. ADDRESSES: Comments filed in paper Agreement Containing Consent Order II. Terms of the Proposed Consent Order form should be directed to: FTC/Office with Minnesota Transport Services of the Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 Association (‘‘MTSA’’ or The proposed Order would provide Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., ‘‘Respondent’’). The Agreement is for relief for the alleged anticompetitive Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed settlement purposes only and does not effects of the conduct principally by in electronic form should be directed to: constitute an admission by MTSA that means of a cease and desist order [email protected], as the law has been violated as alleged in barring Respondent from continuing its prescribed in the SUPPLEMENTARY the Complaint or that the facts alleged practice of filing tariffs containing INFORMATION section. in the Complaint, other than collective intrastate rates. Paragraph II of the proposed Order FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: jurisdictional facts, are true. bars Respondent from filing a tariff that Dana Abrahamsen, FTC, Bureau of I. The Commission’s Complaint Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, contains collective intrastate rates. This NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– The proposed Complaint alleges that provision will terminate Respondent’s 2906. Respondent Minnesota Transport current practice of filing tariffs that contain intrastate rates that are the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Services Association, a corporation, has product of an agreement among movers to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade violated and is now violating Section 5 in the State of Minnesota. This Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. of the Federal Trade Commission Act. paragraph also prohibits Respondent 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission’s Specifically, the proposed Complaint from engaging in activities such as Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is alleges that Respondent has agreed to exchanges of information that would hereby given that the above-captioned engage, and has engaged, in a facilitate member movers in agreeing on consent agreement containing a consent combination and conspiracy, an the rates contained in their intrastate order to cease and desist, having been agreement, concerted action or unfair tariffs. For example, the order bars filed with and accepted, subject to final and unlawful acts, policies and Respondent from providing to other approval, by the Commission, has been practices, the purpose or effect of which carriers certain non-public information.1 placed on the public record for a period is to unlawfully hinder, restrain, It also bars Respondent from of thirty (30) days. The following restrict, suppress or eliminate maintaining a tariff committee or Analysis to Aid Public Comment competition among household goods agreeing with movers to institute any describes the terms of the consent movers in the household goods moving automatic intrastate rate increases. agreement, and the allegations in the industry. Respondent is an association Paragraph III of the proposed Order complaint. An electronic copy of the requires Respondent to cancel all tariffs full text of the consent agreement organized for and serving its members, which are approximately 89 household that it has filed that contain intrastate package can be obtained from the FTC collective rates. This provision will Home Page (for August 1, 2003), on the goods movers that conduct business within the State of Minnesota. One of ensure that the collective intrastate rates World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/ now on file in the State of Minnesota os/2003/08/index.htm. A paper copy the primary functions of Respondent is preparing, and filing with the Minnesota will no longer be in force, allowing for can be obtained from the FTC Public competitive rates in future individual Reference Room, Room 130–H, 600 Department of Transportation, tariffs and supplements on behalf of its mover tariffs. Paragraph III of the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., proposed Order also requires Washington, DC 20580, either in person members. These tariffs and supplements contain rates and charges for the Respondent to cancel any provisions in or by calling (202) 326–2222. its governing documents that permit it Public comments are invited, and may intrastate and local transportation of to engage in activities barred by the be filed with the Commission in either household goods and for related Order. paper or electronic form. Comments services. Paragraph IV of the proposed Order filed in paper form should be directed The proposed Complaint alleges that requires Respondent to send to its to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room Respondent is engaged in initiating, members a letter explaining the terms of 159–H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., preparing, developing, disseminating, the Order. This will make clear to Washington, DC 20580. If a comment and taking other actions to establish and members that they can no longer engage contains nonpublic information, it must maintain collective rates, which have in collective rate-making activities. be filed in paper form, and the first page the purpose or effect of fixing, of the document must be clearly labeled establishing or stabilizing rates for the 1 Under a state statute, a carrier’s tariff filing ‘‘confidential.’’ Comments that do not transportation of household goods in the ‘‘constitutes notice to the public’’ of the contents of contain any nonpublic information may State of Minnesota. the tariff. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 221.161(Subd. 1).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47573

Paragraphs V and VI of the proposed to show that the State of Minnesota had Act. If a state chooses to compel such Order require Respondent to inform the ‘‘clearly articulated and affirmatively facially anticompetitive private conduct, Commission of any change in expressed as state policy’’ the desire to the private parties are free from Federal Respondent that could affect replace competition with a regulatory antitrust liability only when the compliance with the Order and to file scheme. With regard to this prong, a requirements of the state action doctrine compliance reports with the Minnesota statute in effect until recently have been met, including active Commission for a number of years. specifically addressed collective rates: supervision by the state of the private Paragraph VII of the proposed Order In order to ensure nondiscriminatory rates collective rate-setting.10 states that the Order will terminate in 20 and charges for shippers and receivers, the Under the second prong of the Midcal years. board shall establish a collective rate-making test, Respondent would be required to procedure which will ensure the publication demonstrate ‘‘active supervision’’ by III. Opportunity for Modification of the and maintenance of just and reasonable rates Order state officials. The Supreme Court has and charges under uniform, reasonably made clear that the active supervision related rate structures.6 Respondent can seek to modify the standard is a rigorous one. It is not proposed Order to permit it to engage in On June 8, 2003 this statute was enough that the State grants general collective rate-making if it can repealed.7 With this statute repealed, authority for certain business conduct or demonstrate that the ‘‘state action’’ Respondent would meet its burden only that it approves private agreements with 2 defense would apply to its conduct. if it could show that some other little review. As the Court held in The state action doctrine dates back to provision of Minnesota law constitutes Midcal, ‘‘The national policy in favor of the Supreme Court’s 1943 opinion in a clear expression of state policy to competition cannot be thwarted by Parker v. Brown, which held that, in displace competition and allow for casting such a gauzy cloak of state light of the States’ status as sovereigns, collective rate-making among involvement over what is essentially a and given basic principles of federalism, competitors. private price-fixing arrangement.’’11 Congress would not have intended the Respondent has asserted that the Rather, active supervision is designed to Sherman Act to apply to the activities majority of its members were essentially 3 ensure that a private party’s of States themselves. The defense also compelled to file collective tariffs with anticompetitive action is shielded from has been interpreted in limited the state because the state statute antitrust liability only when ‘‘the State circumstances to shield from antitrust contemplated granting exemptions from has effectively made [the challenged] scrutiny private firms’ activities that are filing collective rates only under limited conduct its own.’’12 conducted pursuant to state authority. 8 circumstances. The repeal of the In order for state supervision to be States may not, however, simply Minnesota collective rate statute moots adequate for state action purposes, state authorize private parties to violate the this issue in this case. However, even officials must engage in a ‘‘pointed re- antitrust laws.4 Instead, a State must assuming a state statute compels private examination’’ of the private conduct.13 substitute its own control for that of the entities to file collective rates, this In this regard, the State must ‘‘have and market. would not remove anticompetitive exercise ultimate authority’’ over the Thus, the state action defense would conduct from potential Federal antitrust challenged anticompetitive conduct.14 be available to Respondent only if it liability. The Supreme Court has made To do so, state officials must exercise could demonstrate that its conduct clear that where a state statute compels ‘‘sufficient independent judgment and satisfied the strict two-pronged standard a private party to engage in a per se control so that the details of the rates or the Supreme Court set out in California violation of the Federal antitrust laws in prices have been established as a Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal order to comply with the state statute, product of deliberate state intervention, Aluminum, Inc.: ‘‘the challenged the state statute will be pre-empted by not simply by agreement among private restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated the Federal Sherman Act unless the parties.’’15 One asserting the state action and affirmatively expressed as state requirements of the state action doctrine defense must demonstrate that the state policy’’’ and ‘‘the policy must be have been met. Rice v. Norman Williams ‘actively supervised’ by the state Co., 458 U.S. 654, 661 (1982).9 If a state agency has ascertained the relevant itself.’’5 statute compelled competitors to file facts, examined the substantive merits Under the first prong of Midcal’s two- collective rates, it would be mandating of the private action, assessed whether part test, Respondent would be required horizontal price fixing, which is the that private action comports with the classic per se violation of the Sherman underlying statutory criteria established 2 16 CFR 2.51. Because of this possibility, and 10 As the Supreme Court itself noted in Rice v. because the issues raised by this case frequently 6 MINN. STAT. ANN. section 221.165. Norman Williams Co., its earlier decision in Midcal, arise, it is appropriate to address the state action 7 H.F. 1214, 83rd Leg. (MINN. 2003–2004). defense in some detail as we did in Indiana articulating the two prongs of the state action 8 MINN. STAT. ANN. section 221.165; Minnesota Household Movers and Warehousemen, Inc., File doctrine, overturned a statute that ‘‘required Administrative Rule § 8900.1000 (Subpart 2) No. 021–0115 (Mar. 18, 2003) (proposed consent members of the California wine industry to file fair (exemption can be granted if the mover ‘‘will suffer order) available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/03/ trade contracts or price schedules with the State, no hardship in publishing its own rates,’’ the grant and provided that if a wine producer had not set indianahouseholdmoversanalysis.pdf will ‘‘not conflict with the legislative purpose to be 3 317 U.S. 341 (1943). prices through a fair trade contract, wholesalers accomplished by commissioner approval of must post a resale price schedule for that producer’s 4 Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. at 351 (‘‘[A] state does collective ratemaking’’ and ‘‘the grant will be brands.’’ 458 U.S. at 659 (emphasis in original). not give immunity to those who violate the consistent with the public interest’’). There is no Thus, the statute at issue in Midcal ‘‘facially Sherman Act by authorizing them to violate it, or evidence that the movers participating in the conflicted with the Sherman Act because it declaring that their action is lawful.’’). collective tariffs sought exemptions. mandated resale price maintenance, an activity that 5 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980) (‘‘Midcal’’) (quoting City 9 A state statute may be ‘‘condemned under the has long been regarded as a per se violation of the of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light, 435 U.S. antitrust laws * * * if it mandates or authorizes Sherman Act.’’ Id. at 659–60 (emphasis in original). 389, 410 (1978)). The ‘‘restraint’’ in this instance is conduct that necessarily constitutes a violation of 11 Midcal, 445 U.S. at 105–06. the collective rate-setting. This articulation of the the law in all cases, or if it places irresistible 12 Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 106 (1988). state action doctrine was reaffirmed by the Supreme pressure on a private party to violate the antitrust 13 Court in FTC v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. (‘‘Ticor’’), laws in order to comply with the statute. Such Midcal, 445 U.S. at 106. Accord, Ticor, 504 U.S. 504 U.S. 621, 633 (1992), where the Court noted condemnation will follow under section 1 of the at 634–35; Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. at 100–01. that the gravity of the antitrust violation of price Sherman Act when the conduct contemplated by 14 Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. at 101 (emphases fixing requires exceptionally clear evidence of the the statute is in all cases a per se antitrust added). State’s decision to supplant competition. violation.’’ Rice, 458 U.S. at 661. 15 Ticor, 504 U.S. at 634–35.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47574 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

by the state legislature, and squarely that conduct against the legislature’s ‘‘beginning point’’ of an effective state ruled on the merits of the private action stated policy criteria, and (3) come to a program: in a way sufficient to establish the clear decision that the private conduct [T]he state’s program is in place, is staffed challenged conduct as a product of satisfies those criteria, so as to make the and funded, grants to the state officials ample deliberate state intervention rather than final decision that of the State itself. power and the duty to regulate pursuant to private choice. declared standards of state policy, is V. Standard for Active Supervision enforceable in the state’s courts, and IV. General Characteristics of Active demonstrates some basic level of activity Supervision There is no single procedural or substantive standard that the Supreme directed towards seeing that the private At its core, the active supervision actors carry out the state’s policy and not Court has held a State must adopt in 20 requirement serves to identify those order to meet the active supervision simply their own policy . * * * responsible for public policy decisions. standard. Satisfying the Supreme The clear articulation requirement Moreover, that body would need to be Court’s general standard for active capable of compiling, and actually ensures that, if a State is to displace supervision, described above, is and national competition norms, it must compile, an adequate factual record to will remain the ultimate test for that assess the nature and impact of the replace them with specific state element of the state action defense. regulatory standards; a State may not private conduct in question. The precise simply authorize private parties to Nevertheless, in light of the foregoing factual record that would be required disregard Federal laws,16 but must principles, the Commission in this would depend on the substantive norm genuinely substitute an alternative state Analysis identifies the specific elements that the State has provided; the critical policy. The active supervision of an active supervision regime that it question is whether the record has requirement, in turn, ensures that will consider in determining whether sufficient facts for the reviewing body responsibility for the ultimate conduct the active supervision prong of state sensibly to determine that the State’s can properly be laid on the State itself, action is met in future cases (as well as substantive regulatory requirements and not merely on the private actors. As in any future action brought by have been achieved. In the typical case the Court explained in Ticor: Respondent to modify the terms of this in which the State has articulated a States must accept political responsibility proposed Order). They are three: (1) The criterion of consumer impact, obtaining for actions they intend to undertake. . . . development of an adequate factual reliable, timely, and complete economic Federalism serves to assign political record, including notice and data would be central to the regulatory responsibility, not to obscure it. . . . For opportunity to be heard; (2) a written board’s ability to determine if the State’s States which do choose to displace the free decision on the merits; and (3) a specific 21 market with regulation, our insistence on real chosen criterion has been satisfied. assessment—both qualitative and Timeliness in particular is an ongoing compliance with both parts of the Midcal test quantitative—of how the private action will serve to make clear that the State is concern; if the private conduct is to responsible for the price fixing it has comports with the substantive standards remain in place for an extended period sanctioned and undertaken to control.17 established by the state legislature. All of time, then periodic state reviews of three elements further the central that private conduct using current Through the active supervision purpose of the active supervision prong economic data are important to ensure requirement, the Court furthers the by ensuring that responsibility for the that the restraint remains that of the fundamental principle of accountability private conduct is fairly attributed to the State, and not of the private actors. that underlies federalism by ensuring State. Each will be discussed below. that, if allowing anticompetitive Additionally, in assembling an conduct proves to be unpopular with a A. Development of an Adequate Factual adequate factual record, the procedural State’s citizens, the state legislators will Record, Including Notice and value of notice and opportunity to not be ‘‘insulated from the electoral Opportunity To Be Heard comment is well established. These ramifications of their decisions.’’ 18 To meet the test for active state procedural elements, which have In short, clear articulation requires evolved in various contexts through that a State enunciate an affirmative supervision, in this case Respondent would need to show that the State had common law, through State and Federal intent to displace competition and to constitutional law, and through replace it with a stated criterion. Active in place an administrative body charged with the necessary review of filed tariffs Administrative Procedure Act supervision requires the State to rulemakings,22 are powerful engines for examine individual private conduct, and capable of developing an adequate 19 ensuring that relevant facts—especially pursuant to that regulatory regime, to factual record to do so. In Ticor, the Court quoted language from earlier those facts that might tend to contradict ensure that it comports with that stated the proponent’s contentions—are criterion. Only then can the underlying lower court cases setting out a list of organizational and procedural brought to the state decision-maker’s conduct accurately be deemed that of attention. the State itself, and political characteristics relevant as the responsibility for the conduct fairly be 19 20 Ticor, 504 U.S. at 637 (citations omitted). placed with the State. At the time of any request for a modification, Respondent will be required to produce evidence of 21 As the Ticor Court held, ‘‘state officials [must] Accordingly, under the Supreme what the state reviewing agency is likely to do in have undertaken the necessary steps to determine Court’s precedents, to provide response to collective rate-making. We recognize the specifics of the price-fixing or ratesetting meaningful active supervision, a State that this involves some prediction and uncertainty, scheme.’’ Id. at 638. must (1) obtain sufficient information to particularly when the Respondent requests an order 22 The Administrative Procedure Act defines a modification on the basis of a state review program rule, in part, as ‘‘the whole or a part of an agency determine the actual character of the that might be authorized but not yet operating, as statement of general or particular applicability and private conduct at issue, (2) measure the Respondent will still be under order. In such future effect designed to implement, interpret, or cases it may be appropriate for the Respondent to prescribe law or policy.’’ 5 U.S.C. 551(4). Actions 16 Parker, 317 U.S. at 351. show what the state program is designed, directed, ‘‘concerned with the approval of ‘tariffs’ or rate or organized to do. If a particular state agency is schedules filed by public utilities and common 17 504 U.S. at 636. already conducting reviews in some related area, carriers’’ are typical examples of rulemaking 18 See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, evidence of its approach to these tasks will be proceedings. E. Gellhorn & R. Levin, Administrative 168–69 (1992). particularly relevant. Law & Process 300 (1997).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47575

B. A Written Decision not the private parties, that determines must address consumer welfare in its A second important element the the substantive policy. There should be regulatory analysis. In claiming the state Commission will look to in determining evidence of the steps the State took in action defense, a respondent would whether there has been active analyzing the rates filed and the criteria need to demonstrate that the state board, supervision is whether the state board it used in evaluating those rates. There in evaluating arguably anticompetitive renders its decision in writing. Though should also be evidence showing conduct, had carefully considered and not essential, the existence of a written whether the State independently expressly quantified the likely impact of decision is normally the clearest verified the accuracy of financial data that conduct on consumers as a central indication that the board (1) genuinely submitted and whether it relied on element of deciding whether to approve 27 has assessed whether the private accurate and representative samples of that conduct. conduct satisfies the legislature’s stated data. There should be evidence that the In the present case, Minnesota has standards and (2) has directly taken State has a thorough understanding of chosen to give consideration to, among other state interests, the interests of responsibility for that determination. the consequences of the private parties’ consumers. Statutes require that the Through a written decision, whether proposed action. Tariffs, for instance, rates not be ‘‘unjust, unreasonable, rejecting or (the more critical context) can be complex, and there should be unjustly discriminatory, unduly approving particular private conduct evidence that the State not only has preferential or prejudicial’’28 and that that would otherwise violate the Federal analyzed the actual rates charged but they not be ‘‘excessive.’’29 Thus, to antitrust laws, the state board would also has analyzed the complex rules that establish active supervision, provide analysis and reasoning, and may directly or indirectly impact the rates contained in the tariff. Respondent would be obligated to show supporting evidence, that the private If the State has chosen to include in that the State, prior to approving the conduct furthers the legislature’s 23 its statute a requirement that the rates at issue, performed an analysis and objectives. regulatory body evaluate the impact of quantification of whether the rates to C. Qualitative and Quantitative particular conduct on ‘‘competition,’’ consumers are ‘‘excessive.’’ ‘‘consumer welfare,’’ or some similar Compliance with State Policy Objectives VI. Opportunity for Public Comment criterion, then—to meet the standard for In determining active supervision, the The standards of active supervision substance of the State’s decision is active supervision—there should be evidence that the State has closely and remain those laid out by the Supreme critical. Its fundamental purpose must Court in Midcal and its progeny. Those be to determine that the private conduct carefully examined the likely impact of the conduct on consumers. Because the standards have been explained in detail meets the state legislature’s stated above to further illustrate how they criteria. Federal antitrust law does not central purpose of the Federal antitrust laws is also to protect competition and would apply should Respondent seek to seek to impose Federal substantive consumer welfare, 25 conduct that modify this proposed Order. Applying standards on state decision-making, but would run counter to those Federal laws these standards, the Commission it does require that the States—in should not be lightly assumed to be believes, will further the principles of displacing Federal law—meet their own consistent with parallel state goals. federalism and accountability stated standards. As the Ticor Court Especially when, as here, the underlying enunciated by the Supreme Court, will explained: private conduct alleged is price fixing— help clarify for States and private Our decisions make clear that the purpose of which, as the Ticor Court noted, is parties the reach of Federal antitrust the active supervision inquiry is not to possibly the most ‘‘pernicious’’ antitrust law, and will ultimately redound to the determine whether the State has met some offense 26—a careful consideration of benefit of consumers. normative standard, such as efficiency, in its The proposed Order has been placed regulatory practices. Its purpose is to the specific monetary impact on determine whether the State has exercised consumers is critical to any assessment on the public record for 30 days in order sufficient independent judgment and control of an overall impact on consumer to receive comments from interested so that the details of the rates or prices have welfare. To the maximum extent persons. Comments received during this been established as a product of deliberate practicable, that consideration should period will become part of the public state intervention, not simply by agreement include an express quantitative record. After 30 days, the Commission among private parties. Much as in causation assessment, based on reliable economic will again review the Agreement and inquiries, the analysis asks whether the State data, of the specific likely impact upon comments received, and will decide has played a substantial role in determining whether it should withdraw from the the specifics of the economic policy. The consumers. question is not how well state regulation It bears emphasizing that States need Agreement or make final the Order works but whether the anticompetitive not choose to enact criteria such as contained in the Agreement. scheme is the State’s own.24 promoting ‘‘competition’’ or ‘‘consumer By accepting the proposed Order Thus, a decision by a state board that welfare’’—the central end of Federal subject to final approval, the assesses both qualitatively and antitrust law. A State could instead Commission anticipates that the quantitatively whether the ‘‘details of enact some other criterion. Then, the competitive issues described in the the rates or prices’’ satisfy the state State’s decision would need to assess proposed Complaint will be resolved. criteria ensures that it is the State, and whether that objective had been met. The purpose of this analysis is to invite On the other hand, if a State does not and facilitate public comment 23 A record preserved by other means, such as disavow (either expressly or through the concerning the proposed Order. It is not audio or video recording technology, might also promulgation of wholly contrary intended to constitute an official suffice, provided that it demonstrated that the board regulatory criteria) that consumer interpretation of the Agreement and had (1) genuinely assessed the private conduct and (2) taken direct responsibility. Such an audio or welfare is state regulatory policy, it video recording, however, will be an adequate 27 This requirement is based on the principle that substitute for a written opinion only when it 25 Indeed, consideration of consumer impact is at the national policy favoring competition ‘‘is an provides a sufficiently transparent and decipherable the heart of ‘‘[a] national policy’’ that preserves ‘‘the essential part of the economic and legal system view of the decision-making proceeding to facilitate free market and * * * a system of free enterprise within which the separate States administer their meaningful public review and comment. without price fixing or cartels.’’ Id. at 632. own laws.’’ Id. at 632. 26 Id. at 639 (‘‘No antitrust offense is more 28 Minn. Stat. Ann. section 221.161(Subd. 1). 24 Ticor, 504 U.S. at 634–35. pernicious than price fixing.’’). 29 Minn. Stat. Ann. section 221.161(Subd.2).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47576 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

proposed Order or to modify their terms SYSTEM LOCATION: prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing in any way. This system of records is operated and a statute, rule, regulation, or order, By direction of the Commission. maintained by the Office of the Chief where the General Services Administration becomes aware of a Donald S. Clark, Information Officer (CIO) for GSA’s Services, Staff Offices, and regions, violation or potential violation of civil Secretary. which are responsible for ensuring the or criminal law or regulation. [FR Doc. 03–20371 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] integrity of the data in the system. b. To a member of Congress or a BILLING CODE 6750–01–P System records are located in Central congressional staff member in response Office at 1800 F Street, NW., to an inquiry from that congressional Washington DC, and in the regional office made at the request of the GENERAL SERVICES offices listed in the Appendix. individual who is the subject of a ADMINISTRATION record. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE c. To another Federal agency or to a Privacy Act of 1974; Proposed SYSTEM: court when the government is party to Revisions to a Privacy Act System of GSA associates, Federal tenants, a judicial proceeding before the court. Records contractors, and other persons assigned d. To a Federal agency, on request, in responsibilities that require the issuance connection with the hiring and AGENCY: General Services Administration. of credentials for identification and retention of an employee, the issuance security purposes, including individuals of a security clearance, the conducting ACTION: Notice of proposed revision to participating in identification methods of a security or suitability investigation an existing Privacy Act system of using the latest technologies, such as of an individual, the classifying of a job, records. biometrics (e.g., electronic the letting of a contract, or the issuance SUMMARY: The General Services fingerprinting). of license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the Administration (GSA) proposes to revise CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: the system of records, Credentials, information is relevant and necessary to Passes, licenses, and identification Passes, and Licenses (GSA/HRO–8). The the requesting agency’s decision. credentials, which may contain name, purpose of the system is to assemble in e. By the Office of Personnel Social Security Number, photograph, one system information on passes and Management in the production of office and home addresses and phone credentials for identification and summary descriptive statistics in numbers, signature, identification serial security purposes. The system is being support of the function for which the number, next of kin name and phone revised to cover new categories of records are collected and maintained, or number, medical information, and individuals, consisting of Federal for related workforce studies. biometric identification information. tenants and contractors, to provide f. To the Office of Management and The following GSA forms and greater security and control access to Budget in connection with the review of associated databases will be used Federal buildings and systems. In private relief legislation as set forth in agency-wide: addition, administrative enhancements OMB Circular No. A–19 at any stage of a. GSA Form 277, Employee to improve system effectiveness and the legislative coordination and Identification and Authorization operation include an upgrade in clearance process. Credential (Revised 2003); g. To officials of the Merit Systems electronic capabilities through the use b. GSA Form 277U, Temporary Pass; Protection Board, including the Office of of Smart Card technology, and updates c. GSA Form 277V, Visitor Pass; Special Counsel; the Federal Labor to agency forms, organizational d. OF 7, Property Pass; Relations Authority and its General responsibilities, and office addresses. e. GSA Form 2941, Parking Counsel; or the Equal Employment DATES: Interested persons may submit Application; and Opportunity Commission when written comments on this proposal. The f. Biometric information, such as requested in the performance of their revision will become effective without fingerprints, collected electronically. authorized duties. further notice on September 10, 2003, h. To an authorized appeal or AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: unless comments received on or before grievance examiner, formal complaints that date require changes to the The Federal Property and examiner, equal employment proposal. Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 opportunity investigator, arbitrator, or Stat. 377) as amended. ADDRESSES: Comments should be other duly authorized official engaged submitted to the GSA Privacy Act PURPOSE: in investigation or settlement of a Officer (CI), Office of the Chief People To assemble in one system grievance, complaint, or appeal filed by Officer, General Services information pertaining to passes and an employee to whom the information Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., credentials for identification and pertains. Washington DC 20405. security purposes; to facilitate the i. To the Office of Personnel FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The issuance and control of cards, parking Management in accordance with the GSA Privacy Act Officer at the above permits, building passes, licenses, and agency’s responsibility for evaluation of address, or call 202–501–1452. similar credentials; and to ensure only Federal personnel management. j. To the extent that official personnel authorized access to secure areas and Dated: July 31, 2003. records in the custody of GSA are systems. Fred Alt, covered within the systems or records Chief Information Officer, Office of the Chief ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE published by the Office of Personnel People Officer. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Management as Government-wide THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: GSA/HRO–8 records, they will be considered a part Information from this system may be of that government-wide system. Other SYSTEM NAME: disclosed as a routine use: official personnel records covered by Credentials, Passes, and Licenses a. To the Federal, State, or local notices published by GSA and (GSA/HRO–8). agency responsible for investigating, considered to be separate systems of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47577

records may be transferable to the Office contact the System Manager or the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND of Personnel Management in accordance appropriate Credentialing Office listed HUMAN SERVICES with official personnel programs and in the Appendix. activities as a routine use. Office of the Secretary k. To an expert, consultant, or a RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: contractor of GSA to the extent Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Information is provided by necessary to further the performance of Debts individuals being issued credentials and a Federal duty. by the issuing officials. Section 30.13 of the Department of l. To medical personnel in the event Health and Human Services’ claims of a medical emergency. Appendix: GSA Regional Credentialing collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) Office Addresses: POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, provides that the Secretary shall charge RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND New England Region (includes an annual rate of interest as fixed by the DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Secretary of the Treasury after taking into consideration private consumer STORAGE: Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont): General Services Administration, 10 rates of interest prevailing on the date Information is collected electronically Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02222. that HHS becomes entitled to recovery. and stored in Smart Card chips on the Northeast and Caribbean Region (includes The rate generally cannot be lower than individual’s identification cards, and in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Department of Treasury’s current associated automated data systems. Virgin Islands): General Services value of funds rate or the applicable rate Administration, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, RETRIEVABILITY: determined from the ‘‘Schedule of NY 10278. Certified Interest Rates with Range of Name, SSN, and identification and Mid-Atlantic Region (includes Delaware, badge serial numbers. Maturities.’’ This rate may be revised Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West quarterly by the Secretary of the Virginia, (but excludes the National Capital SAFEGUARDS: Treasury and shall be published Region): General Services Administration, quarterly by the Department of Health When not in use by an authorized The Strawbridge Building, 20 North Eighth and Human Services in the Federal person, the records are stored in an Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107–3191. electronic data system. Electronic Southeast Sunbelt Region (includes Register. records are protected by a password and The Secretary of the Treasury has Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 1 may also have a personal identification Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, certified at rate of 12 ⁄8% for the quarter number (PIN) as a second level of and Tennessee): General Services ended June 30, 2003. This interest rate protection. Administration, Summit Building, 401 West will remain in effect until such time as Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30365–2550. the Secretary of the Treasury notifies RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Great Lakes Region (includes Illinois, HHS of any changes. Disposition of records is according to Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and Dated: August 1, 2003. the National Archives and Records Wisconsin): General Services Administration, George Strader, Administration (NARA) guidelines, as 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL Deputy Assistant Secretary, Finance. set forth in the handbook, GSA Records 60604–1696. Maintenance and Disposition System The Heartland Region (includes Iowa, [FR Doc. 03–20348 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] (OAD P 1820.2) and authorized GSA Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska) General BILLING CODE 4150–04–M records schedules. Services Administration: 1500 East Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO 64131–3088. SYSTEM MANAGERS AND ADDRESS: Greater Southwest Region (includes DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Director, Office of Infrastructure Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New HUMAN SERVICES Operations (IO), Office of the Chief Mexico, and Texas), General Services Centers for Disease Control and Information Officer, General Services Administration, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Prevention Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Worth, TX 76102. Washington DC 20405. The IO operates Rocky Mountain Region (includes [60Day–03–105] and maintains the database containing Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South system information for GSA Services, Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming): General Proposed Data Collections Submitted Staff Offices, and regions. Services Administration, Denver Federal for Public Comment and Center, Bldg 41, Lakewood, CO 80011. Recommendations NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Pacific Rim Region (includes Arizona, Individuals will be able to access, California, Hawaii, and Nevada) General In compliance with the requirement review, and update their own personal Services Administration: 450 Golden Gate of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the information in the system. Individuals Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102–3488. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for Northwest/Arctic Region (includes Alaska, may determine whether the system opportunity for public comment on Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) General proposed data collection projects, the contains their records by submitting a Services Administration: 400 15th Street, request to the System Manager or the Centers for Disease Control and SW., Auburn, WA 98001–6599. Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic appropriate regional Credentialing National Capital Region (includes the Office listed in the Appendix. summaries of proposed projects. To District of Columbia; the counties of request more information on the Montgomery and Prince George’s in RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: proposed projects or to obtain a copy of Maryland; the city of Alexandria, Virginia; Individuals whose records are in the the data collection plans and and the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, instruments, call the CDC Reports system will be provided access to their Loudoun, and Prince William in Virginia): Clearance Officer on (404)498–1210. own information. General Services Administration, 7th and D Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20407. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: the proposed collection of information Individuals wishing to request [FR Doc. 03–20357 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] is necessary for the proper performance amendment of their records should BILLING CODE 6820–34–P of the functions of the agency, including

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47578 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

whether the information shall have maintenance of an event-related registry A standardized one-page survey practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the of affected individuals during the acute instrument will be used to collect agency’s estimate of the burden of the response phase of an emergency event. contact information, demographics, and proposed collection of information; (c) ATSDR plans to develop and brief exposure and outcome data on all ways to enhance the quality, utility, and maintain a central registry, named the registrants. The same survey instrument clarity of the information to be Rapid Response Registry (RRR), of will be used in both Phase I and Phase collected; and (d) ways to minimize the individuals who were in the vicinity of II data collection activities. burden of the collection of information a terrorist or other emergency event. The Phase I response entails immediate on respondents, including through the ATSDR RRR teams will begin deployment of the RRR team to support use of automated collection techniques identifying and enrolling victims and local efforts to enroll victims and or other forms of information potentially exposed individuals within immediately-exposed individuals. Phase technology. Send comments to Seleda hours of an incident, in collaboration I RRR data collection teams will be Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports with state and local government deployed to all places where victims Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, agencies and private response and the immediately-exposed MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written organizations. RRR activities are population might be located (e.g., on- comments should be received within 60 intended to help document an site response facilities, emergency days of this notice. individual’s presence at or near a departments, hospitals, morgues, public Proposed Project: ATSDR Rapid specific terrorist or other significant shelters, churches). Response Registry—New—The Agency emergency event. This information will Phase II response entails later for Toxic Substances and Disease be used primarily to provide health deployment of an RRR team to conduct Registry (ATSDR). ATSDR plans to officials with essential information a census of the entire at-risk population. develop a registry of individuals necessary for both short- and long-term Phase II data collection methods will exposed to a terrorist or other significant follow-up of victims and potentially include house-to-house interviews, emergency event potentially affecting exposed individuals. Contact telephone interviews, on-line public health within the United States information will be used to provide enrollment, media outreach, and and its territories. The authority to information to the registrants regarding professional tracing services. If the at- establish and maintain this registry was their exposures, potential health risk population or geographic area is given to ATSDR through the following impacts, available educational reasonably small-scale, a systematic federal laws: Public Health Service Act, materials, and other pertinent news and census will be conducted to enroll every 42 U.S.C. 319; the 1980 Comprehensive updates. Follow-up contacts by health exposed or potentially exposed person. Environmental Response Compensation officials are anticipated to be for the If the at-risk population or geographic and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its 1986 purposes of assessing current and future area is large-scale, then a representative Amendments, the Superfund medical needs and providing sample of the at-risk population will be Amendments and Re-authorization Act appropriate and timely medical enrolled. A brief, optional health effects (SARA); Federal Response Plan; interventions where possible. questionnaire also has been developed National Contingency Plan; and the Subsequent health studies (not part of that will be made available to local Department of Homeland Security’s this activity) may be useful to identify health officials, if they wish to use it, to Consolidated Emergency Operations potential long-term health outcomes in better characterize the types of health Plan. ATSDR has consistently been the exposed population; the contact outcomes resulting from the emergency identified as having the primary information will enable these studies to event. There are no costs to responsibility for the creation and be conducted. respondents.

Avg. burden Total bur- Number of Responses per re- den per Respondents respondent per re- sponse year spondent (in hrs) (in hrs)

People in proximity to an emergency event: 1-page contact form only ...... 1,000 1 10/60 167 People in proximity to an emergency event: health effects questionnaire ...... 200 1 20/60 67

Total ...... 234

Dated: August 4, 2003. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Centers for Disease Control and Thomas A. Bartenfeld, HUMAN SERVICES Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning summaries of proposed projects. To and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control Centers for Disease Control and request more information on the and Prevention. Prevention proposed projects or to obtain a copy of [FR Doc. 03–20350 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] the data collection plans and [60Day–03–106] instruments, call the CDC Reports BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Clearance Officer on (404) 498–1210. Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Recommendations the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance In compliance with the requirement of the functions of the agency, including of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the whether the information shall have Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the opportunity for public comment on agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed data collection projects, the proposed collection of information; (c)

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47579

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and the President’s Race Initiative and to the As part of the President’s Race clarity of the information to be Healthy People 2010 goal to eliminate Initiative, it is imperative that REACH collected; and (d) ways to minimize the disparities in the health status of racial 2010 demonstrate success in reducing burden of the collection of information and ethnic minorities. The purpose of health disparities among racial and on respondents, including through the REACH 2010 is to demonstrate that ethnic minority populations. Toward use of automated collection techniques adequately funded community-based that end, it is of critical importance that or other forms of information programs which are designed and led by CDC collect uniform survey data from technology. Send comments to Anne the communities they serve can reduce each of the 26 communities funded for O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports health disparities in infant mortality, the Phase II REACH 2010 Demonstration deficits in breast and cervical cancer Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, Program. The same survey will be screening and management, MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written conducted in each community; it will comments should be received within 60 cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, HIV/ contain questions that are standard days of this notice. AIDS, and deficits in childhood and Proposed Project: REACH 2010 adult immunizations. The communities public health performance measures for Evaluation—Racial and Ethnic served by REACH 2010 include: African each health priority area. Surveys will Approaches to Community Health, American, American Indian, Hispanic be administered by either telephone or Phase II (0920–0502)—Extension— American, Asian American, and Pacific household interview. These surveys will National Center for Chronic Disease Islander. Seventeen communities were be administered annually using a Prevention and Health Promotion funded in Phase I to construct different sample from each community. (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control Community Action Plans (CAP). In There are no costs to respondents for and Prevention (CDC). Phase II, 26 communities will receive participating in the data collection. The REACH 2010 Demonstration funding to implement their CAP. This The total annualized burden hours for Program is a part of the Department of data collection is for the Phase II this project is 6500. Health and Human Services’ response to communities.

Number of re- Average burden Respondents Number of re- sponses/re- per response Total burden spondents spondent (in hrs.) (in hrs.)

Adults ages 18 and older who live in communities participating in the REACH 2010 Program ...... 26,000 1 15/60 6500

Total ...... 6500

Dated: August 4, 2003. Clearance Officer on (404)498–1210. This project will collect information Thomas A. Bartenfeld, CDC is requesting an emergency from Internet users after they order or Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning clearance for this data collection with a download a publication from the and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control week comment period. CDC is website of the Department of Health and and Prevention. requesting OMB approval of this Human Services/Centers for Disease [FR Doc. 03–20351 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] package seven days after the end of the Control and Prevention/National Center BILLING CODE 4163–18–P public comment period. for Injury Prevention and Control. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether NCIPC produces a variety of the proposed collection of information publications about injury prevention for DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND is necessary for the proper performance a range of audiences, from public health HUMAN SERVICES of the functions of the agency, including professionals to the general public. whether the information shall have Publications include reports to Centers for Disease Control and Congress, fact books, brochures, Prevention practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the research articles, tool kits, and books. Most of these publications are available Agency for Toxic Substances and proposed collection of information; (c) to the general public, and the chief Disease Registry ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be distribution method is through the [60Day–03–107] collected; and (d) ways to minimize the NCIPC website, http://www.cdc.gov/ burden of the collection of information ncipc. On the website, people can order Proposed Data Collections Submitted on respondents, including through the print copies or view electronic copies of for Public Comment and use of automated collection techniques the publications. Recommendations or other forms of information It is critical for NCIPC to obtain In compliance with the requirement technology. Send comments to Seleda feedback from users of their of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports publications so it can better understand Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, who uses them and how. This will help opportunity for public comment on MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written guide the development of future proposed data collection projects, the comments should be received within publications, revisions of current ones, Centers for Disease Control and seven days of this notice. as well as distribution of publications. Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic Proposed Project: Collection of As part of the effort to gain summaries of proposed projects. To Publication Assessment Information— understanding about the audiences of request more information on the New—National Center for Injury NCIPC publications, we will collect proposed projects or to obtain a copy of Prevention and Control (NCIPC), information through a web-based form. the data collection plans and Centers for Disease Control and NCIPC website users will have the instruments, call the CDC Reports Prevention (CDC). opportunity to fill out the form after

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47580 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

ordering, downloading, or reading for publications in other languages, the the needs of people who use the online publications through the website. degree to which the publication publications in future publication The form contains questions about the offerings were useful to them, and space development, revisions, and demographic background of the users, for their general comments. The results distribution plans. There are no costs to how they found the website, how they of the forms will be compiled and respondents. plan to use the publication, their need studied so NCIPC can better consider

Number of re- Average burden Respondents Number of re- sponses per re- per response Total burden spondents spondent (in hrs.) (in hrs.)

NCIPC website users who access or order hours publications ...... 360,000 1 5/60 30,000

Dated: August 4, 2003. territorial public health laboratorians C. Funding Thomas A. Bartenfeld, and GAP country health officials. Approximately $1,000,000 is available Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning (3) APHL has wide experience in in FY 2003 to fund this award. It is and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control promoting the coordination of HIV/ expected that the award will begin on or and Prevention. AIDS and other public health laboratory before September 15, 2003, and will be [FR Doc. 03–20352 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] efforts among the U.S. states and made for a 12-month budget period BILLING CODE 4163–18–P territories, U.S. Government agencies, within a project period of up to five and international agencies. Thus, the years. Funding estimates may change. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND organization is uniquely positioned to D. Where To Obtain Additional HUMAN SERVICES collaborate with national AIDS control Information program officials in GAP countries, Centers for Disease Control and international agencies and other For general comments or questions Prevention interested parties on policy and program about this announcement, contact: issues from a U.S. -based, multi- Technical Information Management, [Program Announcement 03161] stakeholder perspective. CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ (4) The knowledge, skills and abilities 30341–4146, Telephone: 770–488–2700. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome that APHL represents through its For technical questions about this (HIV/AIDS) Prevention Program members’ expertise are of critical program, contact: Peter Crippen, Public Development and Technical importance to improving the capacity of Health Advisor, Global AIDS Program, Assistance Collaboration for Public public health laboratories in GAP National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Health Laboratory Science With countries. Thus, APHL is uniquely Prevention, Centers for Disease Control Countries Targeted by CDC’s Global positioned to provide CDC technical and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., AIDS Program (GAP); Notice of Intent assistance by serving as a liaison Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404– To Fund Single Eligibility Award between U.S. state and territorial public 498–2712, E-mail address: phc1@cdc. health laboratory officials and officials A. Purpose Dated: August 4, 2003. of national AIDS control programs in The Centers for Disease Control and GAP countries. APHL possesses unique Edward Schultz, Prevention (CDC) announces the intent knowledge and insight that can be Acting Director, Procurement and Grants to fund fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for applied through technical assistance to Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. a cooperative agreement program for strengthen the ability of GAP country HIV/AIDS prevention program national AIDS control programs to [FR Doc. 03–20356 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] development and technical assistance design, develop, implement and BILLING CODE 4163–18–P collaboration with countries targeted by maintain HIV/AIDS public health the Global AIDS Program (GAP). The laboratories based on the best practices Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND of U.S. state and territorial public health HUMAN SERVICES number for this program is 93.941. laboratories. B. Eligible Applicant (5) APHL has already established Centers for Disease Control and Assistance will be provided only to mechanisms for communicating HIV/ Prevention the Association of Public Health AIDS laboratory practice information to [Program Announcement 03151] Laboratories (APHL). APHL is the the U.S. states and territories and their appropriate and only qualified agency to political subdivisions that carry out Institutional Strengthening of People provide the services specified under this HIV/AIDS public health laboratory Living With HIV/AIDS Networks in the cooperative agreement because: programs. They can use these Caribbean Region; Notice of Intent To (1) APHL is the only officially mechanisms to exchange information Fund Single Eligibility Award established organization that represents between the U.S. states and territories public health laboratory science and the public health officials in GAP A. Purpose practitioners. As such, APHL represents countries to identify and develop The Centers for Disease Control and officials from throughout the United effective public health laboratory Prevention (CDC) announces the intent States (U.S.) who have responsibility for information networks. This unique to fund fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for all aspects of public health laboratory expertise also places APHL in the a cooperative agreement program to science, education, and management. position to advise GAP country officials provide support to people living with (2) APHL is in a unique position to act on developing their own national public HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean. This will be as the liaison between U.S. state and health laboratory information networks. accomplished by developing the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47581

communication and institutional DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 20–719, and all amendments and infrastructure of the People Living with HUMAN SERVICES supplements thereto, is withdrawn, HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) Networks in the effective August 11, 2003. Distribution area. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Food and Drug Administration of this product in interstate commerce Assistance number for this program is [Docket No. 2003N–0350] without an approved application is 93.941. illegal and subject to regulatory action Sankyo Pharma, Inc.; Withdrawal of (see sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the act B. Eligible Applicant Approval of a New Drug Application (21 U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)). Dated: July 10, 2003. Assistance will be provided only to AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, the Caribbean Regional Network of HHS. Janet Woodcock, Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Persons Living with HIV/AIDS (CRN+). ACTION: Notice. No other applications are solicited. This Research. is the original, and only network of SUMMARY: The Food and Drug [FR Doc. 03–20383 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] PLWHA in this region that links twenty- Administration (FDA) is withdrawing BILLING CODE 4160–01–S seven islands, seven active national approval of a new drug application networks, and a functioning regional (NDA) for PRELAY (troglitazone) Tablets held by Sankyo Pharma, Inc. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND office based in Port of Spain, Trinidad. HUMAN SERVICES CRN+ also has the support of the Global (Sankyo Pharma), 399 Thornall St., Network of PLWHA and the Edison, NJ 08837. Sankyo Pharma has Food and Drug Administration International Community of Women requested that approval of this [FDA 225–03–8001] Living With HIV/AIDS. Since 1996, application be withdrawn because the product is not being marketed, thereby CRN+ has addressed the most pertinent waiving its opportunity for a hearing. Memorandum of Understanding issues relating to HIV/AIDS and plays Between the Department of Health and DATES: Effective August 11, 2003. an integrally esteemed role throughout Human Services of the United States the region among PLWHA and partner FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Through the Food and Drug agencies alike. CRN+ is a member of the Florine P. Purdie, Center for Drug Administration and the Ministry of Pan Caribbean Partnership Against Evaluation and Research (HFD–7), Food Health of the United Mexican States AIDS (PANCAP) that developed and and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Through the Federal Commission For implements the Caribbean regional Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594– Protection From Sanitary Risks 2041. strategic plan to combat HIV and AIDS. Covering the Safety and Quality of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter Fresh and Frozen Aquacultured C. Funding dated December 31, 2002, Sankyo Molluscan Shellfish Exported From the United Mexican States to the United Approximately $60,000 is available in Pharma requested that FDA withdraw approval, under § 314.150(d) (21 CFR States of America FY 2003 to fund this award. It is 314.150(d)), of NDA 20–719 for PRELAY expected that the award will begin on or AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, (troglitazone) Tablets. Sankyo U.S.A. before September 15, 2003, and will be HHS. Corp. (Sankyo U.S.A.) filed NDA 20–719 ACTION: Notice. made for a 12-month budget period for PRELAY concurrently with Warner- within a project period of up to five Lambert Co.’s NDA 20–720 for SUMMARY: The Food and Drug years. Funding estimates may change. REZULIN. Both these applications were Administration (FDA) is providing D. Where To Obtain Additional for troglitazone tablets. Sankyo U.S.A. notice of a memorandum of Information merged into Sankyo Pharma in understanding (MOU) between the December 1999. Neither Sankyo U.S.A. Department of Health and Human For general comments or questions nor Sankyo Pharma has ever marketed Services of the United States of about this announcement, contact: PRELAY, and Sankyo Pharma has no America, through the Food and Drug Technical Information Management, plans to market troglitazone in the Administration (FDA) and the Ministry CDC Procurement and Grants Office, future. FDA has determined that never of Health of the United Mexican States, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA marketing an approved drug product is through the Federal Commission for 30341–4146, Telephone: 770–488–2700. equivalent to withdrawing the drug Protection from Sanitary Risks. This from sale. PRELAY, a treatment for type understanding is in keeping with the For technical questions about this 2 diabetes, was voluntarily withdrawn beneficial and cooperative work program, contact: Ethleen Lloyd, CDC after review of safety data showed that conducted under the terms of a 1988 GAP Caribbean Regional Office, 9 REZULIN is more toxic to the liver than MOU concerning the safety and quality Alexandra Street, Port of Spain, two other more recently approved drugs of molluscan shellfish exported to the Trinidad and Tobago, Phone: 1–868– that offer a similar benefit (see the United States from the United Mexican 622–3153, E-mail: [email protected]. REZULIN withdrawal notice that States. The purpose of the MOU is to Dated: August 5, 2003. published in the Federal Register of establish the set of guidelines to be Edward Schultz, January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1469)). Sankyo implemented for assuring that Pharma waived its opportunity for a molluscan shellfish exported from the Acting Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and hearing, provided under § 314.150(a) United Mexican States and offered for Prevention. and (b). import into the United States of Therefore, under section 505(e) of the America are safe for human [FR Doc. 03–20355 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act consumption and are harvested, BILLING CODE 4163–18–P (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under processed, transported, and labeled in authority delegated to the Director, accordance with the provision of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research U.S. National Shellfish Sanitation (21 CFR 5.105(a)), approval of the NDA Program, the applicable requirements of

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47582 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic and Applied Nutrition, (HFS–417), Food shall be published in the Federal Act, and other related public health and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Register, the agency is publishing notice laws. Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, of this MOU. 301–436–1410. DATES: The agreement became effective Dated: July 31, 2003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 18, 2003. Jeffrey Shuren, accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul which states that all written agreements Assistant Commissioner for Policy. W. Distefano, Center for Food Safety and MOUs between FDA and others BILLING CODE 4160–01–S

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47583

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.020 47584 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.021 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47585

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.022 47586 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.023 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47587

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.024 47588 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.025 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47589

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.026 47590 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.027 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47591

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.028 47592 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.029 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47593

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.030 47594 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.031 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47595

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.032 47596 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.033 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47597

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.034 47598 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.035 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47599

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.036 47600 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.037 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47601

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 EN11AU03.038 47602 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

[FR Doc. 03–20246 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] and Budget for review under the The Travel Request Worksheet is used BILLING CODE 4160–01–C Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: by NHSC Scholarship Program recipients to receive travel funds from Proposed Project: National Health the Federal Government to perform pre- Service Corps (NHSC) Travel Request DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND employment interviews at sites on the Worksheet, Non-Federal Personnel—In HUMAN SERVICES Approved Practice List. The travel Use Without Approval approval process is initiated when the Health Resources and Services The National Health Service Corps scholar notifies the NHSC’s In-Service Administration (NHSC), of the HRSA’s Bureau of Health Support Branch or the respective Professions (BHPr), is committed to Bureau of Prisons, Indian Health Agency Information Collection improving the health of the Nation’s Service, or Immigration and Activities: Submission for OMB underserved by uniting communities in Naturalization Service recruitment Review; Comment Request need with caring health professionals office of an impending interview at one Periodically, the Health Resources and by supporting communities’ efforts or more NHSC approved practice sites. and Services Administration (HRSA) to build better systems of care. The Travel Request Worksheet is also publishes abstracts of information The NHSC (sections 331–338 of the used to initiate the relocation process collection requests under review by the Public Health Service Act) collects data after an NHSC scholar has successfully Office of Management and Budget, in on its programs to ensure compliance match to an approved practice site. compliance with the Paperwork with legislative mandates and to report Upon receipt of the Travel Request Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. to Congress and policymakers on Worksheet, the NHSC will review and chapter 35). To request a copy of the program accomplishments. To meet approve or disapprove the request and clearance requests submitted to OMB for these objectives, the NHSC requires a promptly notify the NHSC contractor review, call the HRSA Reports core set of information collected whether to authorize the funding for the Clearance Office on (301) 443–1129. annually that is appropriate for relocation. The following request has been monitoring and evaluating performance Estimates of annualized reporting submitted to the Office of Management and reporting on annual trends. burden are as follows:

Responses Hours per Type of respondent Number of per respond- response Total burden respondents ent (minutes) hours

Health Care Professionals ...... 311 2 4 41

Written comments and Performance and Results Act of 1993 NW., Third Floor, Washington, DC recommendations concerning the that agencies update their Strategic 20552, telephone (202) 414–3821 (not a proposed information collection should Plans every three years, OFHEO has toll-free number). The telephone be sent within 30 days of this notice to: developed its draft 2003–2008 Strategic number for the Telecommunications Allison Eydt, Human Resources and Plan and is soliciting the views and Device for the Deaf is: (800) 877–8339. Housing Branch, Office of Management suggestions of those entities potentially SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office and Budget, New Executive Office affected by or interested in the plan. of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC OFHEO’s draft Strategic Plan, for FY (OFHEO) is charged by Congress, as 20503, Fax Number 202–395–6974. 2003–2008, may be viewed on the established in Title XIII of the Housing Dated: August 5, 2003. OFHEO Web site at www.ofheo.gov/ and Community Development Act of Jane M. Harrison, OFHEOReports.asp. 1992, known as the Federal Housing Director, Division of Policy Review and DATES: Written comments regarding the Enterprises Financial Safety and Coordination. draft Strategic Plan may be received Soundness Act of 1992, with the [FR Doc. 03–20382 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] through August 27, 2003. mandate of overseeing the Federal BILLING CODE 4165–15–P ADDRESSES: All comments concerning National Mortgage Association and the the notice should be addressed to: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Susan S. Jacobs, Associate Director, Corporation, Fannie Mae and Freddie DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Office of Strategic Planning and Mac (the ‘‘Enterprises’’). URBAN DEVELOPMENT Management, Office of Federal Housing Three years ago, OFHEO adopted a Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, Strategic Plan covering FY 2000–2005. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise NW., Third Floor, Washington, DC Section 306 of the Government Oversight 20552. Comments may also be Performance and Results Act of 1993 submitted via electronic mail to: (GPRA), 31 U.S.C. 1115 et seq., requires Strategic Plan [email protected]. OFHEO that agencies update and revise their AGENCY: Office of Federal Housing requests that written comments Strategic Plans every three years. Enterprise Oversight, HUD. submitted in hard copy also be OFHEO has drafted a new plan for FY accompanied by the electronic version ACTION: Solicitation of comments for 2003–2008 that describes the agency’s in MS Word or in portable document updating the Strategic Plan. mission, strategic goals, and strategies to format (PDF) on 3.5’’ disk. achieve them. This plan will provide a SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Housing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: framework for the years ahead. OFHEO Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is Susan S. Jacobs, Associate Director, uses its Strategic Plan to guide each soliciting comments on its revised Office of Strategic Planning and year’s performance goals, which are Strategic Plan. In accordance with the Management, Office of Federal Housing described in OFHEO’s Annual requirements of the Government Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, Performance Plans. They may be viewed

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47603

on the OFHEO Web site at http:// notice in the Federal Register (64 FR evaluated in relation to each alternative www.ofheo.gov in the ‘‘News Center & 60826) announcing our intent to included DCCO populations, fish, other FOIA’’ section under ‘‘Reports.’’ prepare, in cooperation with the birds, vegetation, federally listed In today’s notice, OFHEO is soliciting Wildlife Services program of the U.S. threatened and endangered species, comments to be considered on its Department of Agriculture Animal and water quality and human health, revised plan. OFHEO will then submit Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS/ economic impacts (aquaculture and its Strategic Plan pursuant to the WS), an Environmental Impact recreational fishing economies), fish statutory requirements. Statement (EIS) to address ‘‘impacts hatcheries and environmental justice, Dated: August 5, 2003. caused by population and range property losses, and existence and Armando Falcon, Jr., expansion of the double-crested aesthetic values. We received 994 letters, faxes, and Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise cormorant [DCCO] in the contiguous Oversight. United States.’’ The notice of intent also email messages commenting on the DEIS. Of the 994 letters received, 764 of [FR Doc. 03–20394 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] marked the beginning of a public these stated a preference for a specific BILLING CODE 4220–01–P scoping period. The purpose of scoping, which included 12 public meetings, was alternative. These results were: 32.2 to identify significant issues to be percent chose Alternative D (proposed action) as the best alternative; 25.8 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR addressed in the EIS. More than 900 people attended the public scoping percent chose Alternative E (population Fish and Wildlife Service meetings, with 239 providing oral reduction); 16.9 percent chose comments, and over 1,450 people Alternative A (No Action); 11.8 percent RIN 1018–AI39 submitted written comments. Comments chose Alternative F (hunting); 11.8 fell into two categories: issues of percent chose Alternative B (non-lethal Notice of Availability; Final methods); and <1 percent chose Environmental Impact Statement on concern and suggested management options. Issues of concern included Alternative C (increased local damage Double-Crested Cormorant control). Our responses to significant Management impacts on sport fishing, local economies, aquaculture/commercial comments can be found in Chapter 7 of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, fishing, bird species, ecological balance, the FEIS. Interior. vegetation, human health and safety, In response to concerns about the public resource depredation order being ACTION: Notice of availability of Final and private property. Management too broad in scope, we made two Environmental Impact Statement on options that were suggested included changes to the order which were double-crested cormorant management. controlling DCCO populations, not subsequently described in a proposed managing DCCOs, removing DCCOs rule published in the Federal Register SUMMARY: This notice advises the public from the protection of the Migratory on March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12653). These of the availability of the Final Bird Treaty Act, hunting, focusing on changes limit the public resource Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) non-lethal control, allowing State depredation order to 24 States (rather on double-crested cormorant management of DCCOs, changing the than the 48 originally proposed in the management. The FEIS follows permit policy, oiling eggs, giving DEIS) and limit its applicability to land publication of a Draft Environmental APHIS/WS more authority, basing and freshwater (not saltwater). The 24 Impact Statement (DEIS) and a proposed decisions on the best science, using States were chosen based on locations of rule, each of which had extensive public population objectives, and increasing comment periods. The FEIS analyzes significant numbers of wintering, education efforts. The scoping period migrating, or breeding birds from the the direct, indirect, and cumulative ended on June 16, 2000. impacts related to double-crested Interior and Southern DCCO On December 3, 2001, we published cormorant management and provides populations. Saltwater areas were a notice in the Federal Register the public with responses to comments excluded because impacts have not been announcing the availability of the DEIS received on the DEIS. documented there. for public review (66 FR 60218). This Additionally, we changed the order so DATES: The period of availability for was followed by a 100-day public that it applied only to State fish and public review for the FEIS ends 30 days comment period, which included 10 wildlife agencies, federally recognized following publication of the EPA notice public meetings. The DEIS analyzed the Tribes, and APHIS/WS, and we of availability in the Federal Register. predicted environmental impacts of six expanded allowable control techniques After that date, we will publish a final management alternatives for addressing to include egg oiling, egg and nest rule and Record of Decision. problems associated with increasing destruction, cervical dislocation, ADDRESSES: You can obtain a copy of the DCCO populations. These management shooting, and CO2 asphyxiation. APHIS/ FEIS by writing to the Division of alternatives were: (1) No Action, or WS was added since it is the chief Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. continue current cormorant Federal wildlife damage control agency Fairfax Drive, MBSP–4107, Arlington, management practices (Alternative A); and has considerable expertise in VA 22203; by emailing us at (2) implement only nonlethal managing DCCOs. Control techniques [email protected]; or by calling us at management techniques (Alternative B); were selected to include all effective 703/358–1714. We will also post the (3) expand current cormorant damage and humane techniques. As stated in FEIS on our Web site at http:// management practices (Alternative C); the proposed rule, these modifications migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/ (4) establish a new depredation order to do not constitute significant changes to cormorant/cormorant.html. address public resource conflicts the DEIS analysis and are addressed, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Alternative D — proposed action); (5) needed, in the FEIS. Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of reduce regional cormorant populations Following publication of the proposed Migratory Bird Management, at 703/ (Alternative E); and (6) establish rule, the public had 60 days to provide 358–1714. frameworks for a cormorant hunting comments. This comment period led to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On season (Alternative F). The biological additional modifications to the November 8, 1999, we published a and socioeconomic resource categories proposed action, including the addition

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47604 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

of another month for allowing roost storks, piping plovers, and interior least below summarizes the impacts of control under the aquaculture terns. These changes are considered in DCCOs under the No Action alternative depredation order (October to April). In the FEIS analysis and will be discussed (i.e., the status quo), as detailed in the compliance with Section 7 of the in greater detail in the final rule. FEIS. The second chart below Endangered Species Act, we completed Like the DEIS, the FEIS analyzed the summarizes effects on the FEIS resource informal consultation and, direct, indirect, and cumulative categories that we predicted would subsequently, added conservation environmental impacts we predict occur as a result of implementing the measures to protect bald eagles, wood would be associated with six DCCO proposed action. management alternatives. The first chart

Alternative A: no action

Other bird populations ...... Suspected conflicts and in some cases confirmed conflicts associated with habitat destruction and nest site competition; significance localized. Fish ...... Suspected and in some cases confirmed conflicts; significance localized. Vegetation/habitat ...... Destruction of vegetation confirmed; significance localized. Threatened and endangered species ...... Suspected but not confirmed conflicts with Atlantic salmon and various Pacific salmonids; very likely, however, that other factors are more important than DCCOs in the decline of salmon. Water quality and human health ...... Accused of being a source of groundwater contamination but this is not confirmed; can cause direct, open water contamination. Aquaculture ...... Confirmed economic impacts on aquaculture production. Recreational fishing economies ...... Correlative evidence that DCCOs are a factor behind economic declines in communities de- pendent on recreational fishing; not confirmed. Fish hatcheries and justice ...... Confirmed depredation of hatchery stock with significance localized; effect on ability to provide hatchery fish to low-income groups not confirmed. Property losses ...... Confirmed conflicts with some property interests; significance localized. Existence and aesthetic values ...... Effect on values differs with perspective; DCCOs may appeal to some individual’s sense of aesthetics, while not appealing to others.

Proposed action alternative D: public resource depredation order

DCCO populations ...... No significant impact to regional or continental populations; estimated annual take of 159,635. Other bird populations ...... Local disturbances likely, but can be managed to avoid sig- nificant impacts; will help overall. Fish ...... Will help reduce predation in localized situations. Vegetation/habitat ...... Will help reduce impacts in localized situations. Threatened and endangered species ...... No adverse impacts with implementation of conservation measures. Water quality and human health ...... Will help reduce impacts in localized situations Aquaculture ...... Will help reduce depredation. Recreational fishing economies ...... Not likely to benefit. Fish hatcheries and environmental justice ...... Will help reduce depredation. Property losses ...... Could help to indirectly reduce losses. Existence and aesthetic values ...... Effects on values differs with perspective.

Dated: August 1, 2003. Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Working Landscapes Initiative Steve Williams, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Overview and provide comments and Director. Land Management (BLM) Front Range advice to the BLM Colorado State [FR Doc. 03–20376 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will Director through the Center Manager. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P meet as indicated below. All meetings are open to the public. DATES: The meeting originally published The public is encouraged to make oral in the July 8, 2003, Federal Register for comments to the Council between 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR August 12 and 13, 2003, has been a.m. and 11 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Councils Bureau of Land Management changed and will be held on August 13 only. The meeting will be held on consideration. Depending on the [CO–200–1020–AC–241A] August 13 at the Holy Cross Abbey number of persons wishing to comment Community Center, 2951 E. Highway and time available, the time for Notice of Amendment of Meeting Date, 50, Canon City, Colorado from 9:15 a.m. individual oral comments may be Front Range Resource Advisory to 4 p.m. limited. Summary minutes for the Council (Colorado) Council Meeting will be maintained in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15 the Front Range Center Office and will AGENCY: member Council advises the Secretary Bureau of Land Management, be available for public inspection and of the Interior, through the Bureau of Interior. reproduction during regular business Land Management, on a variety of ACTION: Notice of amendment of public hours within thirty (30) days following planning and management issues meeting date. the meeting. associated with public land SUMMARY: In accordance with the management in the Front Range Center, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Land Policy and Management Colorado. The planned agenda topic is Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory for the Council to discuss the Sustaining Attn: Ken Smith, 3170 East Main Street,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47605

Canon City, Colorado 81212. Phone and return address in your Internet under the rules of the Small Business (719) 269–8500. message. If you do not receive a Administration (SBA) (13 CFR Part 121) Dated: August 4, 2003. confirmation that we have received your as updated in Federal Register Notice John L. Carochi, Internet message, call the contact person (68 FR 15047, 03/28/2003). The SBA listed below. standard for a small business within the Front Range Center Manager. Petroleum Refining Industry is a [FR Doc. 03–20236 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharron L. Gebhardt at telephone (303) concern with a total Operable BILLING CODE 4310–JB–M 231–3211, fax (303) 231–3781, or P.O. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Box 25165, MS320B2, Denver Federal Capacity of less than or equal to 125,000 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Center, Denver, Colorado 80225–0165. barrels per calendar day, and that has no SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: more than 1,500 employees. Capacity Minerals Management Service Introduction: Under the provisions of includes owned or leased facilities as the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), well as facilities under a processing Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Eligible Refiner, as amended (30 U.S.C. 192), and the agreement or an arrangement such as an Determination of Need Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act exchange agreement or throughput. The regulation at 30 CFR 208.4(a) AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, (OCSLA) of August 7, 1953, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1334, 1353), the Secretary of governs the Determination of Need Interior. process and states that: ACTION: Solicitation of comments. the Interior can take Federal royalty oil in kind, in lieu of royalty payment, and The Secretary may evaluate crude oil SUMMARY: The Minerals Management sell it to ‘‘eligible refiners’’ for use in market conditions from time to time. The Service (MMS), an agency of the U.S. their refineries. The sale of royalty oil evaluation will include, among other things, Department of the Interior, is requesting from Federal leases by the United States the availability of crude oil and the crude oil written comments from interested to eligible refiners is governed by the requirements of the Federal Government, primarily those requirements concerning parties—particularly from small and/or regulations at 30 CFR 208, effective matters of national interest and defense. The independent petroleum refiners— December 1, 1987 (52 FR 41908, 10/30/ Secretary will review these items and will regarding their experiences in the crude 1987). determine whether eligible refiners have oil marketplace. Specifically, we are An ‘‘eligible refiner,’’ as defined at 30 access to adequate supplies of crude oil and interested in small and/or independent CFR 208.2, means a refiner of crude oil whether such oil is available to eligible refiners’ experiences in gaining access meeting the following criteria to refiners at equitable prices. Such to adequate supplies of crude oil at purchase royalty oil: determinations may be made on a regional equitable prices. This Determination of (1) For the purchase of royalty oil basis * * *. Need process will assist the Secretary of from onshore leases, it means a refiner In accordance with its practice of the Interior in deciding whether or not that has an operating refinery and conducting periodic reviews of market to continue with sales of Federal qualifies as a small and independent trends and conditions, MMS believes Government royalty oil under the RIK refiner as those terms are defined below: that undertaking another Determination eligible refiner program. • The term ‘‘independent refiner’’ of Need will be beneficial in formulating DATES: Submit written comments on or means a refiner who (a) obtained, any decision to hold future royalty oil before September 25, 2003. directly or indirectly more than 70 sales to eligible refiners. ADDRESSES: Address your comments percent of his refinery input of domestic Background: The RIK eligible refiner and suggestions regarding this proposal crude oil (or 70 percent of his refinery program has been an important source to Sharron L. Gebhardt, Regulatory input of domestic and imported crude of crude oil for these refiners in the past. Specialist. oil) from producers who do not control, Currently, there are six eligible refiner By regular U.S. mail: Center for are not controlled by, and are not under RIK contracts (involving Gulf of Mexico Excellence, Minerals Revenue common control with, such refiner for and Pacific Region offshore leases). Management, Minerals Management the calendar quarter immediately In 1997, MMS undertook an Service, P.O. Box 25165, MS 320B2, preceding the date of the applicable examination of the eligible refiner RIK Denver, Colorado 80225–0165; or ‘‘Notice of Availability of Royalty Oil,’’ program and determined that a By overnight mail or courier: Attn: and (b) marketed or distributed in such ‘‘proactive, structured, and documented Sharron L. Gebhardt, (303) 231–3211, quarter and continues to market and methodology’’ should be used to Center for Excellence, Minerals Revenue distribute a substantial volume of conduct future RIK Determinations of Management, Minerals Management gasoline refined by him through Need. The MMS performed a full Service, Building 85, Room A614, branded independent marketers or non- analysis in 1999 and an update of that Denver Federal Center, Denver, branded independent marketers. analysis in 2001. These analyses Colorado 80225–0165; or • The term ‘‘small refiner’’ means a supported the continuation of the By fax: Please submit fax Attn: refiner whose total refinery capacity program, and each was followed by Sharron L. Gebhardt, fax (303) 231– (including the refinery capacity of any subsequent RIK sales to eligible refiners. 3781, Re: ‘‘Determination of Need’’ and person who controls, is controlled by, or More recently, MMS has expanded your name and return address in your is under common control with such the percentage of the oil royalties it fax message. If you do not receive a refiner) does not exceed 175,000 barrels takes in kind (apart from the eligible confirmation that we have received your per day. refiner program) to improve the fax message, call the contact person Crude oil received in exchange for the efficiency and effectiveness of collecting listed below. refiner’s own production is considered and distributing royalties. In doing so, it By e-mail: [email protected]. to be part of that refiner’s own has improved the administration of its Please submit Internet comments as an production for purposes of this section. RIK programs to better interface with ASCII file and avoid the use of special (2) For the purchase of royalty oil standard industry practices. These characters and any form of encryption. from offshore leases, it means a refiner improvements include: Also, please include ‘‘Attn: that has an operating refinery and • Changing the way we conduct our Determination of Need’’ and your name qualifies as a small business enterprise operations by implementing logical

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47606 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

business practices in the areas of If you answered yes to any of the specifically in response to the questions administrative fees, transportation categories in the previous question, listed above, are subject to disclosure allowances, counterparty risk please address the questions that follow. under the Freedom of Information Act management, operator delivery (If you have multiple refineries, please (FOIA). All information provided will requirements, resolution of delivery address questions 1 through 5 for each be made public unless the respondent imbalances, and gravity bank refinery). identifies which portions are adjustments; and (1) For your immediate region or proprietary. Please highlight the • Providing greater specificity and geographic area of operation, how proprietary portions, including any certainty with regard to RIK contract would you characterize the general supporting documentation, or mark the language, especially with regard to availability of crude oil? page(s) that contain proprietary data. provisions addressing the valuation of (2) Is your refinery operating at full or Proprietary information is protected by RIK oil for billing purposes. near-full capacity in both summer and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Additionally, on November 13, 2001, winter? If not, why not? Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. President Bush announced an initiative (3) What are the slate of refined 1733), FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4), the to fill the remaining capacity of the products and their volumes from your Indian Minerals Development Act of Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) with refinery over each of the past 12 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2103), and Department crude oil originating from royalties months? regulations (43 CFR 2). An agency may taken in kind. Royalty oil volumes from (4) What percentage of onshore versus not conduct or sponsor, and a person is offshore Gulf of Mexico Federal leases offshore crude oil volumes are currently not required to respond to, a collection have largely been dedicated to this being run through your refinery? of information unless it displays a effort, although about 22 percent of the (5) What type of crude is desired to currently valid OMB Control Number. Federal oil share from these leases is sustain your mix of refined products Public reporting burden is estimated to still currently being purchased under (e.g., Wyoming Sweet, Wyoming Sour, be 4 hours per response. Comments on RIK eligible refiner sales. The MMS is Light Louisiana Sweet, etc.)? the accuracy of this burden estimate or taking approximately 90 percent of its (6) Have you been denied access to suggestions on reducing this burden royalty oil share in kind from Federal crude oil supplies in the past 18 should be directed to the Information offshore California leases. This oil is months? What was the basis for the Collection Clearance Officer, MMS, MS– also purchased under eligible refiner denial? For example, was the denial 4230, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, sales. attributable to unavailability of desired DC 20240. Potential respondents should also crude, a lack of access to the Dated: July 15, 2003. note that the mere conduct of a transportation pipeline, or other Determination of Need in no way reasons? Please provide documentation Lucy Querques Denett, presupposes that there will or will not supporting any claim of denial. Associate Director for Minerals Revenue be subsequent eligible refiner RIK sales. (7) Do you use exchange agreements? Management. A Determination of Need is a logical Why? [FR Doc. 03–20354 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] first step in identifying general (8) Are the feeder stocks you BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P marketplace conditions. However, any purchase, priced above market values decision to conduct additional RIK sales for your geographic area? In other will necessarily be predicated on the words, do you pay a bonus or premium INTERNATIONAL TRADE regulatory criteria of ‘‘access’’ and because of your status as a small and/ COMMISSION or independent refiner? Please identify, ‘‘equity’’—i.e., whether a significant [Inv. No. 337–TA–469] number of refiners have limited or no by crude oil type, what you pay on the access to the marketplace and/or have average per barrel of oil. In the Matter of Certain Bearings and experienced difficulty in negotiating a (9) Have you previously participated Packaging Thereof; Notice of fair price for feeder stocks. in the Federal royalty oil program? If a Commission Determination To Information Requested: To assist prior program participant, why did you Remand Investigation to the MMS in completing a Determination of leave the program? How would you now Administrative Law Judge for Further Need, please respond in writing to the benefit from receiving Federal royalty Fact-Finding; Extension of Target Date following questions: oil? for Completion of the Investigation (1) Indicate your perspective as it (10) Do you currently provide refined relates to the domestic crude oil market: products (heating oil, jet fuel, etc.) to a AGENCY: International Trade Small/Independent Refiner. U.S. military base or Federal Commission. Large Refiner. installation? If so, identify the recipient ACTION: Notice. Oil Producer. facility and how long you have been SUMMARY: Oil Transporter. supplying refined products. Notice is hereby given that Oil Marketer. (11) Do you anticipate any near term the U.S. International Trade Other (please specify). developments that would change your Commission has determined to remand (2) Describe your experience with the access to necessary supplies of crude oil the above-referenced investigation to the domestic crude oil market and your at equitable prices? presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) perception of the need for the eligible The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for further fact-finding. The Commission refiner program. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires us to has also determined to extend the target (3) What is your perception of inform you that this information is date in this investigation by six (6) whether a benefit exists to conducting being collected by MMS under an months, i.e., until February 12, 2004. separate sales for onshore and offshore approved information collection titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Federal lease crude? Royalty-in-Kind (RIK)—Eligible Jackson, Esq., Office of the General (4) Under the sets of criteria outlined Refiners, Determination of Need, OMB Counsel, U.S. International Trade above, are you an eligible refiner of Control Number 1010–0119. All Commission, 500 E Street, SW., offshore lease oil, onshore lease oil, or correspondence, records, or information Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) both? received in response to this Notice, and 205–3012. Copies of the Commission’s

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47607

Order, the public version of the ALJ’s material differences in the context of (Commerce) to be subsidized by the initial determination (ID), and all other trademark infringement by gray market Government of Korea. nonconfidential documents filed in goods. 68 FR 32766–7 (June 2, 2002). Background connection with this investigation are or Responses to the Commission’s will be available for inspection during questions were filed on June 6, 2003, by The Commission instituted this official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 all parties remaining in the investigation effective November 1, p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. investigation. Replies to the responses 2002, following receipt of a petition International Trade Commission, 500 E were filed by the same parties on June filed with the Commission and Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 13, 2003. Having examined the parties’ Commerce by Micron Technology, Inc., telephone 202–205–2000. General submissions and the record in this Boise, ID. The final phase of the information concerning the Commission investigation, including the ALJ’s final investigation was scheduled by the may also be obtained by accessing its ID, the petitions for review, and the Commission following notification of a Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). responses thereto, the Commission preliminary determination by The public record for this investigation determined to remand the investigation Commerce that imports of DRAMs and may be viewed on the Commission’s to the ALJ for further fact-finding DRAM modules from Korea were being electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// concerning the material differences subsidized within the meaning of edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired between complainant’s and section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. persons are advised that information on respondents’ bearings. In order to allow 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of this matter can be obtained by sufficient time for the further fact- the final phase of the Commission’s contacting the Commission’s TDD finding, the Commission extended the investigation and of a public hearing to terminal on 202–205–1810. target date for completion of the be held in connection therewith was SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The investigation by six month, i.e., until given by posting copies of the notice in Commission instituted this investigation February 12, 2004. the Office of the Secretary, U.S. on April 16, 2002, based on a complaint The authority for the Commission’s International Trade Commission, filed by SKF USA, Inc. (SKF USA) of determination is contained in section Washington, DC, and by publishing the Norristown, PA against fourteen 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as notice in the Federal Register of April respondents. 67 FR 18632 (2002). Four amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 16, 2003 (68 FR 18671). The hearing was respondents remain active in the sections 210.45 and 210.51 of the held in Washington, DC, on June 24, investigation, with ten respondents Commission’s Rules of Practice and 2003, and all persons who requested the having either settled with complainant Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.51). opportunity were permitted to appear in or been found in default. The complaint, person or by counsel. Issued: August 6, 2003. as supplemented, alleged violations of The Commission transmitted its section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in By order of the Commission. determination in this investigation to the importation into the United States, Marilyn R. Abbott, the Secretary of Commerce on August 4, sale for importation, and sale within the Secretary to the Commission. 2003. The views of the Commission are United States after importation of [FR Doc. 03–20386 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] contained in USITC Publication 3617 (August 2003), entitled DRAMs and certain bearings by reason of BILLING CODE 7020–02–P infringement of registered and common DRAM Modules from Korea: law trademarks, dilution of trademarks, Investigation No. 701–TA–431 (Final). various acts in violation of the Lanham INTERNATIONAL TRADE Issued: August 4, 2003. Act, and passing off. A count COMMISSION By order of the Commission. concerning ‘‘unfair pecuniary benefits’’ Marilyn R. Abbott, was dismissed by the Commission on [Investigation No. 701–TA–431 (Final)] Secretary to the Commission. September 23, 2002. [FR Doc. 03–20365 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] On April 10, 2003, the ALJ issued his Drams and Dram Modules From Korea BILLING CODE 7020–02–P final ID on violation and his recommended determination on remedy Determination and bonding. The ALJ found a violation On the basis of the record 1 developed INTERNATIONAL TRADE of section 337 by reason of infringement COMMISSION of SKF USA’s registered and common in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission [Investigations Nos. 731–TA–1048–1053 law trademarks by each of the four 2 remaining respondents, viz., Bearings (Commission) determines, pursuant to (Preliminary)] section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 Limited, Bohls Bearing and Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Transmission Service, CST Bearing (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is Australia, China, Greece, Ireland, Company, and McGuire Bearings Japan, and South Africa Company, and recommended the materially injured by reason of imports from Korea of dynamic random access issuance of a general exclusion order AGENCY: United States International memory semiconductors (DRAMs) and and cease and desist orders to the Trade Commission. DRAM modules, provided for in respondents found in violation. All ACTION: Institution of antidumping active parties remaining in the subheadings 8473.30.10 and 8542.21.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of investigations and scheduling of investigation, including the Commission preliminary phase investigations. investigative attorney, filed petitions for the United States, that have been found review on April 21, 2003, and replies to by the Department of Commerce SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives the petitions on April 28, 2003. notice of the institution of investigations On May 27, 2003, the Commission 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the and commencement of preliminary Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (19 determined to review the ID in part and CFR 207.2(f)). phase antidumping investigations Nos. asked the parties to brief several 2 Commissioner Marcia E. Miller did not 731–TA–1048–1053 (Preliminary) under questions relating to the issue of participate in this investigation. section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47608 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to and (if the merchandise under authorize filing of submissions with the determine whether there is a reasonable investigation is sold at the retail level) Secretary by facsimile or electronic indication that an industry in the representative consumer organizations means, except to the extent permitted by United States is materially injured or have the right to appear as parties in section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, threatened with material injury, or the Commission antidumping as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, establishment of an industry in the investigations. The Secretary will 2002). United States is materially retarded, by prepare a public service list containing In accordance with sections 201.16(c) reason of imports from Australia, China, the names and addresses of all persons, and 207.3 of the rules, each document Greece, Ireland, Japan, and South Africa or their representatives, who are parties filed by a party to the investigations of electrolytic manganese dioxide, to these investigations upon the must be served on all other parties to provided for in subheading 2820.10.00 expiration of the period for filing entries the investigations (as identified by of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of of appearance. either the public or BPI service list), and the United States, that are alleged to be Limited disclosure of business a certificate of service must be timely sold in the United States at less than fair proprietary information (BPI) under an filed. The Secretary will not accept a value. Unless the Department of administrative protective order (APO) document for filing without a certificate Commerce extends the time for and BPI service list.—Pursuant to of service. initiation pursuant to section section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI Authority: These investigations are being 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. conducted under authority of title VII of the 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must gathered in these investigations Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published reach a preliminary determination in available to authorized applicants pursuant to section 207.12 of the antidumping investigations in 45 days, representing interested parties (as Commission’s rules. defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are or in this case by September 15, 2003. Dated: August 5, 2003. The Commission’s views are due at parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, By order of the Commission. Commerce within five business days Marilyn R. Abbott, thereafter, or by September 22, 2003. provided that the application is made For further information concerning not later than seven days after the Secretary to the Commission. the conduct of these investigations and publication of this notice in the Federal [FR Doc. 03–20367 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] rules of general application, consult the Register. A separate service list will be BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Commission’s Rules of Practice and maintained by the Secretary for those Procedure, part 201, subparts A through parties authorized to receive BPI under E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, the APO. INTERNATIONAL TRADE subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). Conference.—The Commission’s COMMISSION Director of Operations has scheduled a EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2003. [Investigation No. 731–TA–1012 (Final)] conference in connection with these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: investigations for 9:30 a.m. on August Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From 21, 2003, at the U.S. International Trade Vietnam Office of Investigations, U.S. Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., International Trade Commission, 500 E Washington, DC. Parties wishing to Determination Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. participate in the conference should On the basis of the record 1 developed Hearing-impaired persons can obtain contact Christopher J. Cassise (202–708– information on this matter by contacting in the subject investigation, the United 5408) not later than August 18, 2003, to States International Trade Commission the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– arrange for their appearance. Parties in 205–1810. Persons with mobility (Commission) determines, pursuant to support of the imposition of section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 impairments who will need special antidumping duties in these assistance in gaining access to the (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an investigations and parties in opposition industry in the United States is Commission should contact the Office to the imposition of such duties will of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. materially injured by reason of imports each be collectively allocated one hour from Vietnam of certain frozen fish General information concerning the within which to make an oral Commission may also be obtained by fillets, provided for in subheading presentation at the conference. A 0304.20.60 of the Harmonized Tariff accessing its Internet server (http:// nonparty who has testimony that may www.usitc.gov). The public record for Schedule of the United States, that have aid the Commission’s deliberations may been found by the Department of these investigations may be viewed on request permission to present a short the Commission’s electronic docket Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the statement at the conference. United States at less than fair value (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Written submissions.—As provided in (LTFV). Concurrently, the Commission SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the finds that critical circumstances do not Background.—These investigations are Commission’s rules, any person may exist with respect to imports of the being instituted in response to a petition submit to the Commission on or before subject product from Vietnam. filed on July 31, 2003 by Kerr-McGee August 26, 2003, a written brief Chemical, LLC, Oklahoma City, OK. containing information and arguments Background pertinent to the subject matter of the Participation in the investigations and The Commission instituted this investigations. Parties may file written public service list.—Persons (other than investigation effective June 28, 2002, testimony in connection with their petitioners) wishing to participate in the following receipt of a petition filed with presentation at the conference no later investigations as parties must file an the Commission and Commerce on than three days before the conference. If entry of appearance with the Secretary behalf of the Catfish Farmers of briefs or written testimony contain BPI, to the Commission, as provided in America—a trade association of U.S. sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the they must conform with the Commission’s rules, not later than seven requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the days after publication of this notice in and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 the Federal Register. Industrial users The Commission’s rules do not CFR 207.2(f)).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47609

catfish farmers and processors—and by alleged to be sold in the United States The Commission transmitted its individual U.S. catfish processors. The at less than fair value (LTFV). determinations in these investigations to final phase of the investigation was the Secretary of Commerce on August 4, Commencement of Final Phase scheduled by the Commission following 2003. The views of the Commission are Investigations notification of a preliminary contained in USITC Publication 3618 determination by Commerce that Pursuant to § 207.18 of the (August 2003), entitled Polyethylene imports of the subject product from Commission’s rules, the Commission Retail Carrier Bags from China, Vietnam were being sold at LTFV also gives notice of the commencement Malaysia, and Thailand: Investigations within the meaning of section 733(b) of of the final phase of its investigations. Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 (Preliminary). the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of The Commission will issue a final phase Issued: August 5, 2003. the scheduling of the final phase of the notice of scheduling, which will be By order of the Commission. Commission’s investigation and of a published in the Federal Register as Marilyn R. Abbott, public hearing to be held in connection provided in section 207.21 of the Secretary to the Commission. therewith was given by posting copies Commission’s rules, upon notice from [FR Doc. 03–20366 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] of the notice in the Office of the the Department of Commerce Secretary, U.S. International Trade (Commerce) of affirmative preliminary BILLING CODE 7020–02–M Commission, Washington, DC, and by determinations in the investigations publishing the notice in the Federal under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the INTERNATIONAL TRADE Register of February 12, 2003 (68 FR preliminary determinations are COMMISSION 7131). The hearing was held in negative, upon notice of affirmative Washington, DC, on June 17, 2003, and final determinations in those [Inv. No. 337–TA–485] all persons who requested the investigations under section 735(a) of opportunity were permitted to appear in the Act. Parties that filed entries of In the Matter of Certain Truck Bed Ramps and Components Thereof; person or by counsel. appearance in the preliminary phase of Notice of Commission Decision Not to The Commission transmitted its the investigations need not enter a Review an Initial Determination Finding determination in this investigation to separate appearance for the final phase No Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff the Secretary of Commerce on August 6, of the investigations. Industrial users, Act of 1930 and Terminating the 2003. The views of the Commission are and, if the merchandise under Investigation contained in USITC Publication 3617 investigation is sold at the retail level, (August 2003), entitled Certain Frozen representative consumer organizations AGENCY: International Trade Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Investigation have the right to appear as parties in Commission. No. 731–TA–1012 (Final). Commission antidumping and ACTION: Notice. Issued: August 6, 2003. countervailing duty investigations. The SUMMARY: By order of the Commission. Secretary will prepare a public service Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Marilyn R. Abbott, list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, Commission has determined not to Secretary to the Commission. who are parties to the investigations. review the presiding administrative law [FR Doc. 03–20385 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] judge’s (‘‘ALJ’s’’) initial determination BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Background (‘‘ID’’) finding no violation of section On June 20, 2003, a petition was filed 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and with the Commission and Commerce by terminating the above-captioned INTERNATIONAL TRADE investigation. COMMISSION the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee, an ad hoc coalition of U.S. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: polyethylene retail carrier bag Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of [Investigations Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 producers, alleging that an industry in (Preliminary)] the General Counsel, U.S. International the United States is materially injured Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From or threatened with material injury by Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) China, Malaysia, and Thailand reason of LTFV imports of polyethylene 205–3041. Copies of the ALJ’s ID and all retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia, other nonconfidential documents filed Determinations and Thailand. Accordingly, effective in connection with this investigation are On the basis of the record 1 developed June 20, 2003, the Commission or will be available for inspection in the subject investigations, the United instituted antidumping duty during official business hours (8:45 a.m. States International Trade Commission investigations Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the (Commission) determines, pursuant to (Preliminary). Secretary, U.S. International Trade section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 Notice of the institution of the Commission, 500 E Street, SW., (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there Commission’s investigations and of a Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– is a reasonable indication that an public conference to be held in 205–2000. General information industry in the United States is connection therewith was given by concerning the Commission may also be threatened with material injury by posting copies of the notice in the Office obtained by accessing its Internet server reason of imports from China, Malaysia, of the Secretary, U.S. International (http://www.usitc.gov). The public and Thailand of polyethylene retail Trade Commission, Washington, DC, record for this investigation may be carrier bags, provided for in subheading and by publishing the notice in the viewed on the Commission’s electronic 3923.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Federal Register of June 27, 2003 (68 FR docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Schedule of the United States, that are 38385). The conference was held in Hearing-impaired persons are advised Washington, DC, on July 11, 2003, and that information on this matter can be 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the all persons who requested the obtained by contacting the Commission’s Rules of Practice adn Procedure (19 opportunity were permitted to appear in Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– CFR 207.2(f)). person or by counsel. 205–1810.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47610 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The (previously published on October 17, assignment to the Federal Government; Commission instituted this investigation 1988, at 53 FR 40511); and to permit the disclosure of on January 24, 2003, based on a Files on Employment Civil Rights information to former employees of the complaint filed by Charles D. Walkden Matters from Persons Outside of the Department for matters in which they (‘‘Walkden’’) of Homer, Alaska. 68 FR Department of Justice, JUSTICE/CRT– were involved. One routine use will 3550 (2003). The complaint, as 007 (previously published on October permit disclosure to complainants and amended, alleged violations of section 17, 1988, at 53 FR 40512); and Civil victims to provide information about the 337 in the importation, sale for Rights Division Travel Reports, progress and/or results of an importation, and sale within the United JUSTICE/CRT–009 (previously investigation or case. Further, States after importation of certain truck published on October 17, 1988, at 53 FR information may be disclosed to the bed ramps and components thereof that 40514). media under certain circumstances infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. The Department is publishing unless it would constitute an 5,795,125 (‘‘the ’125 patent’’). The modifications to the above systems of unwarranted invasion of personal Commission named as respondents records. This notice includes some privacy. ETEC of Saskatoon, SK, Canada; Textron major changes such as adding new Third, the Department proposes to Inc. (‘‘Textron’’) of Providence, Rhode routine uses. Also, the Department add three routine use disclosures to Island; VIP Distributing of Anchorage, made other non-substantive changes in Registry of Names of Interested Persons Alaska; Southwest Distributing Co. of all the above systems to provide Desiring Notifications of Submissions Clinton, Oklahoma; and Hamilton clarification, such as to correct Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Equipment Inc. of Ephrata, typographical errors, to provide updated Act, CRT–004. Two routine uses are Pennsylvania. Id. Textron was addresses, to update information on similar to that above: To permit the subsequently terminated from the particular statutes, to clarify existing disclosure of information regarding the investigation on the basis of a consent routine uses, to add data elements progress and results of investigations to order. omitted from previous notices, and to contractors, experts, students, On June 2, 2003, the Commission reflect nomenclature changes. The consultants, and other persons investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) moved proposed rule for the Privacy Act performing work or on assignment to pursuant to Commission rule 210.15(a) exemptions is also being updated and is the Federal Government; and to permit for summary determination of non- published in today’s Federal Register. the disclosure of information to former infringement. On July 10, 2003, the ALJ First, in the Central Civil Rights employees of the Department for matters issued an ID granting the IA’s motion. Division Index File and Associated in which they were involved. Another No petitions for review of the ID were Records system, CRT–001, the routine use will allow records which filed. Department proposes to allow records may disclose a violation or potential This action is taken under the which may disclose a violation or violations of law to be referred to the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act potential violations of law to be referred appropriate authority charged with the of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), to the appropriate authority charged responsibility for investigation, and 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of with the responsibility for investigation, enforcing or prosecuting such violation. Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). enforcing or prosecuting such violation. Fourth, the Department proposes to Two other routine use disclosures add three routine use disclosures to Issued: August 6, 2003. permit the disclosure of information Files on Employment Civil Rights By order of the Commission. regarding the progress and results of Matters from Persons Outside of the Marilyn R. Abbott, investigations to contractors, experts, Department of Justice, CRT–007. This Secretary to the Commission. students, consultants, mediators, routine use will permit the disclosure to [FR Doc. 03–20384 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] negotiators, and other persons complainants and victims to provide BILLING CODE 7020–02–P performing work or on assignment to information about the progress or results the Federal Government. Another of an investigation or case. Two routine routine use will permit the disclosure of uses are identical to that above: To DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE information to former employees of the permit the disclosure of information Department for matters in which they regarding the progress and results of [AAG/A Order No. 015–2003] were involved. In addition, a revised investigations to contractors, experts, routine use will permit disclosure of students, consultants, and other persons Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of health care-related information obtained performing work or on assignment to Records during health care-related the Federal Government; and to permit Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 investigations. the disclosure of information to former U.S.C. 552a), the Department proposes Second, the Department proposes to employees of the Department for matters to modify the following Privacy Act add five routine use disclosures to Civil in which they were involved. One systems of records: Rights Interactive Case Management routine use will permit disclosure to Central Civil Rights Division Index System, CRT–003. The first routine use complainants and victims to provide File and Associated Records, JUSTICE/ allows records which may disclose a information about the progress or results CRT–001 (previously published on violation or potential violations of law of an investigation or case. February 20, 1998, at 63 FR 8659); to be referred to the appropriate Fifth, the Department proposes to add Civil Rights Case Load Evaluation authority charged with the two identical routine uses as those System—Time Reporting System, responsibility for investigation, above, for disclosure to contractors and JUSTICE/CRT–003 (previously enforcing or prosecuting such violation. former employees, in Civil Rights published on October 17, 1988, at 53 FR Two routine uses are similar to those Division Travel Reports, CRT–009. The 40510); above: To permit the disclosure of other routine use will allow records Registry of Names of Interested information regarding the progress and which may disclose a violation or Persons Desiring Notifications of results of investigations to contractors, potential violations of law to be referred Submissions Under Section 5 of the experts, students, consultants, and other to the appropriate authority charged Voting Rights Act, JUSTICE/CRT–004 persons performing work or on with the responsibility for investigation,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47611

enforcing or prosecuting such violation Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, sections of CRT according to the legal or law. DC 20530 (1400 National Place subject matter assigned to each CRT In addition, the Civil Rights Division Building). section. has one system of records, CRT–002, In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Files of Application for the Position of the Department has provided a report to AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Attorney with the Civil Rights Division, OMB and Congress. The records in the system of records which is now covered by two Dated: July 24, 2003. are kept under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3101 and in the ordinary course of government wide systems of records of Paul R. Corts, the Office of Personnel Management fulfilling the responsibility assigned to Assistant Attorney General for (OPM): OPM/GOVT–1, General Administration. CRT under the provisions of 28 CFR Personnel Records; and OPM/GOVT–5, 0.50, 0.51. Recruiting, Examining and Placement JUSTICE/CRT–001 Records (both published on April 27, PURPOSES: SYSTEM NAME: 2000, at 65 FR 24732–24753). The purposes of this system are to Accordingly, these government wide Central Civil Rights Division Index assist all the sections within the system notices replace, and the File and Associated Records, CRT–001. Division in maintaining names of Department hereby removes, on the SYSTEM LOCATION: Division employees and their case investigation assignments, names of effective date of this notice, the United States Department of Justice, defendants or investigation targets, following notice previously published Civil Rights Division (CRT), 950 by an individual Department of Justice Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., victims, witnesses or potential component: Washington, DC 20530–0001. witnesses, or other persons or Files of Application for the Position of organizations as they relate to potential Attorney with the Civil Rights Division, CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE or actual cases, investigations, and JUSTICE/CRT–002 (previously SYSTEM: matters of concern to CRT. Other published on December 17, 1985, at 50 These persons may include: Subjects purposes are to assist employees and FR 51482). of investigations, victims, potential officials within the Division to review Finally, the Office of Special Counsel witnesses, individuals of Japanese and make decisions in the course of for Immigration Related Unfair ancestry who were eligible, or investigations and legal proceedings, to Employment Practices was merged into potentially eligible, for restitution assist the Division in preparing budget the Civil Rights Division, and its two benefits as a result of their evacuation, requests, to respond to inquiries from remaining systems of records are being relocation, or internment during World outside the Department, and to carry out incorporated into the Civil Rights War II, and representatives on behalf of other authorized Department functions. Division’s systems of records. individuals and other correspondents Accordingly, this system notice on subjects directed or referred to CRT ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND or other persons or organizations replaces, and the Department hereby THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: removes, on the effective date of this referred to CRT in potential or actual notice, the following notices previously cases and matters of concern to CRT, A record maintained in this system of published by individual Department of and CRT employees who handle records may be disseminated as a Justice components: complaints, cases or matters of concern routine use of such records as follows: Office of Special Counsel, ‘‘Central to CRT. (1) In the event that a record in this Index File and Associated Records,’’ system, either alone or in conjunction CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: OSC–001 (previously published on with other information, indicates a October 17, 1988, at 53 FR 40531); and Records in this system consist of case violation or potential violation of law— Office of Special Counsel, ‘‘Special files, matters, memoranda, criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature— Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair correspondence, studies, and reports the relevant records may be referred to Employment Practices Travel Reports,’’ relating to enforcement of civil rights the appropriate Federal, State, local, OSC–003 (previously published on laws and other various duties of the foreign, or Tribal law enforcement September 15, 1988 at 53 FR 35926). Civil Rights Division. The delegated authority or other appropriate agency The Office of Special Counsel’s legal duties and responsibilities of each charged with the responsibility for systems of records, OSC–001 and OSC– section are described in detail at the investigating or prosecuting such 003, were incorporated into the Civil Civil Rights Division Web page: http:// violation or charged with enforcing or Rights Division’s systems of records, www.usdoj.gov/crt/crt-home.html. In implementing such law; CRT–001 and CRT–009, respectively. addition to the sections, the Civil Rights (2) In the course of the administration The modified systems of records are Division maintains records related to by CRT of a federally mandated printed below. the duties of the former Office of program, or the investigation or In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) Redress Administration pertaining to litigation of a case or matter, a record and (11), the public is given a 30-day the identification, location and may be disseminated to a Federal, State period in which to comment; and the authorization for restitution payments to or local agency, or to an individual or Office of Management and Budget eligible individuals of Japanese ancestry organization, if there is reason to believe (OMB), which has oversight who were evacuated, relocated or that such agency, individual or responsibility of the Act, requires a 40- interned during World War II. These organization possesses information or day period in which to conclude its restitution payments were authorized by has the expertise in an official or review of the system. Therefore, please section 105 of the Civil Liberties Act of technical capacity to assist in the submit any comments by September 10, 1988 (50 U.S.C. App. 1989b). Finally, administration of such program or to 2003. The public, OMB and the the names of some individuals, e.g., analyze information relating to the Congress are invited to submit witnesses, may not yet be on the central investigation, trial or hearing and the comments to: Mary Cahill, Management indices and may be obtained by direct dissemination is reasonably necessary to and Planning Staff, Justice Management access to the file jackets. Such file elicit such assistance, information or Division, Department of Justice, 1331 jackets are located within the respective expert analysis, or to obtain the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47612 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

cooperation of a prospective witness or promote the coordination of efforts to SAFEGUARDS: informant; prevent, detect, investigate, and Information in manual and computer (3) A record relating to a case or prosecute health care fraud; to assist form is safeguarded and protected in matter, or any facts derived therefrom, efforts by victims of health care fraud to accordance with applicable Department may be disseminated in a proceeding obtain restitution; to enable private security regulations for systems of before a court, grand jury, health plans to participate in local, records. Only a limited number of staff administrative or regulatory proceeding regional, and national health care fraud members who are assigned a specific or any other adjudicative body before task force activities; and to assist identification code will be able to use which CRT is authorized to appear, tribunals, which have jurisdiction over the computer to access the stored when the United States, or any agency claims against private health plans for information. However, a section may or subdivision thereof, is a party to allegedly improper disclosures to the decide to allow its employees access to litigation or has an interest in litigation Department of Justice of information the system in order to perform their and such records are determined by concerning suspected health care fraud, official duties. CRT to be arguably relevant to the in determining whether the private litigation; health plan qualifies for statutory RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: (4) A record relating to a case or immunity from civil liability as Records are maintained on the system matter may be disseminated to an actual provided by Section 201 of the Health while current and required for official or potential party to litigation or the Insurance Portability and Government use. When no longer party’s attorney (a) for the purpose of Accountability Act of 1998, codified at needed on an active basis, the paper negotiation or discussion on such 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7c(a)(3)(B)(iii); files are transferred to the Federal matters as settlement of the case or (12) Information permitted to be Records Center, Suitland, Maryland and matter, plea bargaining or (b) in released to the news media and the some records are transferred to informal discovery proceedings; public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2 may be computer tape and stored in accordance (5) A record relating to a case or made available unless it is determined with Department security regulations for matter that has been referred for that release of the specific information systems of records. Final disposition is investigation may be disseminated to in the context of a particular case would in accordance with records retention the referring agency to notify such constitute an unwarranted invasion of schedules approved by NARA. agency of the status of the case or matter personal privacy; or of any determination that has been (13) Information may be disclosed as SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: made; is necessary to respond to inquiries by Executive Officer, Administrative (6) A record relating to a person held Members of Congress on behalf of Management Section, Civil Rights in custody or probation during a individual constituents who are subjects Division, United States Department of criminal proceeding or after conviction of CRT records; Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., may be disseminated to any agency or (14) A record may be disclosed as a Washington, DC 20530–0001. individual having responsibility for the routine use to the National Archives and NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: maintenance, supervision or release of Records Administration (NARA) and to such person; the General Services Administration Part of this system is exempted from (7) A record may be disseminated to (GSA) in records management this requirement under 5 U.S.C. the United States Commission on Civil inspections conducted under the 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). Address inquiries Rights in response to its request and authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906; to the System Manager listed above. pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975d; (15) To a former employee of the RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: (8) To contractors, grantees, experts, Department for purposes of: Responding Part of this system is exempted from consultants, students, and others to an official inquiry by a Federal, State, this requirement under 5 U.S.C. performing or working on a contract, or local government entity or 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). To the extent that service, grant, cooperative agreement, or professional licensing authority, in this system of records is not subject to other assignment for the Federal accordance with applicable Department exemption, it is subject to access and Government, when necessary to regulations; or facilitating contest. A determination as to accomplish an agency function related communications with a former exemption shall be made at the time a to this system of records; employee that may be necessary for request for access is received. A request (9) A record may be disseminated to personnel-related or other official for access to a record retrievable in this mediators, negotiators or other persons purposes where the Department requires system shall be made in writing, with engaged in efforts to resolve or settle information and/or consultation the envelope and letter clearly marked cases or matters pending in the Division assistance from the former employee ‘‘Privacy Access Request.’’ Include in as is necessary to enable them to regarding a matter within that person’s the request the full name of the perform their assigned duties; former area of responsibility. (10) A record may be disseminated to individual, his or her current address, complainants and victims to the extent POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, date and place of birth, notarized necessary to provide such persons with RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND signature or dated signature submitted information and explanations DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: under penalty of perjury (28 CFR concerning the progress or results of the STORAGE: 16.41(d)), the subject of the case or investigation or case arising from the Information in this system is stored matter as described under ‘‘Categories of matters of which the complainants or on index cards, in file jackets, and on records in the system,’’ and any other victims complained or of which they computer disks or tapes. information which is known and may be were a victim; of assistance in locating the record, such (11) Information relating to health RETRIEVABILITY: as the name of the civil rights related care fraud may be disclosed to private Records are retrieved by the names of case or matter involved, where and health plans, or associations of private individuals or by case numbers assigned when it occurred and the name of the health plans, health insurers, or to certain cases being investigated by judicial district involved. The requester associations of health insurers, to the Department. will also provide a return address for

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47613

transmitting the information. Access attorneys, paralegals, and professional disseminated in a proceeding before a requests should be directed to the staff, who handle complaints, cases or court, grand jury, administrative or System Manager listed above. matters of concern to CRT. regulatory proceeding or any other adjudicative body before which CRT is CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: authorized to appear, when the United Individuals desiring to contest or (1) Records in this system pertain to States, or any agency or subdivision amend non-exempt information a broad variety of cases and matters thereof, is a party to litigation or has an retrievable in the system should direct under the jurisdiction of the CRT interest in litigation and such records their request to the System Manager relating to disability rights, education, are determined by CRT to be arguably listed above, stating clearly and employment, housing, special litigation, relevant to the litigation; concisely what information is being voting, criminal, enforcement, and other (2) In the event that a record in this contested, the reasons for contesting it, civil rights laws or matters; system, either alone or in conjunction and the proposed amendment to the (2) Summary information of these with other information, indicates a information sought. cases or matters is maintained in the violation or potential violation of law— system including such information as criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature— RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: names of principal parties or subjects, the relevant records may be referred to Sources of information contained in proper case name, case numbers, the appropriate Federal, State, local, this system may be an agency or person judicial district, assignments, alleged foreign, or Tribal law enforcement who has or offers information related to violation, section of CRT responsible for authority or other appropriate agency the law enforcement responsibilities the matter, and case status, ranging from charged with the responsibility for and/or other statutorily-mandated the preliminary development stage, investigating or prosecuting such duties of CRT. through investigation, litigation, violation or charged with enforcing or compliance, appeal, conviction or implementing such law; EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: closure; and (3) A record relating to this system The Attorney General has exempted (3) The ICM also has a time reporting may be disseminated to an actual or parts of this system from subsections system that allows the CRT to capture, potential party to litigation or the (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); analyze and report the professional time party’s attorney or authorized (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the attorneys, paralegals and other representative for the purpose of Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a employees of the Division spend on negotiation or discussion on such (j)(2), (k)(1) and (k)(2). Rules have been investigation and case related tasks. matters as settlement of the case or promulgated in accordance with the matter, plea bargaining, or in informal PURPOSE(S): requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 (b), (c) and discovery proceedings; (e) and have been published in the The ICM is designed to track, count (4) A record may be disseminated to Federal Register. These exemptions and measure all investigations and cases contractors, grantees, experts, apply only to the extent that throughout their life cycle. The CRT consultants, students, and others information in a record pertaining to a uses reports generated from this system performing or working on a contract, particular individual relates to an to provide a profile for each section’s service, grant, cooperative agreement, or official federal investigation and/or law activities and to furnish management other assignment for the Federal enforcement matter. Those files indexed with a global perspective to the CRT Government, when necessary to under an individual’s name which workload. The ICM also has a time accomplish an agency function related concern only the administrative reporting system that allows the CRT to to this system of records; management of restitution payments capture, analyze and report the level of (5) A record may be disseminated to under section 105 of the Civil Liberties effort attorneys, paralegals, and complainants and victims to the extent Act of 1988 are not being exempted professional staff spend on investigation necessary to provide such persons with pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and and case related tasks. One purpose of information and explanations (k)(2). this system is to assist employees and concerning the progress or results of the officials of the Department to keep track investigation or case arising from the JUSTICE/CRT–003 of resources and professional time matters of which the complainants or SYSTEM NAME: devoted to individual assignments to victims complained or of which they matters and broad categories of cases. were a victim; Civil Rights Interactive Case Another purpose is to assist the CRT in Management System (ICM). (6) A record may be disseminated to preparing budget requests and other a former employee of the Department for SYSTEM LOCATION: reports which may be submitted to the purposes of: Responding to an official United States Department of Justice, Attorney General or to Congress. inquiry by a Federal, State, or local Civil Rights Division (CRT), 950 AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, The records in this system are kept applicable Department regulations; or DC 20530–0001. under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3101 facilitating communications with a and in the ordinary course of fulfilling CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE former employee that may be necessary the responsibilities assigned to CRT SYSTEM: for personnel-related or other official under 28 CFR 0.50, 0.51. These persons may include: purposes where the Department requires Complainants, victims, defendants, ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE information and/or consultation parties, experts, mediators, Assistant SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND assistance from the former employee U.S. Attorneys, judges, and individuals THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: regarding a matter within that person’s or representatives on behalf of A record maintained in this system of former area of responsibility. individuals in potential or actual cases records may be disseminated as a (7) Information permitted to be and matters of concern under routine use of such records as follows: released to the news media and the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division; (1) A record relating to this system, or public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2 may be and CRT employees, including any facts derived therefrom, may be made available unless it is determined

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47614 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

that release of the specific information birth, and notarized signature or dated in receiving notification of submissions in the context of a particular case would signature submitted under penalty of under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act constitute an unwarranted invasion of perjury (28 CFR 16.41(d)), and any other and to comply with their requests. personal privacy; information which is known and may be Section 5, which applies to several (8) Information in the system may be of assistance in locating the record. The states and some counties, requires that disclosed as is necessary to respond to requester should provide a return any change with respect to voting that inquiries by Members of Congress on address for transmitting the information. a specially covered jurisdiction makes is behalf of individual constituents who Access requests should be directed to legally unenforceable unless and until are subjects of CRT records; and the System Manager listed above. the jurisdiction obtains from the Federal (9) A record from the system or court in the District of Columbia or from records may be disclosed to National CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: the Attorney General a determination Archives and Records Administration Individuals desiring to contest or that the change is not discriminatory on (NARA) and General Services amend their records should direct their account of race, color, or membership in Administration (GSA) for records request to the System Manager listed a language minority group. If the management inspections conducted above, stating clearly and concisely jurisdiction is unable to prove the under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 what information is being contested, the absence of discrimination, the Attorney and 2906. reasons for contesting it, and the General objects to the change, and it proposed amendment to the information remains legally unenforceable. Further, POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, sought. RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND the Registry may be used to notify the DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: persons listed therein of any proposed changes in the ‘‘Procedures for the Information on time-allocation is STORAGE: Administration of Section 5 of the provided by CRT attorneys, paralegals Records are maintained electronically Voting Rights Act of 1965,’’ 46 FR 870 and professional staff who handle in the ICM computerized information (1981), codified in 28 CFR part 51, and complaints, cases or matters of concern system. to solicit their comments with respect to to the CRT. Sources of information any such proposed changes. RETRIEVABILITY: contained in this system are those Information is retrieved by name or records reflecting all cases or matters ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE other identifier assigned to an under consideration by CRT. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND individual. THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: A record maintained in this system of SAFEGUARDS: None. records may be disseminated as a Information contained in the system JUSTICE/CRT–004 routine use of such records as follows: is unclassified. It is safeguarded and (1) A record relating to this system, or protected in accordance with SYSTEM NAME: any facts derived therefrom, may be Departmental security regulations for Registry of Names of Interested disseminated in a proceeding before a systems or records. Access to the Persons Desiring Notification of court, grand jury, administrative or records is limited to those employees Submissions under Section 5 of the regulatory proceeding or any other whose official duties require such Voting Rights Act. adjudicative body before which CRT is access in order to perform their duties. authorized to appear, when the United SYSTEM LOCATION: States, or any agency or subdivision RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil thereof, is a party to litigation or has an Records are maintained in the system Rights Division (CRT), 950 Pennsylvania interest in litigation and such records while current and required for official Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530– are determined by CRT to be arguably Government use. When no longer 0001. relevant to the litigation; needed on an active basis, the records (2) A record relating to this system CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE are stored in accordance with may be disseminated to an actual or SYSTEM: Departmental security regulations for potential party to litigation or the systems of records. The disposition Persons who have requested that the party’s attorney or authorized schedule is pending approval at NARA. Attorney General send them notice of representative for the purpose of submissions under Section 5 of the SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: negotiation or discussion on such Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. matters as settlement of the case or Executive Officer, Administrative 1973c. Management Section, Civil Rights matter, plea bargaining or in informal Division, United States Department of CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: discovery proceedings. (3) A record may be disseminated to Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., The Registry contains the name, contractors, grantees, experts, Washington, DC 20530–0001. address and telephone numbers of interested parties, and, where consultants, students, and others NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: appropriate, the voting area or areas performing or working on a contract, Address inquiries to the system with respect to which notification was service, grant, cooperative agreement, or manager listed above. requested by such persons. other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: accomplish an agency function related A request for access to a record 46 FR 877 (1981) codified in 28 CFR to this system of records; retrievable in this system shall be made part 51, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, 5 U.S.C. 301 (4) A record may be disseminated to in writing, with the envelope and letter and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510. complainants and victims to the extent clearly marked ‘‘Privacy Access necessary to provide such persons with Request.’’ Include in the request the full PURPOSE(S): information and explanations name of the individual involved, his or The purpose is to maintain records in concerning the progress and/or results her current address, date and place of a Registry to identify persons interested of the investigation or case arising from

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47615

the matters of which the complainants Departmental rules and procedures (hereinafter EEOC) which have resulted or victims complained or of which they governing access, production and in a determination by EEOC that there were a victim; disclosure of any materials contained in is probable cause to believe that such (5) Information permitted to be its official files. discrimination has occurred, and released to the news media and the attempts by EEOC at conciliation have public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2 may be RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: failed. made available from systems of records An individual or organizational name maintained by the Department of Justice is retained in the Registry until such CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: unless it is determined that release of time as that person or organization The system may contain copies of the specific information in the context requests that the name be deleted. charges filed with EEOC, copies of of a particular case would constitute an EEOC’s ‘‘determination’’ letters, letters SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: unwarranted invasion of personal of transmittal from and to EEOC, privacy; Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights analyses or evaluations summarizing the (6) Information in the system may be Division, U.S. Department of Justice, charge and other materials in the EEOC disclosed as is necessary to respond to 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., file, internal memoranda, attorney inquiries by Members of Congress on Washington, DC 20530–0001. notes, and copies of ‘‘right to sue’’ letters issued by CRT. The system may behalf of individual constituents who NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: are subjects of CRT records; also contain charges related to (7) A record from a system of records Address inquiries to: Assistant allegations of employment may be disclosed as a routine use to Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, discrimination by public employers National Archives and Records U.S. Department of Justice, 950 filed by individual complainants which Administration (NARA) and General Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, have been referred to the Department of Services Administration (GSA) in DC 20530–0001. Justice by EEOC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. records management inspections RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 2000e–5(f) (1) or 5(f) (2), or to conducted under the authority of 44 This system contains no information allegations of a pattern or practice of U.S.C. 2904 and 2906; about any individual other than as violations of the Equal Employment (8) A record may be disclosed to a Opportunity Act by a public employer former employee of the Department for described in Categories of Records above. Persons whose names appear on which have been referred to the purposes of: Responding to an official Department of Justice by EEOC pursuant inquiry by a Federal, State, or local the Registry may have access thereto or have their names and other information to 42 U.S.C. 2000e–6. If the Department government entity or professional has determined to initiate an licensing authority, in accordance with pertaining to them deleted or modified upon a request of the same nature as investigation or litigate a matter referred applicable Department regulations; or by EEOC the records pertaining to that facilitating communications with a indicated in 46 FR 877 (1981), codified in 28 CFR part 51. matter are not contained in the system. former employee that may be necessary Such records and their routine uses are for personnel-related or other official CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: described under the notice for the purposes where the Department requires Same as the above. system named: Central CRT Index File information and/or consultation and Associated Records/CRT–001. assistance from the former employee RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: regarding a matter within that person’s Sources of information in the Registry former area of responsibility; and are those persons or organizations The records in this system of records (9) In the event that a record in this whose names appear therein by virtue of are kept under authority of 44 U.S.C. system, either alone or in conjunction their having requested inclusion in the 3101 and in the ordinary course of with other information, indicates a Registry pursuant to 46 FR 877 (1981), fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to violation or potential violation of law— codified in 28 CFR 51.32. CRT under 28 CFR 0.50, 0.51. criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature— PURPOSE(S): the relevant records may be referred to EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: One purpose of this system is to assist the appropriate federal, state, local, None. foreign, or tribal law enforcement employees and officials of the authority or other appropriate agency JUSTICE/CRT–007 Department to make decisions regarding the issuance of right to sue letters or charged with the responsibility for SYSTEM NAME: investigating or prosecuting such make decisions regarding prosecutions Files on Employment Civil Rights violation or charged with enforcing or of alleged instances of employment Matters Referred by the Equal implementing such law. discrimination. Another purpose is to Employment Opportunity Commission. assist the Division in preparing budget POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, requests, statistical reports, and other SYSTEM LOCATION: RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND internal functions of the Department. DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE STORAGE: Rights Division (CRT), 950 Pennsylvania SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Names are stored in a card file system, Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530– 0001. THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: and an automated addresser. A record maintained in this system of RETRIEVABILITY: CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE records may be disseminated as a SYSTEM: Records in this system are retrievable routine use of such records as follows: by the names of interested persons or Persons seeking employment or (1) A record relating to this system, or organizations. employed by a state or a political any facts derived therefrom may be subdivision of a state who have filed disseminated in a proceeding before a SAFEGUARDS: charges alleging discrimination in court, grand jury, administrative or Information in the system is employment with the Equal regulatory proceeding or any other safeguarded in accordance with Employment Opportunity Commission adjudicative body before which CRT is

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47616 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

authorized to appear, when the United regarding a matter within that person’s CFR 16.41(d)), any other known States, or any agency or subdivision former area of responsibility. information which may be of assistance thereof, is a party to litigation or has an in locating the record, and a return POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, interest in litigation and such records address for transmitting the information. RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND are determined by CRT to be arguably DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Access requests will be directed to the relevant to the litigation; System Manager listed above. (2) A record relating to this system STORAGE: may be disseminated to an actual or Information in the systems is stored CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: potential party to litigation or the on index cards, in file jackets, and in Individuals desiring to contest or party’s attorney or authorized computer disks which are maintained amend information maintained in the representative for the purpose of by the Employment Litigation Section, system should direct their request to the negotiation or discussion on such Civil Rights Division. System Manager listed above, stating matters as settlement of the case or clearly and concisely what information RETRIEVABILITY: matter, plea bargaining or in informal is being contested, the reasons for discovery proceedings; Information is retrieved primarily by contesting it, and the proposed (3) A record may be disseminated to using the appropriate Department of amendment to the information sought. contractors, grantees, experts, Justice file number, or the name of the Disclosure of part of the material in this consultants, students, and others charging party, or the state in which the system may be prohibited by 42 U.S.C. performing or working on a contract, alleged discrimination occurred or 2000e-5(b), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(e) and 44 service, grant, cooperative agreement, or through other logical queries to the U.S.C. 3510(b). Part of this system is other assignment for the Federal computer based system. exempted from access and contest under Government, when necessary to SAFEGUARDS: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k) (2). accomplish an agency function related to this system of records; Information in manual and computer RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: (4) A record may be disseminated to form is safeguarded and protected in accordance with applicable Sources of information in this system complainants and victims to the extent are charging parties, information necessary to provide such persons with Departmental security regulations for systems of records. Staff members who compiled and maintained by EEOC, and information and explanations employees and officials of the concerning the progress and/or results are assigned a specific identification code will be able to use the computer Department of Justice responsible for of the investigation or case arising from the disposition of the referral request. the matters of which the complainants or to access the stored information in or victims complained or of which they order to perform their official duties. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: were a victim; RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: The Attorney General has exempted (5) Information permitted to be the system from 5 U.S.C. 552a (d)(1), (2), released to the news media and the If the Department determines not to prosecute a matter referred by the EEOC, (3), and (4) of the Privacy Act pursuant public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2 may be to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2). Rules have been made available from systems of records the records transmitted with the referral are returned to the EEOC. Other records promulgated in accordance with the maintained by the Department of Justice requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 (b), (c) and unless it is determined that release of in the system are kept for routine use by the Department and when no longer (e), and have been published in the the specific information in the context Federal Register. of a particular case would constitute an needed are sent to the Federal Records unwarranted invasion of personal Center or are destroyed. Records are JUSTICE/CRT–009 privacy; retained and disposed of in accordance (6) Information in the system may be with item 25 of the General Records SYSTEM NAME: disclosed as is necessary to respond to Schedule 1 as approved by the Archivist Civil Rights Division Travel Reports, inquiries by Members of Congress on of the United States. CRT–009. behalf of individual constituents who SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: SYSTEM LOCATION: are subjects of CRT records; Assistant Attorney General, Civil (7) A record from a system of records Rights Division, U.S. Department of United States Department of Justice, may be disclosed as a routine use to Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Civil Rights Division (CRT), 950 National Archives and Records Washington, DC 20530–0001. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Administration (NARA) and General Washington, DC 20530–0001. Services Administration (GSA) in NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: records management inspections Same as the above. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE conducted under the authority of 44 SYSTEM: U.S.C. 2904 and 2906; and RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: All persons who have filed travel (8) A record may be disclosed to a A request for access to a record from authorization forms or travel voucher former employee of the Department for this system shall be made in writing forms for official travel on behalf of purposes of: Responding to an official with the envelope and letter clearly CRT. inquiry by a Federal, State, or local marked ‘‘Privacy Access Request.’’ The government entity or professional request should indicate the state where CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: licensing authority, in accordance with the alleged employment discrimination The Division’s filing system contains applicable Department regulations; or took place and the employer to which information concerning travel facilitating communications with a the charge was related. The requester expenditures which were recorded on former employee that may be necessary should also provide the full name of the travel authorization forms and travel for personnel-related or other official individual involved, his or her current voucher forms by CRT employees or purposes where the Department requires address, date and place of birth, other persons authorized to travel for information and/or consultation notarized signature or dated signature CRT and submitted to the Budget and assistance from the former employee submitted under penalty of perjury (28 Finance Branch of CRT.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47617

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: National Archives and Records destruction as scheduled by NARA in The records in this system of records Administration (NARA) and General General Records Schedule 9. are kept under the authority of 44 U.S.C. Services Administration (GSA) in SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 3101 and in the ordinary course of records management inspections fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to conducted under the authority of 44 Executive Officer, Administrative CRT under 28 CFR 0.50, 0.51. U.S.C. 2904 and 2906; Management Section, Civil Rights (7) A record may be disclosed to a Division, United States Department of PURPOSE(S): former employee of the Department for Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., One purpose of this system is to assist purposes of: Responding to an official Washington, DC 20530–0001. employees and officials of the Division inquiry by a Federal, State, or local NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: to measure and track expenditures government entity or professional within the Division. Other purposes are licensing authority, in accordance with Same as the above. to assist the Division in preparing applicable Department regulations; or RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: reports within various sections to facilitating communications with a control and review expenditures. Requests by former employees for former employee that may be necessary access to records in this system may be for personnel-related or other official ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE made in writing with the envelope and SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND purposes where the Department requires letter clearly marked ‘‘Privacy Act THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: information and/or consultation Request.’’ The request should clearly A record maintained in this system of assistance from the former employee state the dates on which official travel records may be disseminated as a regarding a matter within that person’s was taken. The requestor should also routine use of such records as follows: former area of responsibility; and provide the full name of the individual (1) A record relating to this system, or (8) In the event that a record in this involved, his or her current address, any facts derived therefrom, may be system, either alone or in conjunction date and place of birth, notarized disseminated in a proceeding before a with other information, indicates a signature or dated signature submitted court, grand jury, administrative or violation or potential violation of law- under penalty of perjury (28 CFR regulatory proceeding or any other criminal, civil or regulatory in nature- 16.41(d)), any other known information adjudicative body before which CRT is the relevant records may be referred to which may be of assistance in locating authorized to appear, when the United the appropriate Federal, State, local, the record, and a return address for States, or any agency or subdivision foreign, or Tribal law enforcement transmitting the information. Access thereof, is a party to litigation or has an authority or other appropriate agency requests will be directed to the System interest in litigation and such records charged with the responsibility for Manager. Present employees may are determined by CRT to be arguably investigating or prosecuting such request access by contacting the System relevant to the litigation; violation or charged with enforcing or Manager directly. (2) A record relating to this system implementing such law. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: may be disseminated to an actual or POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, potential party to litigation or the RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Individuals desiring to contest or party’s attorney or authorized DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: amend information maintained in the representative for the purpose of system should direct their request to the STORAGE: negotiation or discussion on such System Manager listed above, stating matters as settlement of the case or Records are stored in hard copy and clearly and concisely what information matter, plea bargaining or in informal electronic form. is being contested, the reason for discovery proceedings; RETRIEVABILITY: contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information sought. (3) A record may be disseminated to Records in this system are retrieved contractors, grantees, experts, by the names of those individuals RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: consultants, students, and others identified under the caption ‘‘Categories Sources of information are CRT performing or working on a contract, of individuals covered by the system.’’ service, grant, cooperative agreement, or employees and other authorized persons other assignment for the Federal SAFEGUARDS: who file travel authorization and travel Government, when necessary to Information in the system is voucher forms. accomplish an agency function related unclassified. However, the records are EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: to this system of records; protected in accordance with applicable None. (4) Information permitted to be Department security regulations for [FR Doc. 03–20342 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] released to the news media and the systems of records. Records are stored in public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2 may be locked cabinets and access to the BILLING CODE 4410–13–P made available from systems of records computer is limited to those personnel maintained by the Department of Justice who have a need for access to perform unless it is determined that release of their official duties. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Mine Safety and Health Administration unwarranted invasion of personal Records are maintained on the system Proposed Information Collection privacy; while current and required for official Request Submitted for Public (5) Information in the system may be Government use. When no longer Comment and Recommendations; disclosed as is necessary to respond to needed on an active basis, the records Explosive Materials and Blasting Units inquiries by Members of Congress on are transferred to computer tape and behalf of individual constituents who stored in accordance with Departmental ACTION: Notice. are subjects of CRT records; security regulations for systems of (6) A record from a system of records records. Final disposition will be in SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as may be disclosed as a routine use to accordance with records retirement or part of its continuing effort to reduce

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47618 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

paperwork and respondent burden II. Desired Focus of Comments Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this first day of August 2003. conducts a pre-clearance consultation MSHA is particularly interested in David L. Meyer, program to provide the general public comments which: and Federal agencies with an Director, Office of Administration and • Evaluate whether the proposed opportunity to comment on proposed Management. collection of information is necessary and/or continuing collections of [FR Doc. 03–20361 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] for the proper performance of the information in accordance with the BILLING CODE 4510–43–P functions of the agency, including Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 whether the information will have (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). This practical utility; program helps to ensure that requested DEPARTMENT OF LABOR • Evaluate the accuracy of the data can be provided in the desired agency’s estimate of the burden of the format, reporting burden (time and Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed collection of information, financial resources) is minimized, including the validity of the Proposed Information Collection collection instruments are clearly methodology and assumptions used; Request Submitted for Public understood, and the impact of collection • Comment and Recommendations; requirements on respondents can be Enhance the quality, utility, and Daily Inspection of Surface Coal Mine; properly assessed. clarity of the information to be collected; and Certified Person; Reports of Inspection Currently, the Mine Safety and Health • (Pertains to Surface Coal Mines) Administration (MSHA) is soliciting Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who comments concerning the extension of ACTION: Notice. the information collection related to 30 are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, CFR 57.22606(a); Explosive Materials SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as electronic, mechanical, or other and Blasting Units. part of its continuing effort to reduce technological collection techniques or paperwork and respondent burden DATES: Submit comments on or before other forms of information technology, conducts a pre-clearance consultation October 10, 2003. e.g., permitting electronic submissions program to provide the general public ADDRESSES: Send comments to Jane of responses. and Federal agencies with an Tarr, Management Analyst, A copy of the proposed information opportunity to comment on proposed Administration and Management 1100 collection request can be obtained by and/or continuing collections of Wilson Boulevard, Room 2171, contacting the employee listed in the information in accordance with the Arlington, VA 22209–3939. Commenters FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 are encouraged to send their comments section of this notice, or viewed on the (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). This on computer disk, or via Internet e-mail Internet by accessing the MSHA home program helps to ensure that requested to [email protected]. Ms. Tarr can be page (http://www.msha.gov) and then data can be provided in the desired reached at (202) 693–9824 (voice), or choosing ‘‘Statutory and Regulatory format, reporting burden (time and (202) 693–9801 (facsimile). Information’’ and Federal Register financial resources) is minimized, Documents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane collection instruments are clearly Tarr, Management Analyst, Records III. Current Actions understood, and the impact of collection Management Group, U.S. Department of requirements on respondents can be MSHA uses the information to Labor, Mine Safety and Health properly assessed. determine that the explosives and Administration, Room 2171, 1100 Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA blasting procedures to be used in a gassy underground mine are safe. Federal Administration (MSHA) is soliciting 22209–3939. Ms. Tarr can be reached at comments concerning the extension of [email protected] (Internet e-mail), inspectors use the notification to ensure that safe procedures are followed. the information collection related to the (202) 693–9824 (voice), or (202) 693– 30 CFR 77.1713; Daily Inspection of Type of Review: Extension. 9801 (facsimile). Surface Coal Mine; Certified Person; Agency: Mine Safety and Health SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reports of Inspection. Administration. I. Background Title: Explosive Materials and DATES: Submit comments on or before October 10, 2003. MSHA evaluates and approves Blasting Units. ADDRESSES: explosive materials and blasting units as OMB Number: 1219–0095. Send comments to Jane permissible for use in the mining Frequency: On occasion. Tarr, Management Analyst, industry. However, since there are no Affected Public: Business or other for- Administration and Management, 1100 permissible explosives or blasting units profit. Wilson Boulevard, Room 2171, available that have adequate blasting Respondents: 2. Arlington, VA 22209–3939. Commenters capacity for some metal and nonmetal Average Time Per Respondent: 1 are encouraged to send their comments gassy mines, Standard 57.22606(a) was hour. on computer disk, or via Internet e-mail promulgated to provide procedures for Total Burden Hours: 2 hours. to [email protected]. Ms. Tarr can be mine operators to follow for the use of Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): reached at (202) 693–9824 (voice), or non-approved explosive materials and $0. (202) 693–9801 (facsimile). blasting units. Mine operators must Total Burden Cost (operating/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane notify MSHA in writing, of all non- maintaining): $0. Tarr, Management Analyst, Records approved explosive materials and Comments submitted in response to Management Group, U.S. Department of blasting units to be used prior to their this notice will be summarized and/or Labor, Mine Safety and Health use. MSHA evaluates the non-approved included in the request for Office of Administration, Room 2171, 1100 explosive materials and determines if Management and Budget approval of the Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA they are safe for blasting in a potentially information collection request; they will 22209–3939. Ms. Tarr can be reached at gassy environment. also become a matter of public record. [email protected] (Internet e-mail),

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47619

(202) 693–9824 (voice), or (202) 693– Title: Daily Inspection of Surface Coal the information collection related to the 9801 (facsimile). Mine; Certified Person; Reports of 30 CFR 57.22204, Main Fan Operation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection. DATES: Submit comments on or before OMB Number: 1219–0083. October 10, 2003. I. Background Recordkeeping: A report of hazardous ADDRESSES: Send comments to Jane Section 77.1713 requires coal mine conditions detected must be entered Tarr, Management Analyst, operators to conduct examinations of into a record book along with a Administration and Management 1100 each active working area of surface description of any corrective actions Wilson Boulevard, Room 2171, mines, active surface installations at taken. Arlington, VA 22209–3939. Commenters these mines, and preparation plants not Frequency: On Occasion. are encouraged to send their comments associated with underground coal mines Affected Public: Business or other for- on computer disk, or via Internet e-mail for hazardous conditions during each profit. to [email protected]. Ms. Tarr can be shift. A report of hazardous conditions Respondents: 1,514. reached at (202) 693–9824 (voice), or detected must be entered into a record Responses: 513,246. (202) 693–9801 (facsimile). book along with a description of any Average Time Per Respondent: 1.5 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane corrective actions taken. hours. Total Burden Hours: 769,869 hours. Tarr, Management Analyst, Records II. Desired Focus of Comments Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): Management Group, U.S. Department of MSHA is particularly interested in $0. Labor, Mine Safety and Health comments which: Total Burden Cost (operating/ Administration, Room 2171, 1100 • Evaluate whether the proposed maintaining): $0. Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA collection of information is necessary Comments submitted in response to 22209–3939. Ms. Tarr can be reached at for the proper performance of the this notice will be summarized and/or [email protected] (Internet e-mail), functions of the agency, including included in the request for Office of (202) 693–9824 (voice), or (202) 693– whether the information will have Management and Budget approval of the 9801 (facsimile). practical utility; information collection request; they will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Evaluate the accuracy of the also become a matter of public record. I. Background agency’s estimate of the burden of the Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this first day Title 30, CFR 57.22204, which is proposed collection of information, of August 2003. applicable only to specific underground including the validity of the David L. Meyer, methodology and assumptions used; mines that are categorized as gassy • Enhance the quality, utility, and Director, Office of Administration and requires main fans to have pressure- Management. clarity of the information to be recording systems. Main fans are to be collected; and [FR Doc. 03–20362 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] inspected daily while operating if • Minimize the burden of the BILLING CODE 4510–43–P persons are underground, and collection of information on those who certification of the inspection is to be are to respond, including through the made by signature and date. When DEPARTMENT OF LABOR use of appropriate automated, accumulations of explosive gases such electronic, mechanical, or other Mine Safety and Health Administration as methane are not swept from the mine technological collection techniques or by the main fans, they may reasonably other forms of information technology, Proposed Information Collection be expected to contact an ignition e.g., permitting electronic submissions Request Submitted for Public source. The results are usually of responses. Comment and Recommendations; disastrous and multiple fatalities may be A copy of the proposed information Main Fan Operation and Inspection expected to occur. The main fan collection request can be obtained by requirements of this standard are contacting the employee listed in the ACTION: Notice. significantly more stringent than those For Further Information Contact section imposed on non-gassy mines. of this notice, or viewed on the Internet SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as II. Desired Focus of Comments by accessing the MSHA home page part of its continuing effort to reduce (http://www.msha.gov) and then paperwork and respondent burden MSHA is particularly interested in choosing ‘‘Statutory and Regulatory conducts a pre-clearance consultation comments which: Information’’ and ‘‘Federal Register program to provide the general public • Evaluate whether the proposed Documents.’’ and Federal agencies with an collection of information is necessary opportunity to comment on proposed for the proper performance of the III. Current Actions and/or continuing collections of functions of the agency, including Under 30 CFR 77.1713, coal mine information in accordance with the whether the information will have operators to conduct examinations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 practical utility; each active working area of surface (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). This • Evaluate the accuracy of the mines, active surface installations at program helps to ensure that requested agency’s estimate of the burden of the these mines, and preparation plants not data can be provided in the desired proposed collection of information, associated with underground coal mines format, reporting burden (time and including the validity of the for hazardous conditions during each financial resources) is minimized, methodology and assumptions used; shift. A report of hazardous conditions collection instruments are clearly • Enhance the quality, utility, and detected must be entered into a record understood, and the impact of collection clarity of the information to be book along with a description of any requirements on respondents can be collected; and corrective actions taken. properly assessed. • Minimize the burden of the Type of Review: Extension. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health collection of information on those who Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting are to respond, including through the Administration. comments concerning the extension of use of appropriate automated,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47620 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

electronic, mechanical, or other NATIONAL CREDIT UNION Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 0. technological collection techniques or ADMINISTRATION By the National Credit Union other forms of information technology, Administration Board on July 30, 2003. e.g., permitting electronic submissions Agency Information Collection Becky Baker, Activities: Submission to OMB for an of responses. Secretary of the Board. Extension of a Currently Approved A copy of the proposed information [FR Doc. 03–20314 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] collection request can be obtained by Collection; Comment Request BILLING CODE 7535–01–P contacting the employee listed in the AGENCY: National Credit Union For Further Information Contact section Administration (NCUA). of this notice, or viewed on the Internet ACTION: Request for comment. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION by accessing the MSHA home page ADMINISTRATION (http://www.msha.gov) and then SUMMARY: The NCUA intends to submit choosing ‘‘Statutory and Regulatory the following information collection to Agency Information Collection Information’’ and ‘‘Federal Register the Office of Management and Budget Activities: Submission to OMB for Documents.’’ (OMB) for review and clearance under Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Information III. Current Actions the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Collection; Comment Request Information collected through the This information collection is published AGENCY: National Credit Union pressure recordings is used by the mine to obtain comments from the public. operator and MSHA for maintaining a Administration (NCUA). DATES: Comments will be accepted until ACTION: Request for comment. constant vigil on mine ventilation, and October 10, 2003. to ensure that unsafe conditions are ADDRESSES: Interested parties are SUMMARY: The NCUA intends to submit identified early and corrected. invited to submit written comments to the following information collection to Technical consultants may occasionally NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB the Office of Management and Budget review the information when solving Reviewer listed below: (OMB) for review and clearance under problems. Clearance Officer: Mr. Neil the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Type of Review: Extension. McNamara, (703) 518–6447, National (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Agency: Mine Safety and Health Credit Union Administration, 1775 This information collection is published Administration. Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia to obtain comments from the public. Title: Main Fan Operation and 22314–3428, Fax No. (703) 518–6489, DATES: Comments will be accepted until Inspection. E-mail: [email protected]. September 10, 2003. OMB Number: 1219–0030. OMB Reviewer: Mr. Joseph F. Lackey, ADDRESSES: Interested parties are Recordkeeping: Section 57.22204 (202) 395–4741, Office of Management invited to submit written comments to requires that main fans are to be and Budget, Room 10226, New NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB inspected daily while operating if Executive Office Building, Washington, Reviewer listed below: persons are underground, and DC 20503. Clearance Officer: Mr. Neil certification of the inspection is to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Copies of the McNamara, (703) 518–6447, National made by signature and date. information collection requests, with Credit Union Administration, 1775 Certifications and pressure recordings applicable supporting documentation, Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia are to be kept for one year and made may be obtained by calling the NCUA 22314–3428, Fax No. (703) 518–6489, E- available to authorized representatives Clearance Officer, Neil McNamara, (703) mail: [email protected]. of the Secretary. 518–6447. OMB Reviewer: Mr. Joseph F. Lackey, Frequency: On occasion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal (202) 395–4741, Office of Management Affected Public: Business or other for- for the following collection of and Budget, Room 10226, New profit. information: Executive Office Building, Washington, Respondents: 7. OMB Number: 3133–0163. DC 20503. Total Responses: 3,465. Form Number: N/A. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Copies of the Average Time Per Response: 30 Type of Review: Extension of a information collection requests, with minutes. currently approved collection. applicable supporting documentation, Total Burden Hours: 1,733 hours. Title: Privacy of Consumer Financial may be obtained by calling the NCUA Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): Information, 12 CFR part 716 and Clearance Officer, Neil McNamara, (703) $735. Requirements for Insurance, 12 CFR part 518–6447. Total Burden Cost (operating/ 741. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal maintaining): $735. Description: The regulations direct for the following collection of Comments submitted in response to newly chartered and troubled credit information: this notice will be summarized and/or unions to provide NCUA with 30 days OMB Number: 3133–0144. included in the request for Office of notice before making a management Form Number: N/A. Management and Budget approval of the change. 12 CFR parts 701.14 and Type of Review: Reinstatement , with information collection request; they will 741.205. change, of a previously approved also become a matter of public record. Estimated No. of Respondents/ collection for which approval has Recordkeepers: 10,627. expired. Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this first day Estimated Burden Hours Per Title: Examination Survey. of August 2003. Response: 45 hours. Description: The survey provides David L. Meyer, Frequency of Response: federal credit unions with an Director, Office of Administration and Recordkeeping and third party opportunity to give NCUA feedback on Management. disclosure. its examination procedures. NCUA uses [FR Doc. 03–20363 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Estimated Total Annual Burden the information to evaluate and improve BILLING CODE 4510–43–P Hours: 478,215. the examination process.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47621

Estimated No. of Respondents/ collection for which approval has ACTION: Notice of permits issued under Recordkeepers: 6,023. expired. the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Estimated Burden Hours Per Title: Notice of change of Officials and Public Law 95–541. Response: 5 minutes. Senior Executive Officers. Frequency of Response: Reporting and Description: The regulations direct SUMMARY: The National Science annually. newly chartered and troubled credit Foundation (NSF) is required to publish Estimated Total Annual Burden unions to provide NCUA with 30 days notice of permits issued under the Hours: 502 hours. notice before making a management Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. change. 12 CFR parts 701.14 and This is the required notice. By the National Credit Union 741.205. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration Board on July 30, 2003. Estimated No. of Respondents/ Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office of Becky Baker, Recordkeepers: 589. Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Estimated Burden Hours Per Secretary of the Board. Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Response: 2.0 hours. Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. [FR Doc. 03–20315 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Frequency of Response: Reporting and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June BILLING CODE 7535–01–U on occasion. Estimated Total Annual Burden 27, 2003, the National Science Hours: 1178. Foundation published a notice in the NATIONAL CREDIT UNION Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. Federal Register of a permit application ADMINISTRATION received. A permit was issued on By the National Credit Union August 4, 2003, to: Peter Doran; Permit Administration Board on July 30, 2003. Agency Information Collection No. 2004–007. Activities: Submission to OMB for a Becky Baker, Nadene G. Kennedy, Reinstatement, With Change, of a Secretary of the Board. Previously Approved Collection; [FR Doc. 03–20316 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Permit Officer. Comment Request BILLING CODE 7535–01–U [FR Doc. 03–20318 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555–01–M AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACTION: Request for comment. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Notice of Permits Issued Under the COMMISSION SUMMARY: The NCUA intends to submit Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 the following information collection to [Docket No. 40–7580] the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY: National Science Foundation. (OMB) for review and clearance under ACTION: Notice of permits issued under Notice of Consideration of Amendment the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Request for Fansteel, Inc., To (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Public Law 95–541. Authorize Decommissioning of Its This information collection is published Muskogee, Oklahoma Site, and SUMMARY: The National Science to obtain comments from the public. Opportunity To Provide Comments and Foundation (NSF) is required to publish To Request a Hearing DATES: Comments will be accepted until notice of permits issued under the September 10, 2003. Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory ADDRESSES: Interested parties are This is the required notice. Commission. invited to submit written comments to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Notice of consideration of NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office of amendment request to authorize Reviewer listed below: Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National decommissioning, and opportunity to Clearance Officer: Mr. Neil Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson provide comments and/or to request a McNamara, (703) 518–6447, National Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. hearing. Credit Union Administration, 1775 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 17, 2003, the National Science FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.C. 22314–3428, Fax No. (703) 518–6489, E- Foundation published a notice in the Shepherd, Decommissioning Branch, mail: [email protected]. Federal Register of a Waste Division of Waste Management, Office OMB Reviewer: Mr. Joseph F. Lackey, Management permit application of Nuclear Material Safety and (202) 395–4741, Office of Management received. A Waste Management permit Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and Budget, Room 10226, New was issued on August 1, 2003, to the Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Executive Office Building, Washington, following applicant: Pat Shaw, Quark 0001. Telephone: (301) 415–6712; Fax: DC 20503. Expeditions, Inc.; Permit No.: 2004 (301) 415–5398; and/or by email: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Copies of the WM–001. [email protected]. information collection requests, with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: applicable supporting documentation, Nadene G. Kennedy, may be obtained by calling the NCUA Permit Officer. I. Introduction Clearance Officer, Neil McNamara, (703) [FR Doc. 03–20317 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 518–6447. BILLING CODE 7555–01–M Commission (NRC) is considering SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal issuance of a license amendment to for the following collection of materials license SMB–911 to authorize information: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION decommissioning of the Fansteel site OMB Number: 3133–0121. Notice of Permits Issued Under the near Muskogee, Oklahoma. The license, Form Number: N/A. Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 issued under 10 CFR part 40, authorizes Type of Review: Reinstatement, with Fansteel to possess up to 400 tons of change, of a previously approved AGENCY: National Science Foundation. natural uranium and thorium in any

VerDate jul<14>2003 23:08 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47622 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

form. The material at the Muskogee site days of the date of publication of this IV. Further Information is in the form of uranium, thorium, Federal Register notice. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of radium, and decay-chain products in The request for a hearing must be the NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ details process equipment and buildings, soil, filed with the Office of the Secretary with respect to this action, including the sludge, and groundwater. either: decommissioning plan, the application On July 24, 2003, the licensee 1. By delivery to Secretary, U.S. for amendment and supporting submitted a request for license Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One documentation, are available amendment to approve the site White Flint North, 11555 Rockville electronically for public inspection and decommissioning plan (DP) submitted Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738, copying from the Publicly Available on January 14, 2003, as amended by between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal Records (PARS) component of NRC’s letter dated May 8, 2003. Fansteel workdays; or document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is proposes removing the radiological 2. By mail, telegram, or facsimile contamination from buildings and addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear accessible from the NRC Web site at equipment, soil, and groundwater to Regulatory Commission, Washington, http://www.nrc.gov/reading–rm.html. meet the unrestricted release DC 20555–0001. Attention: Docketing These documents may also be requirements of the Radiological Criteria and Services Branch. Because of examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the for License Termination rule (10 CFR continuing disruptions in the delivery NRC Public Document Room (PDR), part 20, subpart E) (62 FR 39058). of mail to United States Government located at One White Flint North, 11555 Before the issuance of the offices, it is requested that requests for Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland amendment, NRC will have made hearing be also transmitted to the 20852. findings required by the Atomic Energy Secretary of the Commission either by Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC’s means of facsimile transmission to 301– of August, 2003. regulations. These findings will be 415–1101, or by e-mail to For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. documented in a Safety Evaluation [email protected]. Claudia M. Craig, Report, an Environmental Assessment, In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), Acting Chief, Decommissioning Branch, and in an amendment to License No. each request for a hearing must also be Division of Waste Management, Office of SMB–911. served, by delivering it personally or by Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. mail, to: II. Opportunity To Provide Comments [FR Doc. 03–20377 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] 1. The applicant, Fansteel, Inc., BILLING CODE 7590–01–P In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1405, Number One Tantalum Place, North the NRC is providing notice to Chicago, IL 60064 Attention: Mr. Gary individuals in the vicinity of the site Tessitore, and; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL that the NRC is in receipt of a DP, and 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the MANAGEMENT will accept comments concerning this Office of the General Counsel, U.S. decommissioning proposal and its Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One Submission for OMB Emergency associated environmental impacts. White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Clearance and Review; Comment Comments with respect to this action Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738, Request for a Revision of a Currently should be provided to J.C. Shepherd, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal Approved Collection: Presidential Decommissioning Branch, Division of workdays, or by mail, addressed to the Management Intern Program; Online Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Application and Resume Builder Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Because AGENCY: Office of Personnel Washington, DC 20555–0001. of continuing disruptions in the Management. Telephone: (301) 415–6712; Fax: (301) delivery of mail to United States ACTION: Notice. 415–5398; and/or by email: Government offices, it is requested that [email protected]. requests for hearing be also transmitted SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comments received after 30 days will to the Office of the General Counsel Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. be considered if practicable to do so, but either by means of facsimile L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice only those comments received on or transmission to 301–415–3725, or by e- announces that the Office of Personnel before the due date can be assured mail to [email protected]. Management (OPM) submitted a request consideration. In addition to meeting other to the Office of Management and Budget for emergency clearance and review of III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 2 of NRC’s regulations, a request for a a revision of a currently approved NRC also provides notice that this is hearing filed by a person other than an collection for an automated online a proceeding on an application for an applicant must describe in detail: application and resume builder for the amendment of a license falling within 1. The interest of the requester in the Presidential Management Intern (PMI) the scope of Subpart L, ‘‘Informal proceeding; Program. Approval of the PMI online Hearing Procedures for Adjudication in 2. How that interest may be affected application and resume builder is Materials Licensing Proceedings,’’ of by the results of the proceeding, necessary to facilitate the timely NRC’s rules of practice for domestic including the reasons why the requester registration, nomination, selection and licensing proceedings in 10 CFR part 2. should be permitted a hearing, with placement of PMI finalists in Federal Whether or not a person has or intends particular reference to the factors set out agencies. to provide comments as set out in in section 2.1205(h) The present OPM Form 1300, PMI Section II above, pursuant to section 3. The requester’s areas of concern Application, consists of a 6-page scan- 2.1205(a), any person whose interest about the licensing activity that is the form in order to be nominated into the may be affected by this proceeding may subject matter of the proceeding; and program. Graduate students must fill out file a request for a hearing in accordance 4. The circumstance establishing that the form, attach a resume, and submit with section 2.1205(d). A request for a the request for a hearing is timely in the form and attachment to their hearing must be filed within thirty (30) accordance with section 2.1205(d). school’s nomination official. OPM

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47623

received OMB approval last year, with information is accurate, and based on Amex Company Guide. On June 10, an expiration of 12/31/2003, for this valid assumptions and methodology; 2003, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 collection of information. In order to and ways in which we can minimize the to the proposed rule change.3 On June meet Government Paperwork burden of the collection of information 16, 2003, the Amex filed Amendment Elimination Act (GPEA) requirements of on those who are to respond, through No. 2 to the proposed rule change.4 The automating government forms by the use of appropriate technological proposed rule change, as amended, was October 2003, OPM is developing an collection techniques or other forms of published for comment in the Federal online application and resume builder information technology. Register on June 27, 2003.5 The to substitute for the existing method of For copies of this proposal, contact Commission received no comments on collection. Upon OMB approval, the Mary Beth Smith-Toomey at (202) 606– the proposal. online application and resume builder 8358, fax (202) 418–3251 or e-mail to The Amex believes that the proposed will replace the present scan-form, and [email protected]. Please include rule change, as amended, codifies the OPM will transfer the form identifier of your complete mailing address with existing fees that it assesses to closed- OPM Form 1300 to the online version. your request. end fund issuers.6 The Commission An alternative paper-based application DATES: Comments on this proposal believes that the proposed rule change, will be made available for those should be received within 5 calendar as amended, should enhance the applicants with disabilities and/or days from the date of this publication. transparency of the fees that the Amex inability to access the Internet. We are requesting OMB to take action charges to closed-end fund issuers. The following significant changes within 15 calendar days from the close have been made to the application and of this Federal Register Notice. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is nomination process: (1) The online ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments application and resume builder will to: U.S. Office of Personnel consistent with the requirements of the replace the OPM Form 1300 scan-form Management, HRPS\CLCS\PMIP, ATTN: Act and the rules and regulations with an electronic version available Rob Timmins, 1900 E Street, NW., Room thereunder applicable to a national through the PMI Web site; (2) the PMI 1425, Washington, DC 20415–9820, e- securities exchange and, in particular, Web site’s Program Overview will be the requirements of Section 6 of the mail: [email protected]. 7 updated to reflect the changes needed to and Act and the rules and regulations complete the online application and Allison Eydt, OPM Desk Officer, thereunder.8 The Commission finds that resume builder; (3) the online resume Office of Management and Budget, the rule change, as amended, is builder will be structured similarly to Office of Information and Regulatory consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the the USAJOBS online resume builder; (4) Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Act,9 which requires that the rules of the an accomplishment record containing NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC Amex provide for the equitable three short essays has been added to 20503. allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and facilitate a first round of assessments for other charges among its issuers. PMI finalists as a prescreening tool; (5) Office of Personnel Management. Kay Coles James, It is therefore ordered, pursuant to data will be collected from all 10 Director. Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the applicants and not just those nominated proposed rule change, as amended (File [FR Doc. 03–20326 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] by school officials; and (6) students will No. SR–AMEX–2003–41) be, and it be required to submit their applications BILLING CODE 6325–38–P hereby is, approved. by October 15, while the deadline for schools to submit their nominees will 3 In Amendment No. 1, which replaced the remain October 31. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE original filing in its entirety, the Amex amended We estimate 5,000 applications will COMMISSION Section 146 of the Amex Company Guide to be received and processed in the 2003/ eliminate a reference to the multiple listing of 2004 open season for PMI applications. [Release No. 34–48275; File No. SR–Amex– closed-end funds by a single sponsor as an example 2003–41] During the 2002/2003 open season OPM of a situation where the Amex could reduce or waive listing fees when it deems that such action received approximately 2,800 nominees, Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order is appropriate to achieve an equitable result. See a 24% increase over the previous year Approving Proposed Rule Change and letter from Geraldine Brindisi, Vice President and and a 460% increase in the last 7 years. Corporate Secretary, Amex to Nancy J. Sanow, Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto by Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, We estimate students will need 2 hours the American Stock Exchange LLC to complete the online application and Commission, dated June 9, 2003. Relating to Listing Fees for Closed- 4 In Amendment No. 2, the Amex amended resume builder and electronically End Funds Section 141 of the Amex Company Guide to clarify submit it to their nominating school that the Amex will base its annual fee for closed- official. In addition, we estimate school August 1, 2003. end funds on the number of shares outstanding at the end of the calendar year. See letter from nominating officials will need 1⁄2 hour On May 2, 2003, the American Stock Michael Cavalier, Associate General Counsel, Amex to receive, review and render a decision Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’) submitted to to Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of on the student’s application for the Securities and Exchange Market Regulation, Commission, dated June 13, nomination into the PMI program. The Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 2003. annual estimated burden for nominees to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48074 is 10,000 hours and 2,500 hours for Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule (June 23, 2003), 68 FR 38413. 6 Telephone conversation between Michael 2 school nominating officials, for a total of 19b–4 thereunder, a proposed rule Cavalier, Associate General Counsel, Amex, and 12,500 hours. change to Sections 140 and 141 of the Tim Fox, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Comments are particularly invited on: Amex Company Guide which would Commission, on May 15, 2003. Whether this information is necessary codify the practice of charging original 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. for the proper performance of functions listing and annual fees to closed-end 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule’s of the Office of Personnel Management, funds listed under Section 101 of the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital and whether it will have practical formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). utility; whether our estimate of the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). public burden of this collection of 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47624 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

For the Commission, by the Division of members and non-clearing members a member or non-clearing member is Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated utilizing NSCC’s Commission indebted to NSCC, it shall pay 3 the authority.11 Settlement service when they fail to amount due to NSCC on or before the Margaret H. McFarland, timely pay all or part of their monthly commission bill settlement date of each Deputy Secretary. commission settlement obligations to month, generally the 15th, as [FR Doc. 03–20380 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] NSCC. determined by NSCC. NSCC relies upon BILLING CODE 8010–01–P the timely receipt of the funds from II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s such members and non-clearing Statement of the Purpose of, and members in order to pay others who are Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE owed funds as a result of using the Change COMMISSION Commission Settlement service. In its filing with the Commission, [Release No. 34–48290; File No. SR–NSCC– NSCC Rule 48 (Disciplinary NSCC included statements concerning 2003–17] Proceedings) allows NSCC to impose the purpose of and basis for the fines upon participants for any error, proposed rule change and discussed any Self-Regulatory Organizations; delay, or other conduct that is comments it received on the proposed National Securities Clearing determined to be detrimental to NSCC’s rule change. The text of these statements Corporation; Notice of Filing and operations. Historically, NSCC has may be examined at the places specified Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed imposed fines upon participants for in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared Rule Change Relating to the Imposition failure to timely settle end of day summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), of Fines settlement balances, late settlement and (C) below, of the most significant acknowledgement, and for late payment August 5, 2003. aspects of these statements.2 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the of clearing fund deposits. In 2002, NSCC Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s commenced fining participants for (‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on Statement of the Purpose of, and failure to timely provide requested July 2, 2003, National Securities Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule financial and operational information Clearing Corporation (‘‘NSCC’’) filed Change and for failure to timely notify NSCC on with the Securities and Exchange The purpose of the proposed rule an ongoing basis of certain internal Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the change is to modify NSCC’s rules to conditions which may cause NSCC to provide that fines may be imposed upon reevaluate the participants continued proposed rule change as described in 4 Items I, II, and III below, which items members and non-clearing members participation. NSCC now intends to have been prepared primarily by NSCC. utilizing NSCC’s Commission commence fining members and non- The Commission is publishing this Settlement service when they fail to clearing members for failing to timely notice to solicit comments on the timely pay all or part of their monthly meet their obligations to NSCC arising proposed rule change from interested commission settlement obligations to out of their use of the Commission parties. NSCC. Settlement service. Under NSCC Rule 16 (Settlement of The proposed rule change also I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commissions), NSCC provides a service amends NSCC Addendum P (Fine Statement of the Terms of Substance of where all payments of commissions due Schedule) to reflect the addition of the the Proposed Rule Change on business where a principal is given fines. The proposed fine schedule in The purpose of the proposed rule up between NSCC members and non- NSCC Addendum P, Section 5, change is to modify NSCC Rule 16 and clearing members may be settled on a Settlement of Commissions, pursuant to Addendum P to impose fines upon monthly basis. Rule 16 provides that if NSCC Rule 16,5 is as follows:

Fourth Net debit First Second Third occasion occasion occasion occasion (or greater)

$0–100,000 ...... (1) $100 $200 $300 $100,000–200,000 ...... (1) 200 300 400 Greater than $200,000 ...... (1) 300 400 500

Notes: (1) First occasions result in a result in the imposition of a fine and The proposed rule change is warning letter to the Member/Non-clearing may subject the member or non-clearing consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(G) of member. member to action by NSCC pursuant to the Act 7 and the rules and regulations (2) In addition to the fine, unpaid amounts Rule 46 (Restriction on Access to thereunder because it will allow NSCC will incur interest charges until paid. Services) or Rule 48 (Disciplinary to impose fines upon late paying users In addition, Rule 16 has been Proceedings). Participants will continue of the Commission Settlement service modified to clearly state that failure to to have the ability to contest fines as thereby further ensuring that NSCC has timely pay all or part of a monthly currently provided for within NSCC’s the ability to appropriately discipline Commission Settlement balance may rules and procedures.6 for violations of its rules.

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46903 5 Fines to be levied for offenses within a moving 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (November 25, 2002), 67 FR 72012 (December 3, twelve-month period beginning with the first 2 The Commission has modified the text of the 2002) (order approving NSCC’s rule change to fine occasion. summaries prepared by NSCC. members who fail to timely provide requested 6 See, e.g., NSCC Rule 37 (Hearing Procedures). 3 Members and non-clearing members may make financial or operating information or who fail to 7 15 U.S.C. 77(q–1)(b)(3)(G). payment via ACH wire transfer, Fed Funds wire provide other changes to NSCC). transfer, or by check made payable to NSCC.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47625

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Percent Statement on Burden on Competition available for inspection and copying in NSCC does not believe that the the Commission’s Public Reference Businesses and non-profit orga- nizations without credit avail- proposed rule change will have an Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of able elsewhere ...... 2.953 impact on or impose a burden on Others (including non-profit or- competition. such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal ganizations) with credit avail- able elsewhere ...... 5.500 (C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s office of NSCC. All submissions should Statement on Comments on the For Economic Injury: refer to File No. SR–NSCC–2003–17 and Businesses and small agricul- Proposed Rule Change Received From should be submitted by September 2, Members, Participants or Others tural cooperatives without 2003. credit available elsewhere ..... 2.953 No written comments relating to the For the Commission, by the Division of proposed rule change have been Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated The number assigned to this disaster solicited or received. NSCC will notify 10 authority. for physical damage is 353411. For the Commission of any written Margaret H. McFarland, economic injury the number is 9W6300 comments received by NSCC. Deputy Secretary. for Ohio; and 9W6400 for Pennsylvania. III. Date of Effectiveness of the [FR Doc. 03–20379 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Proposed Rule Change and Timing for BILLING CODE 8010–01–P Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Commission Action Dated: August 4, 2003. The foregoing rule change will take Herbert L. Mitchell, effect upon filing pursuant to Section SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b– Associate Administrator for Disaster 4(f)(2) 9 thereunder because the Assistance. [Declaration of Disaster #3534] proposed rule constitutes a due, fee, or [FR Doc. 03–20313 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] other charge. At any time within sixty State of Ohio BILLING CODE 8025–01–P days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may summarily As a result of the President’s major abrogate such rule change if it appears disaster declaration on August 1, 2003, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION to the Commission that such action is I find that Mahoning, Medina, Portage, necessary or appropriate in the public Summit, and Trumbull Counties in the [Declaration of Disaster #3531] interest, for the protection of investors, State of Ohio constitute a disaster area or otherwise in furtherance of the due to damages caused by tornadoes, State of Texas; Amendment # 3 purposes of the Act. flooding, severe storms, and high winds occurring on July 21, 2003, and In accordance with a notice received IV. Solicitation of Comments continuing. Applications for loans for from the Department of Homeland Interested persons are invited to physical damage as a result of this Security—Federal Emergency submit written data, views, and disaster may be filed until the close of Management Agency, effective August arguments concerning the foregoing, business on September 30, 2003, and for 1, 2003, the above numbered declaration including whether the proposed rule economic injury until the close of is hereby amended to include Atascosa, change is consistent with the Act. business on May 3, 2004, at the address McMullen and Zavala counties as Persons making written submissions listed below or other locally announced disaster areas due to damages caused by should file six copies thereof with the locations: U.S. Small Business Hurricane Claudette occurring on July Secretary, Securities and Exchange Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, 15, 2003 and continuing through July Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, 28, 2003. Washington, DC 20549–0609. GA 30308. In addition, applications for economic Comments may also be submitted In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses electronically at the following e-mail injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous counties of address: [email protected]. All located in the following contiguous Bexar, Kinney, Maverick and Webb in comment letters should refer to File No. counties may be filed until the specified the State of Texas may be filed until the SR–NSCC–2003–17. This file number date at the above location: Ashland, specified date at the previously should be included on the subject line Ashtabula, Columbiana, Cuyahoga, designated location. All other counties if e-mail is used. To help us process and Geauga, Lorain, Stark, and Wayne in the contiguous to the above named primary review comments more efficiently, State of Ohio; and Crawford, Lawrence, counties have been previously declared. comments should be sent in hardcopy and Mercer counties in the State of All other information remains the or by e-mail but not by both methods. Pennsylvania. same, i.e., the deadline for filing Copies of the submission, all subsequent The interest rates are: amendments, all written statements applications for physical damage is with respect to the proposed rule September 16, 2003, and for economic change that are filed with the Percent injury the deadline is April 19, 2004. Commission, and all written For Physical Damage: (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance communications relating to the Homeowners with credit avail- Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) proposed rule change between the able elsewhere ...... 5.625 Dated: August 4, 2003. Commission and any person, other than Homeowners without credit Cheri L. Cannon, those that may be withheld from the available elsewhere ...... 2.812 public in accordance with the Businesses with credit available Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster elsewhere ...... 5.906 Assistance. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). [FR Doc. 03–20312 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] 9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47626 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF STATE shipment of rough diamonds is being Guyana—Geology and Mines exported as having the authority to Commission. [Public Notice 4438] validate a Kimberley Process Certificate. Hungary—Ministry of Economy and Bureau of Economic and Business Section 3(4) of the Act defines Transport. Affairs; Participating Countries ‘‘Importing Authority’’ as one or more India—The Gem and Jewellery Export (Hereinafter Known as ‘‘Participants’’) entities designated by a Participant into Promotion Council. Eligible for Trade in Rough Diamonds whose territory a shipment of rough Israel—The Diamond Controller. Ivory Coast—Ministry of Mines and under the Clean Diamond Trade Act diamonds is imported as having the Energy. (Pub. L 108–19) and Section 2 of authority to enforce the laws and Japan—Ministry of Economy, Trade and Executive Order 13312 of July 29, 2003 regulations of the Participant regarding imports, including the verification of Industry. AGENCY: Department of State. the Kimberley Process Certificate Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea— Korea Daesong Trading ACTION: Notice. accompanying the shipment. The List of Participants will be updated Corporation. SUMMARY: In accordance with Sections 3 periodically as additional entities meet Republic of Korea—Ministry of and 6 of the Clean Diamond Trade Act the requirements of the Act. Commerce, Industry and Enterprise. (Pub. L. 108–19) and Section 2 of Pursuant to Section 3 of the Clean Laos—Ministry of Finance. Executive Order 13312 of July 29, 2003, Diamond Trade Act (the Act), Section 2 Lebanon—Ministry of Economy and the Department of State is identifying all of the Executive Order 13312 of July 29, Trade. Lesotho—Commissioner of Mines and the Participants eligible for trade in 2003, and Delegation of Authority No. Geology. rough diamonds under the Act, and 245 (April 23, 2001), I hereby identify Malaysia—Ministry of International their respective Importing and the following entities as Participants Exporting authorities. Trade and Industry. under section 6(b) of the Act. Included Mali—Department of Mines, Energy and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay in this List are the Importing and Water. L. Bruns, Special Negotiator for Conflict Exporting Authorities for Participants, Malta—Importing and Exporting Diamonds, Bureau of Economic and as provided in Section 6(b) of the Act. Authority not currently available. Business Affairs, Department of State, List of Participants Mauritius—Ministry of Commerce. (202) 647–2857. Mexico—Importing and Exporting Algeria—Ministry of Energy and Mines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4 Authority not currently available. of the Clean Diamond Trade Act (the Angola—Ministry of Geology and Namibia—Ministry of Mines and ‘‘Act’’) requires the President to prohibit Mines. Energy. Armenia—Ministry of Trade and the importation into, and the Norway—Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Economic Development. exportation from, the United States of Philippines—Importing and Exporting Australia—Export Authority— any rough diamond, from whatever Authority not currently available. Department of Industry, Tourism source, that has not been controlled Poland—Ministry of Economy, Labour and Resources; Importing through the Kimberley Process and Social Policy. Authority—Australian Customs Certification Scheme (KPCS). Under Russia—Gokhran, Ministry of Finance. Service. Section 3(2) of the Act, ‘‘controlled Sierra Leone—Government Gold and Belarus—Department of Finance. Diamond Office. through the Kimberley Process Botswana—Ministry of Minerals, Energy Certification Scheme’’ means an Slovenia—Ministry of Finance. and Water Resources. South Africa—South African Diamond importation from the territory of a Brazil—Ministry of Mines and Participant or exportation to the Board. Metallurgy. Sri Lanka—National Gem and Jewellery territory of a Participant of rough Burkina Faso—Importing and Exporting diamonds that is either (i) Carried out in Authority. Authority not currently available. Swaziland—Geological Surveys and accordance with the KPCS, as set forth Cameroon—Importing and Exporting Mines Department. in regulations promulgated by the Authority not currently available. Switzerland—State Secretariat for President, or (ii) controlled under a Canada—Natural Resources Canada. Economic Affairs. system determined by the President to Central African Republic—Ministry of Taiwan—Bureau of Foreign Trade. meet substantially the standards, Energy and Mining. Tanzania—Commissioner for Minerals. practices, and procedures of the KPCS. China—General Administration of Thailand—Ministry of Commerce. The referenced regulations are Quality Supervision, Inspection and Togo—Ministry of Mines and Geology. contained at 31 CFR part 592 (‘‘Rough Quarantine. Tunisia—Ministry of Commerce. Diamond Control Regulations’’). Democratic Republic of the Congo— Turkey—Importing and Exporting Section 6(b) of the Act requires the Ministry of Mines and Authority not currently available. President to publish in the Federal Hydrocarbons. Ukraine—State Gemological Centre of Register a list of all Participants, and all Republic of the Congo—Ministry of Ukraine. Importing and Exporting Authorities of Mines and Geology. United Arab Emirates—Dubai Metals Participants. Section 2 of Executive Cyprus—Importing and Exporting and Commodities Center. Order 13312 of July 29, 2003 delegates Authority not currently available. United States of America—Importing this function to the Secretary of State. Czech Republic—Ministry of Finance. Authority—The United States Section 3(7) of the Act defines European Community—DG/External Bureau of Customs and Border ‘‘Participant’’ as a state, customs Relations/A.2. Protection; Exporting Authority— territory, or regional economic Gabon—Ministry of Mines, Energy, Oil The Bureau of the Census. integration authority identified by the and Hydraulic Resources. Venezuela—Ministry of Energy and Secretary of State. Section 3(3) of the Ghana—Precious Metals Marketing Mines. Act defines ‘‘Exporting Authority’’ as Company, Limited. Vietnam—Ministry of Trade. one or more entities designated by a Guinea—Ministry of Mines and Zimbabwe—Ministry of Mines and Participant from whose territory a Geology. Mining Development.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47627

This notice shall be published in the Due Date for Answers, Conforming ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed AC Federal Register. Applications, or Motion to Modify 20–27F can be obtained from and Scope: August 13, 2003. comments may be returned to the Richard L. Armitage, Description: Amendment of Air Tahiti following: Federal Aviation Deputy Secretary of State, Department of Nui, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section Administration, Production and State. 41302, 14 CFR 211.20 and subpart B, Airworthiness Division, AIR–200, Room [FR Doc. 03–20391 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] requesting that its application for an 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., BILLING CODE 4710–07–P initial foreign air carrier permit be Washington, DC 20591. expanded to operate scheduled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: international air transportation, on inter Rodney Watson, Airworthiness DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION alia, Route 4, which allows operation of Certification Branch, AIR–220, service from points behind French Production and Airworthiness Division, Office of the Secretary Polynesia via French Polynesia and Room 815, Aircraft Certification Service, intermediate points to a point or points Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Aviation Proceedings, Agreements in the United States and beyond. Independence Avenue, SW., Filed the Week Ending July 25, 2003 Docket Number: OST–2001–10529. Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–8361. Date Filed: July 23, 2003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following Agreements were filed Due Date for Answers, Conforming with the Department of Transportation Applications, or Motion to Modify Background under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 Scope: August 13, 2003. and 414. Answers may be filed within The proposed AC 20–27F provides Description: Application of Arizona information and guidance on the 21 days after the filing of the Express Airlines Inc., requesting a application. fabrication and assembly, airworthiness waiver from the 45-Day filing certification, and operation of amateur- Docket Number: OST–2003–15787. requirement for renewal of its commuter Date Filed: July 25, 2003. built aircraft of all types; explains the authority. amount of fabrication and assembly the Parties: Members of the International Docket Number: OST–2002–12683. builder must accomplish for the aircraft Air Transport Association. Date Filed: July 24, 2003. Subject: Mail Vote 315 PTC2 ME 0127 Due Date for Answers, Conforming to be eligible for amateur-built dated 25 July 2003 r1–r15; Minutes— Applications, or Motion to Modify certification; and describes the role of PTC2 ME 0128 dated 25 July 2003; Scope: August 14, 2003. the FAA in the certification process. Tables—PTC2 Fares 0046 dated 25 July Description: Application of Evergreen Interested persons are invited to 2003; Intended effective date: 1 January International Airlines, Inc., requesting comment on the proposed AC 20–27F 2004. the start-up period for its experimental listed in this notice by submitting such certificate of public convenience and written data, views, or arguments as Andrea M. Jenkins, necessity for Route 816 be extended they desire to the aforementioned Program Manager, Docket Operations, through September 23, 2003. specified address. All comments Federal Register Liaison. received on or before the closing date [FR Doc. 03–20416 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Andrea M. Jenkins, for comments specified above will be BILLING CODE 4910–62–P Program Manager, Docket Operations, considered by the Director, Aircraft Federal Register Liaison. Certification Service, before issuing the [FR Doc. 03–20417 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] final AC. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BILLING CODE 4910–62–P Comments received on the proposed AC 20–27F may be examined before and Office of the Secretary after the comment closing date in Room DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 815, FAA headquarters building (FOB– Notice of Applications for Certificates 10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., of Public Convenience and Necessity Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC 20591, between 8:30 and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed a.m. and 4:30 a.m. Under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) Proposed Advisory Circular 20–27F, during the Week Ending July 25, 2003 Certification and Operation of Issued in Washington, DC on August 1, Amateur-Built Aircraft 2003. The following Applications for Frank P. Paskiewicz, Certificates of Public Convenience and AGENCY: Federal Aviation Manager, Production and Airworthiness Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Administration (FAA), DOT. Division, AIR–200. Permits were filed under Subpart B ACTION: Notice. [FR Doc. 03–20409 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department BILLING CODE 4910–13—M of Transportation’s Procedural SUMMARY: This notice announces the Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. availability of proposed Advisory seq.). The due date for Answers, Circular (AC) 20–27F, Certification and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Conforming Applications, or Motions to Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft for Modify Scope are set forth below for review and comment. Federal Aviation Administration each application. Following the Answer The proposed AC is written in plain period DOT may process the application language in an effort to keep this Agency Information Collection Activity by expedited procedures. Such guidance simple and easy to Under OMB Review understand. No guidance material procedures may consist of the adoption AGENCY: Federal Aviation of a show-cause order, a tentative order, changed during the rewrite of this document. Administration (FAA), DOT. or in appropriate cases a final order ACTION: Notice. without further proceedings. DATES: Comments submitted must Docket Number: OST–1998–4330. identify the proposed AC 20–27F and be SUMMARY: In compliance with the Date Filed: July 23, 2003. received by September 5, 2003. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

VerDate jul<14>2003 19:07 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47628 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An announces that the Information 2003. estimated 1,400 hours annually. Collection Request (ICR) abstracted Judith D. Street, Title: Laser Operations in the below has been forwarded to the Office FAA Information Collection Clearance Navigable Airspace (Advisory Circular of Management and Budget (OMB) for Officer, Standards and Information Division, (AC), Outdoor Laser Operations) approval of a new information APF–100. Type of Request: Extension of a collection activity. The ICR describes [FR Doc. 03–20410 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] currently approved collection the nature of the information collection BILLING CODE 4910–13–M OMB Control Number: 2120–0662. and the expected burden. A Notice of Affected Public: A total of 20 Proposed Rulemaking was published in operators of laser emissions. the Federal Register on September 27, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Abstract: The FAA requires the 2002, pages 61238–61240. Over 3,700 information in the interest of aviation public comments were received in Federal Aviation Administration safety to protect aircraft operations from the potential hazardous effect of laser response to the publication, the Agency Information Collection emissions. The information collected is response to which is included in the Activities Under OMB Review preamble of the final rule. reviewed for its impact on aviation in DATES: Comments must be submitted on AGENCY: Federal Aviation the vicinity of the laser activity. Upon or before September 10, 2003. A Administration (FAA), DOT. completion of the review of the comment to OMB is most effective if ACTION: Notice. information, the FAA issues a letter of OMB receives it within 30 days of determination to the respondent in publication. SUMMARY: In compliance with the regard of their request. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice estimated 2,200 hours annually. Street on (202) 267–9895. announces that the Information ADDRESS: Send comments to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Collection Request (ICR) abstracted Office of Information and Regulatory Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) below has been forwarded to the Office Affairs, Office of Management and of Management and Budget (OMB) for Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Title: Reports by Carriers on Incidents extension of the currently approved Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Involving Animals During Air collections. The ICR describes the Desk Officer. Comments are invited on: Transport. nature of the information collections Whether the proposed collection of Type of Request: New Collection. and the expected burden. The Federal OMB Control Number: 2120–xxxx. information is necessary for the proper Register Notice with a 60-day comment Form(s): N/A. performance of the functions of the Affected Public: A total of 30 period soliciting comments on the Department, including whether the transport air carriers. following collections of information was information will have practical utility; Abstract: Congress mandated this rule published on April 17, 2003 on page the accuracy of the Department’s as part of Public Law 106–810, to 19066. estimates of the burden of the proposed require air carriers to track and report DATES: Comments must be submitted on information collection; ways to enhance incidents of loss, injury, or death of a or before September 10, 2003. A the quality, utility and clarity of the pet during transport. The information comment to OMB is most effective if information to be collected; and ways to gathered and reported by the air carriers OMB receives it within 30 days of minimize the burden of the collection of will provide the public with valuable publication. information on respondents, including the use of automated collection information when choosing an air FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy techniques or other forms of information carrier to use when traveling with a pet. Street on (202) 267–9895. Air carriers that transport pets will be technology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the respondents. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2003. estimated 360 hours annually. Title: Aviation Research Grants Judith D. Street, ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Program. FAA Information Collection Clearance Office of Information and Regulatory Type of Request: Extension of a Officer, Standards and Information Division, Affairs, Office of Management and currently approved collection. APF–100. Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., OMB Control Number: 2120–0559. [FR Doc. 03–20412 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Form(s): FAA Forms 9550–1, 9550–2, BILLING CODE 4910–13–M Desk Officer. Comments are invited on: 9550–3, 9550–5, SF–5, SF–269, SF–270, Whether the proposed collection of SF–272, SF–LLL. information is necessary for the proper Affected Public: A total of 100 Grant DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION performance of the functions of the Applicants. Department, including whether the Abstract: The FAA Aviation Research Federal Aviation Administration information will have practical utility; and Development Grants Program Notice of Intent To Request Renewal the accuracy of the Department’s establishes uniform policies and From the Office of Management and estimates of the burden of the proposed procedures for the award and Budget (OMB) of Six Current Public information collection; ways to enhance administration of research grants to Collections of Information the quality, utility and clarity of the colleges, universities, not for profit information to be collected; and ways to organizations, and profit organizations AGENCY: Federal Aviation minimize the burden of the collection of for security research. This program Administration (FAA), DOT. information on respondents, including implements OMB Circular A–110, ACTION: Notice. the use of automated collection Public Law 101–508 sections 9205 and techniques or other forms of information 9208 and Public Law 101–604, section SUMMARY: In compliance with the technology. 107(d). Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47629

3501 et seq.), the FAA invites public used to determine the applicant’s determination that the noise exposure comment on six currently approved eligibility for certification in these areas. maps submitted by the Martin County pubic information collections which The current estimated annual reporting Board of Commissioners for Martin will be submitted to OMB for renewal. burden is 29,445 hours. County Airport/Witham Field under the DATES: Comments must be received on 4. 2120–0607: Pilot Records provisions of Title I of the Aviation or before October 10, 2003. Improvement Act of 1996. Title 49 Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed U.S.C. 44936(f) mandates that airlines (Pub. L. 96–193) and 14 CFR part 150 or delivered to the FAA at the following obtain safety records of prospective are in compliance with applicable address: Ms. Judy Street, Room 613, employees from the Federal Aviation requirements. The FAA also announces Federal Aviation Administration, Administration and from previous that it is reviewing a proposed noise Standards and Information Division, employers. The information collected is compatibility program that was APF–100, 800 Independence Ave., SW., used to determine the eligibility of submitted for Martin County Airport/ Washington, DC 20591. applicants for employment. The current Witham Field under Part 150 in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. estimated annual reporting burden is conjunction with the noise exposure Judy Street at the above address or on 101,708 hours. maps, and that this program will be (202) 267–9895. 5. 2120–0620: Special Federal approved or disapproved on or before Aviation Regulation No. 71. Special January 30, 2004. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. accordance with the Paperwork EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the 71 applies to air tour operators in Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may FAA’s determination on the noise Hawaii. SFAR requires that parts 121 not conduct or sponsor, and a person is exposure maps and of the start of its and 135 air tour operators verbally brief not required to respond to a collection review of the associated noise their passengers on safety, particularly of information unless it displays a compatibility program is July 30, 2003. related to overwater operations before currently valid OMB control number. The public comment period ends each air tour flight. The current Therefore, the FAA solicits comments September 30, 2003. estimated annual reporting burden is on the following current collections of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 6,667 hours. information in order to evaluate the Bonnie L. Baskin, Federal Aviation 6. 2120–0666: Noise Levels for U.S. Administration, Orlando Airports necessity of the collection, the accuracy Certified and Foreign Aircraft; of the agency’s estimate of the burden, District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A- Dr., Suite 400, Orlando Florida 32822, the quality, utility, and clarity of the Weighted Decibels. The FAA published information to be collected, and (407) 812–6331, Extension 30. Advisory Circular (AC) 36–1G, ‘‘Noise Comments on the proposed noise possible ways to minimize the burden of Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign the collection in preparation for compatibility program should also be Aircraft’’ in August 1997, and AC36–3G, submitted to the above office. submission to renew the clearances of ‘‘Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This the following information collections. Weighted Decibels’’ in April 1996. 1. 2120–0021: Certification, Pilots and notice announces that the FAA finds AC36–1G contains a list of aircraft noise Flight Instructors. 14 CFR 61 prescribes that the noise exposure maps submitted certification levels. AC36–3G contains a certification requirements for pilots, for Martin County Airport/Witham Field list of estimated airplane noise levels in flight instructors, and ground are in compliance with applicable A-weighted decibels (dBA). The FAA instructors. The information collected is requirements of part 150, effective July collects data from aircraft manufacturers used to determine the applicant’s 30, 2003. Further, FAA is reviewing a (or modifiers) to verify or supplement compliance with the certification proposed noise compatibility program data that resides within the FAA for use requirements and eligibility. The for that airport which will be approved in updating and publishing the two current estimated annual reporting or disapproved on or before January 30, ACs. The current estimated annual burden is 252,100 hours. 2004. This notice also announces the reporting burden is 875 hours. 2. 2120–0036: Notice of Landing Area availability of this program for public Proposal. 14 CFR part 157 requires that Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, review and comment. each person who intends to construct, 2003. Under Section 103 of Title I of the activate, deactivate, or change the status Judith D. Street, Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement of an airport, runway, or taxiway, must FAA Information Collection Clearance Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as notify the FAA. The collected Officer, APF–100. ‘‘the Act’’), an airport operator may information is used to determine the [FR Doc. 03–20413 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] submit to the FAA noise exposure maps effect the proposed action would have BILLING CODE 4910–13–M which meet applicable regulations and on existing airports and on the safe and which depict noncompatible land uses efficient use of the airspace, the traffic as of the date of submission of such patterns of other airports, the existing DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION maps, a description of projected aircraft airport structure and projected FAA operations, and the ways in which such programs. The current estimated annual Federal Aviation Administration operations will affect such maps. The reporting burden is 2,901 hours. Act requires such maps to be developed Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of 3. 2120–0085: Certification and in consultation with interested and Noise Compatibility Program and Operations: Federal Aviation affected parties in the local community, Request for Review; Martin County Regulations part 125. Part A of Subtitle government agencies, and persons using Airport/Witham Field, Stuart, FL VII of the Revised Title 49 U.S.C., the airport. authorizes the issuance of regulations AGENCY: Federal Aviation An airport operator who has governing the use of navigable airspace. Administration, DOT. submitted noise exposure maps that are 14 CFR part 125 prescribes requirements ACTION: Notice. found by FAA to be in compliance with for leased aircraft, Aviation Service the requirements of Federal Aviation Firms, and Air Travel Clubs. The SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, information collected by the agency is Administration (FAA) announces its promulgated pursuant to Title I of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47630 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Act, may submit a noise compatibility responsibility for the detailed DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION program for FAA approval which sets overlaying of noise exposure contours forth the measures the operator has onto the map depicting properties on Federal Aviation Administration taken or proposes for the reduction of the surface rests exclusively with the RTCA Special Committee 198: Next- existing noncompatible uses and for the airport operator which submitted those Generation Air/Ground prevention of the introduction of maps, or with those public agencies and Communications System (NEXCOM) additional noncompatible uses. planning agencies with which The Martin County Board of consultation is required under Section Commissioners submitted to the FAA AGENCY: Federal Aviation 103 of the Act. The FAA has relied on on May 23, 2003 noise exposure maps, Administration (FAA), DOT. the certification by the airport operator, descriptions and other documentation under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special which were produced during the Martin Committee 198 meeting. County Airport/Witham Field FAR Part that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished. 150 Noise Study conducted between SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice July 10, 2000 and May 23, 2003. It was The FAA has formally received the to advise the public of a meeting of requested that the FAA review this noise compatibility program for Martin RTCA Special Committee 198: Next- material as the noise exposure maps, as County Airport/Witham Field, also Generation Air/Ground Communication described in Section 103(a)(1) of the effective on July 30, 2003. Preliminary System (NEXCOM). Act, and that the noise mitigation review of the submitted material measures, to be implemented jointly by DATES: The meeting will be held on indicates that it conforms to the September 25, 2003, starting at 9 a.m. the airport and surrounding requirements for the submittal of noise communities, be approved as a noise compatibility programs, but that further ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at compatibility program under Section review will be necessary prior to RTCA, 1828 L Street, Suite 805, 104(b) of the Act. approval or disapproval of the program. Washington, DC, 20036. The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and related The formal review period, limited by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: descriptions submitted by Martin law to a maximum of 180 days, will be RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., County Board of Commissioners. The completed on or before January 30, Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; specific maps under consideration are 2003. telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) ‘‘2002 Noise Exposure Map (NEM)’’ and The FAA’s detailed evaluation will be 833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. ‘‘2007 Noise Exposure Map (NEM)’’ in conducted under the provisions of 14 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant the submission. The FAA has CFR part 150, section 150.33. The to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal determined that these maps for Martin primary considerations in the Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– County Airport/Witham Field are in evaluation process are whether the 463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is compliance with applicable proposed measures may reduce the level hereby given for a Special Committee requirements. This determination is of aviation safety, create an undue 198 meeting. The agenda will include: effective on July 30, 2003. FAA’s burden on interstate or foreign ∑ September 25: determination on the airport operator’s commerce, or be reasonably consistent noise exposure maps is limited to a ∑ with obtaining the goal of reducing Sign in and Introductions. finding that the maps were developed in existing noncompatible land uses and ∑ Opening Plenary Session (Welcome accordance with the procedures and Introductory Remarks, Review contained in Appendix A of FAR Part preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses. Agenda and Minutes of Previous 150. Such determination does not Meeting. constitute approval of the applicant’s Interested persons are invited to ∑ data, information or plans, or a comment on the proposed program with Review of June Program commitment to approve a noise specific reference to these factors. All Management Committee (PMC) compatibility program or to fund the comments, other than those properly Input to the National Airspace Systems (NAS). implementation of that program. addressed to local land use authorities, ∑ If questions arise concerning the will be considered by the FAA to the Closing Plenary Session (Date and precise relationship of specific extent practicable. Copies of the noise Place of Next Meeting). properties to noise exposure contours exposure maps, the FAA’s evaluation of Attendance is open to the interested depicted on a noise exposure map the maps, and the proposed noise public but limited to space availability. submitted under Section 103 of the Act, compatibility program are available for With the approval of the chairmen, it should be noted that the FAA is not examination at the following locations: members of the public may present oral involved in any way in determining the Federal Aviation Administration, statements at the meeting. Persons relative locations of specific properties Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 wishing to present statements or obtain with regard to the depicted noise Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400, information should contact the person contours, or in interpreting the noise listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION exposure maps to resolve questions Orlando, Florida 32822. CONTACT section. Members of the public concerning, for example, which Questions may be directed to the may present a written statement to the properties should be covered by the individual named above under the committee at any time. provisions of Section 107 of the Act. heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION These functions are inseparable from CONTACT. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2003. the ultimate land use control and Issued in Orlando, Florida, July 30, 2003. planning responsibilities of local Robert Zoldos, government. These local responsibilities W. Dean Stringer, FAA Systems Engineers, RTCA Advisory are not changed in any way under Part Manager, Orlando Airports District Office. Committee. 150 or through FAA’s review of noise [FR Doc. 03–20414 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 03–20415 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] exposure maps. Therefore, the BILLING CODE 4910–13–M BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47631

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Public Agency: Lehigh-Northampton agency’s application, the FAA has Airport Authority, Allentown, determined that the proposed class Federal Aviation Administration Pennsylvania. accounts for less than 1 percent of the Application Number: 03–06–C–00– total annual enplanements at Salt Lake Notice of Passenger Facility Charge ABE. City International Airport (SLC). (PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals Application Type: Impose and use a Brief Description of Projects Approved AGENCY: Federal Aviation PFC. for Collection at SLC and Use at SLC at Administration (FAA), DOT. PFC Level: $4.50. a $4.50 PFC Level: Total PFC Revenue Approved in this ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Concourse A apron expansion. Decision: $3,135,365. Approvals and Disapprovals. In June Concourse A apron expansion. Earliest Charge Effective Date: 2003, there were eight applications Concourse A apron reconstruction, September 1, 2003. phase I. approved. Additionally, 18 approved Estimated Charge Expiration Date: amendments to previously approved Concourse A apron reconstruction, March 1, 2005. applications are listed. phase II. Class of Air Carriers not Required to Deicing lagoon upgrade. SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly Collect PFC’s: Air taxi/commercial Security identification display area notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals operators. perimeter patrol road, phase I. and disapprovals under the provisions Determination: Approved. Based on Security identification display area of the Aviation Safety and Capacity information contained in the public perimeter patrol road, phase II. Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the agency’s application, the FAA has Taxiway H reconstruction H10–H12. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of determined that the proposed class Taxiway H reconstruction H7–H10. 1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of accounts for less than 1 percent of the Terminal unit 2 checked baggage and the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 total annual enplanements at Lehigh screening checkpoint queuing CFR part 158). This notice is published Valley International Airport. modifications. pursuant to paragraph d of section Brief Description of Projects Approved Concourse E SkyWest interim facility. 158.29. for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC Land acquisition for approach Level: PFC Applications Approved protection and noise compatibility, Loading bridges—post concourse. phase I. Public Agency: Wood County Airport Loading bridges—regional jet Terminal roadway security Authority, Parkersburg, West Virginia. modifications. improvements, phase II. Application Number: 03–02–C–00– Design and construct airfield electrical Taxiway H pavement reconstruction PKB. vault. H2–H4. Application Type: Impose and use a Design and construct aircraft rescue and Runway 16L/34R overlay. PFC. firefighting facility. North support tunnel road PFC Level: $4.50. Airfield security perimeter fencing. rehabilitation. Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Runway protection zone land Taxiway P extension. Decision: $286,543. acquisition, runway 24, and land Earliest Charge Effective Date: August Blast analysis study. acquisition in transitional surface. Security detection equipment 1, 2003. Noise mitigation—sound insulation modifications. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: ((phase II). February 1, 2009. Security gate modifications. Land acquisition, runway 6–24 noise. Brief Description of Project Partially Class of Air Carriers not Required to Design and construct air cargo apron— Approved for Collection at SLC and Use Collect PFC’s: phase II. Classes of Air Carriers not Required to at SLC at a $4.50 PFC Level: Noise mitigation—sound insulation. Collect PFC’s: Taxiway A rehabilitation. Maintenance equipment (snow removal (1) All air carriers operating under General aviation apron. equipment and aircraft rescue and Part 135; (2) all air carriers operating firefighting equipment). under Part 91; (3) any unscheduled Decision Date: June 6, 2003. For Further Information Contact; Lori Determination: Six proposed vehicles carriers operating under Part 121. did not meet eligibility requirements Determination: Approved. Based on Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports District and were disapproved. One aircraft information contained in the public Office, (717) 730–2835. rescue and firefighting vehicle exceeded agency’s application, the FAA has Public Agency: Salt Lake City determined that each proposed class Department of Airports, Salt Lake City, the minimum size of equipment accounts for less than 1 percent of the Utah. required. A smaller size vehicle, total annual enplanements at Wood Application Number: 03–06–C–00– meeting minimum requirements was County Airport. SLC. approved in its place. Brief Description of Projects Approved Application Type: Impose and use a Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC PFC. for Collection at SLC and Use at SLC at Level: PFC Level: $4.50. A $3.00 PFC Level: Terminal improvements. Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Airport layout plan/environmental Airfield drainage improvements. Decision: $39,756,400. update, phase I. Aircraft parking apron rehabilitation. Earliest Charge Effective Date: Electronic visual information display Master plan update. February 1, 2003. system installation. Purchase snow removal equipment. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: East apron rehabilitation, phase II. Terminal/security improvements. June 1, 2004. East apron rehabilitation, phase III. Rehabilitate runway 3/21. Class of Air Carriers not Required to Surface condition analyzer upgrade. Decision Date: June 2, 2003. Collect PFC’s; Air taxi/commercial Mechanical plant security upgrades. For Further Information Contact: operators filing FAA Form 1800–31. Unattended baggage storage area. Matthew DiGiulian, Beckley Airports Determination: Approved. Based on Terminal One bag carousel Field Office, (304) 252–6216. information contained in the public modifications.

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47632 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

Terminal access road reconfiguration. Public Agency: Delta County, Public Agency: County of Marquette, Brief Description of Project Approved Escanaba, Michigan. Gwinn, Michigan. for Collection at SLC and Use at Salt Application Number: 03–07–C–00– Application Number: 03–07–C–00– Lake Airport II at a $3.00 PFC Level: ESC. SAW. Application Type: Impose and use a Airport II runway overlay. Application Type: Impose and use a PFC. PFC. Brief Description of Project Approved PFC Level: $4.50. for Collection at SLC and Use at Tooele Total PFC Revenue Approved in this PFC Level: $4.50. Valley Airport at a $3.00 PFC Level: Decision: $40,000. Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Runway 16/34 widening and extension. Earliest Charge Effective Date: March Decision: $545,520. Brief Description of Disapproved 1, 2004. Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, Project: Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 2004. East side oil/water separator. January 1, 2006. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: Classes of Air Carriers not Required to March 1, 2006. Determination: The FAA has Collect PFC’s: (1) Air taxis; (2) charters. determined that the project does not Class of Air Carriers not Required to Determination: Approved. Based on Collect PFC’s: None. meet any of the objectives of section information contained in the public 158.15(a). The public agency did not Brief Description of Projects Approved agency’s application, the FAA has for Collection and Use: provide documentation regarding determined that each proposed class project justification, nor did it accounts for less than 1 percent of the Construct automatic weather demonstrate compliance with Advisory total annual enplanements at Delta observation system. Circular 150/5320–15 for water quality County Airport. Furnish and install an instrument equipment. Brief Description of Project Approved landing system. Decision Date: June 11, 2003. for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC Furnish and install a beacon. For Further Information Contact: Level: Furnish and install precision approach Christopher J. Schaffer, Denver Airports Expand terminal parking lot. path indicator and runway end District Office, (303) 342–1258. Relocate airport access road. identifier lights. Public Agency: City of Roswell, New Brief Description of Project Approved Taxiway shoulder repair. Mexico. for Use at a $3.00 PFC Level: PFC audit fees. Application Number: 03–02–C–00– Construct runway safety area for runway Provide new aircraft rescue and ROW. firefighting vehicle and snow removal Application Type: Impose and use a 9. equipment building. PFC. Decision Date: June 25, 2003. PFC Level: $4.50 For Further Information Contact: Snow removal equipment. Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Arlene B. Draper, Detroit Airports Decision Date: June 30, 2003. Decision: $134,082. District Office, (734) 487–7282. For Further Information Contact: Earliest Charge Effective Date: Public Agency: Port of Port Angeles, Arlene B. Draper, Detroit Airports February 1, 2004. Washington. District Office, (734) 229–2929. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: Application Number: 03–06–C–00– CLM. Public Agency: County of Milwaukee, May 1, 2006. Wisconsin. Classes of Air Carriers not Required to Application Type: Impose and use a Collect PFC’s: None. PFC. Application Number: 03–08–U–00– Brief Description of Projects Approved PFC Level: $3.00. MKE. for Collection and Use: Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Application Type: Use PFC revenue. Reconstruct runway 17/35. Decision: $313,484. PFC Level: $3.00. Earliest Charge Effective Date: PFC application and administrative fees. Total PFC Revenue to be Used in this October 1, 2003. Brief Description of Withdrawn Decision: $74,714,258. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2004. Projects: June 1, 2008. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: Aircraft rescue and firefighting access Class of Air Carriers not Required to December 1, 2011. roads. Collect PFC’s: None. Airfield safety improvements. Brief Description of Projects Approved Class of Air Carriers not Required to Install precision approach path for Collection and Use: Collect PFC’s: No change from previous indicator/runway end identifier lights Drainage system construction. decision. for runways 3 and 17/35. General aviation site development. Brief Description of Project Approved Replace runway 17/35 shoulders. Obstruction removal. for Use: Determination: These projects were Taxiway restriping and reflector C concourse stem and 6-gate expansion. withdrawn by the public agency before installation. Decision Date: June 30, 2003. Runway 26 safety area improvement. the FAA’s decision was issued. For Further Information Contact: Decision Date: June 12, 2003. Decision Date: June 27, 2003. Sandra E. DePottey, Minneapolis For Further Information Contact: G. For Further Information Contact: Airports District Office, (612) 713–4363. Thomas Wade, Southwest Region Suzanne Lee-Pang, Seattle Airports Airports Division, (817) 222–5613. District Office, (425) 227–2654. Amendments to PFC approvals

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47633

Original esti- Amemded es- Amendment No. Amendment Original approved Amended approved mated charge timated charge city, state approved date net PFC revenue net PFC revenue exp. date exp. date

01–02–C–01–HRL Harlingen, TX...... 05/27/03 $5,032,330 $6,025,961 02/01/06 06/01/07 93–01–C–01–LAX Los Angeles, CA...... 06/02/03 $116,109,000 $116,370,846 01/01/96 01/01/96 96–02–U–01–LAX Los Angeles, CA...... 06/02/03 NA NA 01/01/96 01/01/96 93–01–I–02–ONT Ontario, CA...... 06/02/03 33,148,439 27,333,931 12/01/96 12/01/96 95–02–U–01–ONT Ontario, CA...... 06/02/03 NA NA 12/01/96 12/01/96 01–02–C–02–SDF Louisville, KY...... 06/02/03 15,789,940 10,732,140 04/01/18 04/01/17 01–02–C–01–BJI Bemidji, MN...... 06/10/03 201,952 416,452 10/01/03 08/01/05 01–04–C–01–DAY Dayton, OH...... 06/10/03 64,544,267 63,946,085 12/01/13 12/01/13 02–05–C–01–MSY New Orleans, LA...... 06/12/03 148,665,172 135,190,660 04/01/05 07/01/03 97–02–C–02–TYR Tyler, TX...... 06/13/03 1,166,292 1,046,577 01/01/03 09/01/03 93–01–C–14–ORD Chicago, IL...... 06/19/03 1,145,473,994 1,155,421,243 12/01/05 04/01/04 95–03–C–06–ORD Chicago, IL...... 06/19/03 NA NA 12/01/05 04/01/04 96–05–C–08–ORD Chicago, IL...... 06/19/03 467,714,130 467,714,130 04/01/08 04/01/08 92–01–C–06–DTW Detroit, MI...... 06/20/03 1,604,483,000 2,198,215,360 05/01/18 05/01/26 96–02–U–01–DTW Detroit, MI...... 06/20/03 NA NA 05/01/18 05/01/26 97–03–C–03–DTW Detroit, MI...... 06/20/03 54,967,000 54,967,000 10/01/29 10/01/29 96–05–C–01–SMF Sacramento, CA...... 06/25/03 62,823,190 48,223,407 08/01/06 01/01/06 00–06–C–01–SMF Sacramento, CA...... 06/25/03 115,700,000 115,700,000 11/01/13 03/01/11

Dated: Issued in Washington, DC on better practices for future AML STC In addition, the ACO procedures for August 1, 2003 policy. adding or removing models to the AML Barry Molar, DATES: Send comments on or before are not standardized. As a result, the Manager, Airports Financial Assistance August 31, 2003. coordination of all AML STC projects Division. with the FAA Small Airplane ADDRESSES: Address comments to the Directorate Standards Office should [FR Doc. 03–20411 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] individual assigned under FOR FURTHER facilitate standardization of the AML BILLING CODE 4910–13–M INFORMATION CONTACT. Comments may be mailed to: Federal Aviation STC process. Administration, Regulations & Policy, Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 21, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACE–110, Room 301, 901 Locust, 2003. Michael Gallagher, Federal Aviation Administration Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Also, comments may be sent by electronic Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Proposed Notification Regarding the mail to [email protected]. Certification Service. Use of Approved Model List (AML) for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wes [FR Doc. 03–20405 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Avionics Systems and Component Ryan, Aerospace Engineer, Standards BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Installation Approvals Office (ACE–110), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification AGENCY: Federal Aviation Service, Federal Aviation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Administration (FAA), DOT. Maritime Administration Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone ACTION: Notice of intent and request for (816) 329–4127, fax (816) 329–4090. comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION [Docket Number: MARAD 2003 15853]

SUMMARY: AML Supplemental Type Comments Invited Information Collection Available for Certificate (STC) Approvals for We invite your comments on this Public Comments and installation of complex avionics system notice. Send any data or views Recommendations and components targeted for installation pertaining to the subject of this notice, ACTION: Notice and request for in small airplanes are deemed as as desired. Identify comments with comments. significant programs as defined in Order ‘‘AML STC Process Comments, ATTN: 8100.5 and Order 8110.4 and require Wes Ryan’’. The FAA will consider all SUMMARY: In accordance with the coordination with the Small Airplane comments received on or before the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Directorate until otherwise noted. This closing date listed above before issuing notice announces the Maritime includes AML STC approvals made by a final notification. Administration’s (MARAD’s) intentions holders of FAA delegations—Designated to request extension of approval for Alteration Station (DAS) or Delegation Background Information three years of a currently approved Option Authorization (DOA). Complex AML STC approvals have ranged from information collection. avionics projects can sometimes be simple in-flight entertainment systems controversial since they may involve to complex primary flight displays. DATES: Comments should be submitted new technology that has either not been There has been a wide variation in the on or before October 10, 2003. previously certified, or for which complexity of the avionics systems and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: certification criteria has not been components being approved for use in Michael Franklin, Maritime published. The increased coordination small airplanes and in the interpretation Administration, (MAR–610), 400 is necessary to improve standardization of current guidance regarding approval Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC of the AML STC process and develop of these systems using the AML process. 20590. Telephone: 202–366–2628, FAX:

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47634 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

202–366–3954; or e-mail: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [email protected]. Copies of this collection can also be Maritime Administration National Highway Traffic Safety obtained from that office. Administration Marine Transportation System National SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2003– Advisory Council Title of Collection: Automated 15702] Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue ACTION: National Advisory Council Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping System (AMVER). public meeting. Requirements. Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information AGENCY: National Highway Traffic SUMMARY: collection. The Maritime Administration Safety Administration (NHTSA), OMB Control Number: 2133–0025. announces that the Marine Department of Transportation. Transportation System National Form Numbers: None. ACTION: Request for public comment on Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold Expiration Date of Approval: Three proposed collection of information. a meeting to discuss the Council’s Team years from date of approval by the reports, its SEA–21 proposal, and other Office of Management and Budget. SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can issues. A public comment period is collect certain information from the Summary of Collection of scheduled for 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on public; it must receive approval from Information. This collection of the Office of Management and Budget information is used to gather Thursday, September 4, 2003. To (OMB). Under procedures established information regarding the location of provide time for as many people to by the Paperwork Reduction Act of U.S.-flag vessels and certain other U.S. speak as possible, speaking time for 1995, before seeking OMB approval, citizen-owned vessels for the purpose of each individual will be limited to three Federal agencies must solicit public search and rescue in the saving of lives minutes. Members of the public who comment on proposed collections of at sea and for the marshalling of ships would like to speak are asked to contact information, including extensions and for national defense and safety Raymond Barberesi by August 27, 2003. reinstatement of previously approved purposes. Commenters will be placed on the agenda in the order in which collections. This document describes Need and Use of the Information: one collection of information for which This information collection is necessary notifications are received. If time allows, additional comments will be NHTSA intends to seek OMB for maintaining a current plot of U.S.- reinstatement approval. flag and U.S.-owned vessels. permitted. Copies of oral comments DATES: Comments must be received on Description of Respondents: must be submitted in writing at the or before October 10, 2003. Respondents are U.S.-flag and U.S. meeting. Additional written comments citizen-owned vessels. are welcome and must be filed by ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the Annual Responses: 28,160 responses. September 11, 2003. docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and be Annual Burden: 2,253 hours. DATES: The meeting will be held on submitted to Docket Management, Room Comments: Comments should refer to Wednesday, September 3, 2003, from 1 PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., the docket number that appears at the p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Thursday, Washington, DC 20590. Please identify top of this document. Written comments September 4, 2003, from 8:30 a.m. to the proposed collection of information may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 4:30 p.m. for which a comment is provided, by U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 referencing its OMB Clearance Number. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC It is requested, but not required, that 2 the Omni San Francisco Hotel, 500 20590. Comments may also be copies of the comment be provided. The submitted by electronic means via the California Street, San Francisco, CA Docket Section is open on weekdays Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. 94104. The hotel’s phone number is from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Specifically address whether this (415) 677–9494. information collection is necessary for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proper performance of the functions of Complete copies of each request for the agency and will have practical Raymond Barberesi, (202) 366–4357; collection of information may be utility, accuracy of the burden Maritime Administration, MAR–830, obtained at no charge from Mr. Kevin estimates, ways to minimize this Room 7201, 400 Seventh St., SW., Ball, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., burden, and ways to enhance the Washington, DC 20590; Room 5110, NPO–400, Washington, DC quality, utility, and clarity of the [email protected]. 20590. Mr. Ball’s telephone number is information to be collected. All (202) 366–5649. His fax number is (202) (Authority: 5 U.S.C. App 2, Sec. 9(a)(2); 41 493–2833. Please identify the relevant comments received will be available for CFR 101–6. 1005; DOT Order 1120.3B) examination at the above address collection of information by referring to between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.d.t. (or Dated: August 5, 2003. its OMB Control Number. e.s.t.), Monday through Friday, except Joel C. Richard, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal holidays. An electronic version Secretary, Maritime Administration. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of this document is available on the [FR Doc. 03–20392 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] before an agency submits a proposed World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov. BILLING CODE 4910–81–P collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a By Order of the Maritime Administrator. document in the Federal Register Dated: August 5, 2003. providing a 60-day comment period and Joel C. Richard, otherwise consult with members of the Secretary, Maritime Administration. public and affected agencies concerning [FR Doc. 03–20393 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] each proposed collection of information. BILLING CODE 4910–81–P The OMB has promulgated regulations

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices 47635

describing what must be included in Estimated Number of Respondents: these markets. The Fund certifies such a document. Under OMB’s 15,000. entities as CDFIs and CDEs. regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an The Fund has over three hundred Susan White, agency must ask for public comment on CDFIs in its CDFI Program investment the following: Chief Information Officer. portfolio. To better manage this (i) Whether the proposed collection of [FR Doc. 03–20322 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] portfolio and to better target its limited information is necessary for the proper BILLING CODE 4910–59–M resources, the Fund is developing a performance of the functions of the performance rating system that will rank agency, including whether the CDFIs according to their overall information will have practical utility; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY financial strength and their potential for (ii) The accuracy of the agency’s creating community development estimate of the burden of the proposed Community Development Financial impact. The PLUM rating system will collection of information, including the Institutions Fund; Comment Request assess a CDFI’s performance relative to validity of the methodology and on Performance Rating System that of its peers. Each CDFI will be assumptions used; scored in four components: Performance (iii) How to enhance the quality, ACTION: Notice and request for effectiveness (i.e., community utility, and clarity of the information to comments. development impact); Leverage, be collected; liquidity and solvency; Underwriting; SUMMARY: Currently, the Community and Management. These four (iv) How to minimize the burden of Development Financial Institutions the collection of information on those component scores will then be Fund (the ‘‘Fund’’), within the aggregated into a single PLUM rating. who are to respond, including the use Department of the Treasury, is soliciting of appropriate automated, electronic, The Fund plans to use PLUM to comments on the indicators it will use monitor the Fund’s portfolio of CDFI mechanical, or other technological to measure a community development collection techniques or other forms of awardees, recognize and communicate financial institutions’ performance in best practices for community information technology, e.g. permitting four areas: Community development development finance, underwrite CDFIs, electronic submission of responses. impact, financial strength, portfolio and target the Fund’s technical In compliance with these quality, and management. resources to CDFIs that need to improve requirements, NHTSA asks for public DATES: Written comments should be their performance. PLUM can be a comments on the following proposed received on or before October 10, 2003, valuable tool for CDFIs. CDFIs can use collections of information: to be assured of consideration. PLUM to conduct self-assessments and Title: Air Bag Deactivation. ADDRESSES: Address all comments to: improve their performance, compare OMB Control Number: 2127–0588. their performance to their peers and Affected Public: Private individuals, Donna Fabiani, Manager for Financial Strategies and Research, Community industry standards, and identify best fleet owners and lessees, motor vehicle practices to strive for over time. dealers, repair business, airbag switch Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, The Fund is making major installers. investments in technology to collect and Abstract: If a private individual or 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, store the data needed for PLUM lessee wants to install an air bag on-off analyses. PLUM analyses for non- switch to turn-off either or both frontal [email protected], or fax (202) 622–3569. regulated institutions will be based on air bags, they must complete Form OMB data collected through the Community 2127–0588 to certify certain statements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Investment Intelligence System (CIIS), regarding use of the switch. The airbag Donna Fabiani, Manager for Financial the Fund’s new data collection system. switch installer must then submit the Strategies and Research, Community PLUM analyses for regulated completed forms to NHTSA within Development Financial Institutions institutions will be based on their seven days. The information obtained Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, CAMEL rating for the ‘‘L,’’ ‘‘U,’’ and from completed forms requesting airbag 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, ‘‘M’’ components (provided the Fund deactivation will assist NHTSA in Washington, DC 20005, has access to the CAMEL rating), as well monitoring the number of requests, the [email protected], or fax as community development impact data reasons for such request and the motor (202) 622–3569. collected through CIIS. CIIS will collect vehicles affected. They will also aid the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and store CDFIs’ transaction-level and agency in monitoring whether the airbag Title: PLUM: CDFI Performance institution-level data. The system is switch installer completed the work. Rating System. being designed to communicate, where The completed forms will enable the Abstract: The Fund’s mission is to possible, with the technology CDFIs agency to determine whether the airbag expand the capacity of financial currently use, thereby facilitating the switch installer are complying with the institutions to provide credit, capital transfer of large volumes of data to the terms of the exemption, which include and financial services to underserved Fund. The Fund’s contractor, E F a requirement that airbag switch populations and communities in the Kearney, will work with CDFIs in the installers accept only fully completed U.S. The Fund’s strategic goal is to system design phase with the goal of forms. Finally, submission of the improve the economic conditions of developing a sophisticated yet user- completed forms to the agency will underserved communities by providing friendly web-based data transmission promote compliance and accuracy in capital and technical assistance to process. The Fund expects to implement the completion of the forms by vehicle community development financial CIIS in December 2003. owners. The air bag On-Off switches are institutions (‘‘CDFIs’’), capital to To view the proposed PLUM installed only in motor vehicles in insured depository institutions, and tax indicators, visit the Fund’s Web site at which the risk of harm needs to be credit allocations to community www.cdfifund.gov and click on ‘‘CDFI minimized on a case-by-case basis. development entities (‘‘CDEs’’), which Fund seeking comments on PLUM.’’ Estimated Annual Burden: 7,500 provide credit, capital, financial Request for Comments: Comments hours. services, and development services to submitted in response to this notice will

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47636 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Notices

become a matter of public record. awardees; (d) the Fund’s use of PLUM which the Fund should calculate PLUM Comments are invited on all aspects of in underwriting; (e) the ability of the scores for each CDFI. PLUM, but commentators may wish to Fund to access CAMEL ratings for Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4703, 4703 note, 4707, focus particular attention on: (a) The regulated institutions; (f) the number of 4710, 4714, 4717; 31 U.S.C. 321; and 12 CFR appropriateness of the indicators for peer groups needed to have meaningful part 1805. measuring a CDFI’s community peer analysis in the diverse community development impact, financial development field; (g) the number of Dated: August 1, 2003. condition, portfolio quality, and years of data needed for reliable peer Tony T. Brown, management capacity; (b) other group analysis; (h) awardee and external Director, Community Development Financial indicators that may better measure CDFI audience’s access to PLUM scores (i.e., Institutions Fund. performance; (c) the Fund’s use of should the Fund publicly share PLUM [FR Doc. 03–20337 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] PLUM to monitor its portfolio of CDFI scores); and (i) the frequency with BILLING CODE 4810–70–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:41 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 47637

Corrections Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND July 15, 2003, make the following contains editorial corrections of previously HUMAN SERVICES corrections: published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule, 1. On page 41691, in the third and Notice documents. These corrections are Centers for Medicare & Medicaid prepared by the Office of the Federal Services column, under the SUPPLEMENTARY Register. Agency prepared corrections are INFORMATION section, in the 22nd issued as signed documents and appear in 42 CFR Part 412 line, after ‘‘KS’’ insert ‘‘revealed several the appropriate document categories discrepancies in the Wichita Mid- elsewhere in the issue. [CMS-1470-F] Continent Airport, KS’’. RIN 0938-AL89 2. On the same page, in the same column, under the same section, in the Medicare Program; Changes to the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 35th line, ‘‘24 CFR’’ should read ‘‘14 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Bureau of Industry and Security Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2004 CFR ’’. Rates §71.1 [Corrected] [Docket No. 030715174–3174–01] Correction 3. On page 41692, in the second Revisions to the Unverified List— In rule document 03–19363 beginning column, in § 71.1, under the heading Guidance as to ‘‘Red Flags’’ on page 45346 in the issue of Friday ‘‘ACE KS E5 Wichita Mid-Continent August 1, 2003, make the following Airport, KS’’, in the sixth line should Correction correction: read, ‘‘(Lat. 37°37′33″ N.,’’ should read ‘‘(Lat. 37°37′23″ N.,’’. In notice document 03–19017 §412.87 [Corrected] beginning on page 44039 in the issue of On page 45469, in the third column, 4. On the same page, in the same Friday, July 25, 2003 make the following in §412.87, under the section heading, column, in the same section, under the correction: paragraph ‘‘(a)’’ should read ‘‘(b)’’. same heading, in the eighth line from the bottom, ‘‘west east’’ should read On page 44039, in the third column, [FR Doc. C3–19363 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] ‘‘west and 5 miles east’’. in the third full paragraph, in the first BILLING CODE 1505–01–D line ‘‘has not conducted’’ should read 5. On the same page, in the third ‘‘has now conducted’’. column, in the same section, in the first DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION paragraph, in the sixth line, ‘‘lone ’’ [FR Doc. C3–19017 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] should read ‘‘line’’. BILLING CODE 1505–01–D Federal Aviation Administration 6. On the same page, in the same 14 CFR Part 71 column, in the same section, in the same paragraph, in the seventh line, [Docket No. FAA–2003–15454; Airspace ‘‘AUGRA’’ should read ‘‘AUBRA’’. Docket No. 03–ACE–52] [FR Doc. C3–17766 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] Modification of Class E Airspace; BILLING CODE 1505–01–D Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, KS Correction In rule document 03–17766 beginning on page 41691 in the issue of Tuesday,

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:42 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4734 Sfmt 4734 E:\FR\FM\11AUCX.SGM 11AUCX Monday, August 11, 2003

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Proposed Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47640 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION subpopulations (e.g., AIDS patients, the aware could potentially be regulated by AGENCY elderly). In addition, the treatment this action. Other types of entities not technique requirements of this proposal listed in this table could also be 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 are expected to increase the level of regulated. To determine whether your [FRL–7530–5] protection from exposure to other facility is regulated by this action, you microbial pathogens (e.g., Giardia should carefully examine the definition RIN 2040—AD37 lamblia). of public water system in § 141.3 of DATES: EPA must receive public Title 40 of the Code of Federal National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and applicability criteria in Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced comment on the proposal by November 10, 2003. §§ 141.76 and 141.501 of today’s Surface Water Treatment Rule proposal. If you have questions ADDRESSES: Comments may be regarding the applicability of the AGENCY: Environmental Protection submitted by mail to: Water Docket, LT2ESWTR to a particular entity, Agency. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail consult one of the persons listed in the ACTION: Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Proposed rule. preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention INFORMATION CONTACT SUMMARY: In this document, the Docket ID No. OW–2002–0039. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comments may also be submitted B. How Can I Get Copies of This is proposing National Primary Drinking electronically or through hand delivery/ Document and Other Related Water Regulations that require the use courier by following the detailed Information? of treatment techniques, along with instructions as provided in section I.C. 1. Docket. EPA has established an monitoring, reporting, and public of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION official public docket for this action notification requirements, for all public section. under Docket ID No. OW–2002–0039. water systems (PWSs) that use surface FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For The official public docket consists of the water sources. The purposes of the Long technical inquiries, contact Daniel documents specifically referenced in Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Schmelling, Office of Ground Water and this action, any public comments Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) are to Drinking Water (MC 4607M), U.S. received, and other information related improve control of microbial pathogens, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 to this action. Although a part of the including specifically the protozoan Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, official docket, the public docket does Cryptosporidium, in drinking water and DC 20460; telephone (202) 564–5281. not include Confidential Business to address risk-risk trade-offs with the For regulatory inquiries, contact Jennifer Information (CBI) or other information control of disinfection byproducts. Key McLain at the same address; telephone whose disclosure is restricted by statute. provisions in today’s proposed (202) 564–5248. For general information The official public docket is the LT2ESWTR include the following: contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, collection of materials that is available source water monitoring for Telephone (800) 426–4791. The Safe for public viewing at the Water Docket Cryptosporidium, with reduced Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) monitoring requirements for small through Friday, excluding legal EPA West, Room B102, 1301 systems; additional Cryptosporidium holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, treatment for filtered systems based on Eastern Time. DC. The EPA Docket Center Public source water Cryptosporidium SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to concentrations; inactivation of 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, Cryptosporidium by all unfiltered I. General Information excluding legal holidays. The telephone systems; disinfection profiling and A. Who Is Regulated by This Action? number for the Public Reading Room is benchmarking to ensure continued Entities potentially regulated by the (202) 566–1744, and the telephone levels of microbial protection while number for the Water Docket is (202) PWSs take the necessary steps to LT2ESWTR are public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground 566–2426. For access to docket material, comply with new disinfection please call (202) 566–2426 to schedule byproduct standards; covering, treating, water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Regulated an appointment. or implementing a risk management 2. Electronic Access. You may access categories and entities are identified in plan for uncovered finished water this Federal Register document the following chart. storage facilities; and criteria for a electronically through the EPA Internet number of treatment and management Examples of regulated enti- under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at options (i.e., the microbial toolbox) that Category ties http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. PWSs may implement to meet An electronic version of the public additional Cryptosporidium treatment Industry ...... Public Water Systems that docket is available through EPA’s requirements. The LT2ESWTR will use surface water or electronic public docket and comment build upon the treatment technique ground water under the di- system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA requirements of the Interim Enhanced rect influence of surface Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ Surface Water Treatment Rule and the water. State, Local, Public Water Systems that to submit or view public comments, Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Tribal or use surface water or access the index listing of the contents Treatment Rule. Federal ground water under the di- of the official public docket, and to EPA believes that implementation of Govern- rect influence of surface access those documents in the public the LT2ESWTR will significantly reduce ments. water. docket that are available electronically. levels of Cryptosporidium in finished Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ drinking water. This will substantially This table is not intended to be then key in the appropriate docket lower rates of endemic exhaustive, but rather provides a guide identification number. cryptosporidiosis, the illness caused by for readers regarding entities likely to be Certain types of information will not Cryptosporidium, which can be severe regulated by this action. This table lists be placed in the EPA Dockets. and sometimes fatal in sensitive the types of entities that EPA is now Information claimed as CBI and other

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47641

information whose disclosure is comment. Also include this contact 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. restricted by statute, which is not information on the outside of any disk Deliver your comments to: Water included in the official public docket, or CD ROM you submit, and in any Docket, EPA Docket Center, will not be available for public viewing cover letter accompanying the disk or Environmental Protection Agency, in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s CD ROM. This ensures that you can be Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., policy is that copyrighted material will identified as the submitter of the NW, Washington, DC, Attention Docket not be placed in EPA’s electronic public comment and allows EPA to contact you ID No. OW–2002–0039. Such deliveries docket but will be available only in in case EPA cannot read your comment are only accepted during the Docket’s printed, paper form in the official public due to technical difficulties or needs normal hours of operation as identified docket. Although not all docket further information on the substance of in section I.B.1. materials may be available your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA electronically, you may still access any will not edit your comment, and any D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare of the publicly available docket identifying or contact information My Comments for EPA? materials through the docket facility provided in the body of a comment will You may find the following identified in section I.B.1. be included as part of the comment that suggestions helpful for preparing your For public commenters, it is is placed in the official public docket, comments: important to note that EPA’s policy is and made available in EPA’s electronic 1. Explain your views as clearly as that public comments, whether public docket. If EPA cannot read your possible. submitted electronically or in paper, comment due to technical difficulties 2. Describe any assumptions that you will be made available for public and cannot contact you for clarification, used. viewing in EPA’s electronic public EPA may not be able to consider your 3. Provide any technical information docket as EPA receives them and comment. and/or data you used that support your without change, unless the comment a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s views. contains copyrighted material, CBI, or electronic public docket to submit 4. If you estimate potential burden or other information whose disclosure is comments to EPA electronically is costs, explain how you arrived at your restricted by statute. When EPA EPA’s preferred method for receiving estimate. identifies a comment containing comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets 5. Provide specific examples to copyrighted material, EPA will provide at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and illustrate your concerns. a reference to that material in the follow the online instructions for 6. Offer alternatives. version of the comment that is placed in submitting comments. Once in the 7. Make sure to submit your EPA’s electronic public docket. The system, select ‘‘search,’’ and then key in comments by the comment period entire printed comment, including the Docket ID No. OW–2002–0039. The deadline identified. copyrighted material, will be available system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, in the public docket. system, which means EPA will not identify the appropriate docket Public comments submitted on know your identity, e-mail address, or identification number in the subject line computer disks that are mailed or other contact information unless you on the first page of your response. It delivered to the docket will be provide it in the body of your comment. would also be helpful if you provided transferred to EPA’s electronic public b. E-mail. Comments may be sent by the name, date, and Federal Register docket. Public comments that are electronic mail (e-mail) to OW- citation related to your comments. mailed or delivered to the Docket will [email protected], Attention Docket ID be scanned and placed in EPA’s No. OW–2002–0039. In contrast to Abbreviations Used in This Document electronic public docket. Where EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s e- AIPC All Indian Pueblo Council practical, physical objects will be mail system is not an ‘‘anonymous ASDWA Association of State Drinking photographed, and the photograph will access’’ system. If you send an e-mail Water Administrators be placed in EPA’s electronic public comment directly to the Docket without ASTM American Society for Testing docket along with a brief description going through EPA’s electronic public and Materials written by the docket staff. docket, EPA’s e-mail system AWWA American Water Works automatically captures your e-mail Association C. How and to Whom Do I Submit address. E-mail addresses that are AWWARF American Water Works Comments? automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail Association Research Foundation You may submit comments system are included as part of the °C Degrees Centigrade electronically, by mail, or through hand comment that is placed in the official CCP Composite Correction Program delivery/courier. To ensure proper public docket, and made available in CDC Centers for Disease Control and receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate EPA’s electronic public docket. Prevention docket identification number in the c. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit CFE Combined Filter Effluent subject line on the first page of your comments on a disk or CD ROM that CFR Code of Federal Regulations comment. Please ensure that your you mail to the mailing address COI Cost-of-Illness comments are submitted within the identified in section I.C.2. These CT The Residual Concentration of specified comment period. Comments electronic submissions will be accepted Disinfectant (mg/L) Multiplied by the received after the close of the comment in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Contact Time (in minutes) period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not Avoid the use of special characters and CWS Community Water Systems required to consider these late any form of encryption. DAPI 4’,6-Diamindino-2-phenylindole comments. 2. By Mail. Send three copies of your DBPs Disinfection Byproducts 1. Electronically. If you submit an comments and any enclosures to: Water DBPR Disinfectants/Disinfection electronic comment as prescribed Docket, Environmental Protection Byproducts Rule below, EPA recommends that you Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 DE Diatomaceous Earth include your name, mailing address, Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DIC Differential Interference Contrast and an e-mail address or other contact DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. (microscopy) information in the body of your OW–2002–0039. EA Economic Analysis

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47642 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

EPA United States Environmental Table of Contents D. Treatment Protection Agency I. Summary 1. Overview GAC Granular Activated Carbon A. Why Is EPA Proposing the LT2ESWTR? 2. Treatment Information Considered for GWUDI Ground Water Under the B. What Does the LT2ESWTR Proposal the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR Direct Influence of Surface Water Require? a. Physical Removal b. Inactivation HAA5 Haloacetic acids 1. Treatment Requirements for Cryptosporidium 3. New Information on Treatment for (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, Control of Cryptosporidium Trichloroacetic, Monobromoacetic 2. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking 3. Uncovered Finished Water Storage a. Conventional Filtration Treatment and and Dibromoacetic Acids) Facilities Direct Filtration HPC Heterotrophic Plate Count C. Will This Proposed Regulation Apply to i. Dissolved Air Flotation. ICR Information Collection Request My Water System? b. Slow Sand Filtration ICRSS Information Collection Rule II. Background c. Diatomaceous Earth Filtration Supplemental Surveys A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the d. Other Filtration Technologies ICRSSM Information Collection Rule LT2ESWTR? e. Inactivation B. What Current Regulations Address i. Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide Supplemental Survey of Medium ii. Ultraviolet Light Systems Microbial Pathogens in Drinking Water? 1. Surface Water Treatment Rule iii. Significance of New Information on ICRSSL Information Collection Rule Inactivation Supplemental Survey of Large 2. Total Coliform Rule 3. Interim Enhanced Surface Water IV. Discussion of Proposed LT2ESWTR Systems Treatment Rule Requirements IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface 4. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water A. Additional Cryptosporidium Treatment Water Treatment Rule Treatment Rule Technique Requirements for Filtered IFA Immunofluorescence Assay 5. Filter Backwash Recycle Rule Systems Log Logarithm (common, base 10) C. What Public Health Concerns Does This 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? LRAA Locational Running Annual Proposal Address? a. Overview of Framework Approach Average 1. Introduction b. Monitoring Requirements c. Treatment Requirements LRV Log Removal Value 2. Cryptosporidium Health Effects and Outbreaks i. Bin Classification LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced ii. Credit for Treatment in Place Surface Water Treatment Rule a. Health Effects b. Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis iii. Treatment Requirements Associated LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Outbreaks. With LT2ESWTR Bins Surface Water Treatment Rule 3. Remaining Public Health Concerns d. Use of Previously Collected Data MCL Maximum Contaminant Level Following the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level a. Adequacy of Physical Removal To a. Basis for Targeted Treatment Goal Control Cryptosporidium and the Need Requirements MGD Million Gallons per Day for Risk Based Treatment Requirements. b. Basis for Bin Concentration Ranges and M–DBP Microbial and Disinfectants/ b. Control of Cryptosporidium in Treatment Requirements Disinfection Byproducts Unfiltered Systems i. What Is the Risk Associated With a Given MF Microfiltration c. Uncovered Finished Water Storage Level of Cryptosporidium in a Drinking NCWS Non-community water systems Facilities Water Source? ii. What Degree of Additional Treatment NF Nanofiltration D. Federal Advisory Committee Process III. New Information on Cryptosporidium Should Be Required for a Given Source NODA Notice of Data Availability Health Risks and Treatment Water Cryptosporidium Level? NPDWR National Primary Drinking A. Overview of Critical Factors for c. Basis for Source Water Monitoring Water Regulation Evaluating Regulation of Microbial Requirements NTNCWS Non-transient Non- Pathogens i. Systems Serving at Least 10,000 People community Water System B. Cryptosporidium Infectivity ii. Systems Serving Fewer Than 10,000 NTTAA National Technology Transfer 1. Cryptosporidium Infectivity Data People and Advancement Act Evaluated for IESWTR iii. Future Monitoring and Reassessment NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 2. New Data on Cryptosporidium d. Basis for Accepting Previously Collected OMB Office of Management and Infectivity Data Budget 3. Significance of New Infectivity Data 3. Request for Comment PE Performance Evaluation C. Cryptosporidium Occurrence B. Unfiltered System Treatment Technique 1. Occurrence Data Evaluated for IESWTR Requirements for Cryptosporidium PWS Public Water System a. Filtered Systems. 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? QC Quality Control b. Unfiltered Systems a. Overview QCRV Quality Control Release Value 2. Overview of the Information Collection b. Monitoring Requirements RAA Running Annual Average Rule and Information Collection Rule c. Treatment Requirements RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act Supplemental Surveys (ICRSS) 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? RO Reverse Osmosis a. Scope of the Information Collection Rule a. Basis for Cryptosporidium Treatment RSD Relative Standard Deviation b. Scope of the ICRSS Requirements SAB Science Advisory Board 3. Analytical Methods for Protozoa in the b. Basis for Requiring the Use of Two SBAR Small Business Advocacy Information Collection Rule and ICRSS Disinfectants Review a. Information Collection Rule Protozoan c. Basis for Source Water Monitoring SERs Small Entity Representatives Method Requirements SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act b. Method 1622 and Method 1623 3. Request for Comment SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule 4. Cryptosporidium Occurrence Results C. Options for Systems to Meet TCR Total Coliform Rule from the Information Collection Rule and Cryptosporidium Treatment ICRSS Requirements TTHM Total Trihalomethanes a. Information Collection Rule Results 1. Microbial Toolbox Overview TNCWS Transient Non-community b. ICRSS Results 2. Watershed Control Program Water Systems 5. Significance of New Cryptosporidium a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? UF Ultrafiltration Occurrence Data b. How Was This Proposal Developed? UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform 6. Request for Comment on Information c. Request for Comment Act Collection Rule and ICRSS Data Sets 3. Alternative Source

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47643

a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 3. Timing of Benefits Accrual (latency) b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? D. What Are the Costs of the Proposed c. Request for Comment 3. Request for Comments LT2ESWTR? 4. Off-stream Raw Water Storage F. Compliance Schedules 1. Total Annualized Present Value Costs a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 2. Water System Costs b. How Was This Proposal Developed? a. Source Water Monitoring a. Source Water Monitoring Costs c. Request for Comment i. Filtered Systems b. Filtered Systems Treatment Costs 5. Pre-sedimentation With Coagulant ii. Unfiltered Systems c. Unfiltered Systems Treatment Costs a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? b. Treatment Requirements d. Uncovered Finished Water Storage b. How Was This Proposal Developed? c. Disinfection Benchmarks for Giardia Facilities i. Published Studies of Cryptosporidium lamblia and Viruses e. Future Monitoring Costs Removal by Conventional Sedimentation 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? f. Sensitivity Analysis-influent Bromide Basins 3. Request for Comments Levels on Technology Selection for ii. Data Supplied by Utilities on the G. Public Notice Requirements Filtered Plants Removal of Spores by Presedimentation 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 3. State/Primacy Agency Costs c. Request for Comment 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? 4. Non-quantified Costs 6. Bank Filtration 3. Request for Comment E. What Are the Household Costs of the a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? H. Variances and Exemptions Proposed Rule? b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 1. Variances F. What Are the Incremental Costs and c. Request for Comment 2. Exemptions Benefits of the Proposed LT2ESWTR? 7. Lime Softening 3. Request for Comment G. Are There Benefits From the Reduction a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? a. Variances of Co-occurring Contaminants? b. How Was This Proposal Developed? b. Exemptions H. Are There Increased Risks From Other c. Request for Comment I. Requirements for Systems To Use Contaminants? 8. Combined Filter Performance Qualified Operators I. What Are the Effects of the Contaminant a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? J. System Reporting and Recordkeeping on the General Population and Groups b. How Was This Proposal Developed? Requirements Within the General Populations That Are c. Request for Comment 1. Overview Identified as Likely to be at Greater Risk 9. Roughing Filter 2. Reporting Requirements for Source of Adverse Health Effects? a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? Water Monitoring J. What Are the Uncertainties in the b. How Was This Proposal Developed? a. Data Elements To Be Reported Baseline, Risk, Benefit, and Cost c. Request for Comment Estimates for the Proposed LT2ESWTR b. Data System 10. Slow Sand Filtration as well as the Quality and Extent of the c. Previously Collected Monitoring Data a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? Information? 3. Compliance With Additional Treatment b. How Was This Proposal Developed? K. What Is the Benefit/Cost Determination Requirements c. Request for Comment for the Proposed LT2ESWTR? 4. Request for Comment 11. Membrane Filtration L. Request for Comment a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? K. Analytical Methods VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 1. Cryptosporidium A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory c. Request for Comment a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? Planning and Review 12. Bag and Cartridge Filtration b. How Was This Proposal Developed? B. Paperwork Reduction Act a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? c. Request for Comment C. Regulatory Flexibility Act b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 2. E. coli D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act c. Request for Comment a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 1. Summary of UMRA Requirements 13. Secondary Filtration b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 2. Written Statement for Rules With a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? c. Request for Comment Federal mandates of $100 million or b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 3. Turbidity more c. Request for Comment a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? a. Authorizing Legislation 14. Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide b. How Was This Proposal Developed? b. Cost-benefit Analysis a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? c. Request for Comment c. Estimates of Future Compliance Costs b. How Was This Proposal Developed? L. Laboratory Approval and Disproportionate Budgetary Effects c. Request for Comments 1. Cryptosporidium Laboratory Approval d. Macro-economic Effects 15. Ultraviolet Light 2. E. coli Laboratory Approval e. Summary of EPA Consultation With a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 3. Turbidity Analyst Approval State, local, and Tribal Governments and b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 4. Request for Comment Their Concerns c. Request for Comment M. Requirements for Sanitary Surveys f. Regulatory Alternatives Considered 16. Individual Filter Performance Conducted by EPA g. Selection of the Least Costly, Most Cost- a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? 1. Overview effective, or Least Burdensome b. How Was This Proposal Developed? 2. Background Alternative That Achieves the Objectives c. Request for Comment 3. Request for Comment of the Rule 17. Other Demonstration of Performance V. State Implementation 3. Impacts on Small Governments a. What Is EPA Proposing Today? A. Special State Primacy Requirements E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism b. How Was This Proposal Developed? B. State Recordkeeping Requirements F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation c. Request for Comment C. State Reporting Requirements and Coordination With Indian Tribal D. Disinfection Benchmarks for Giardia D. Interim Primacy Governments lamblia and Viruses VI. Economic Analysis G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? A. What Regulatory Alternatives Did the Children from Environmental Health and a. Applicability and Schedule Agency Consider? Safety Risks b. Developing the Disinfection Profile and B. What Analyses Support Selecting the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Benchmark Proposed Rule Option? Significantly Affect Energy Supply, c. State Review C. What Are the Benefits of the Proposed Distribution, or Use 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? LT2ESWTR? I. National Technology Transfer and 3. Request for Comments 1. Non-quantifiable Health and Non-health Advancement Act E. Additional Treatment Technique Related Benefits J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions Requirements for Systems with 2. Quantifiable Health Benefits to Address Environmental Justice in Uncovered Finished Water Storage a. Filtered Systems Minority Populations or Low-Income Facilities b. Unfiltered Systems Populations

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47644 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

K. Consultations With the Science Cryptosporidium contamination. Based B. What Does the LT2ESWTR Proposal Advisory Board, National Drinking on this finding, along with new data Require? Water Advisory Council, and the suggesting that the infectivity (i.e., 1. Treatment Requirements for Secretary of Health and Human Services virulence) of Cryptosporidium may be L. Plain Language Cryptosporidium VIII. References substantially higher than previously understood, EPA has concluded that the EPA is proposing risk-targeted I. Summary current 2 log removal requirement does treatment technique requirements for not provide an adequate degree of Cryptosporidium control in filtered A. Why Is EPA Proposing the treatment in filtered systems with the systems that are based on a microbial LT2ESWTR? highest source water Cryptosporidium framework approach. Under this EPA is proposing the Long Term 2 levels. Consequently, EPA is proposing approach, systems that use a surface Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule targeted additional treatment water or ground water under the direct (LT2ESWTR) to provide for increased requirements under the LT2ESWTR for influence of surface water (referred to protection against microbial pathogens filtered systems with the highest collectively as surface water systems) in public water systems that use surface Cryptosporidium risk. will conduct source water monitoring to determine an average Cryptosporidium water sources. The proposed Under current regulations, unfiltered LT2ESWTR focuses on concentration. Based on monitoring systems are not required to provide any results, filtered systems will be Cryptosporidium, which is a protozoan treatment for Cryptosporidium. New pathogen that is widespread in surface classified in one of four possible risk occurrence data suggest that typical water. EPA is particularly concerned categories (bins). A filtered system’s bin Cryptosporidium levels in the treated about Cryptosporidium because it is classification determines the extent of water of unfiltered systems are highly resistant to inactivation by any additional Cryptosporidium substantially higher than in the treated standard disinfection practices like treatment requirements beyond the water of filtered systems. Hence, chlorination. Ingestion of requirements of current regulations. Cryptosporidium oocysts can cause Cryptosporidium treatment by EPA expects that the majority of acute gastrointestinal illness, and health unfiltered systems is needed to achieve filtered systems will be classified in the effects in sensitive subpopulations may equivalent public health protection. Bin 1, which carries no additional be severe, including risk of mortality. Recent treatment studies have allowed treatment requirements. Those systems Cryptosporidium has been identified as EPA to develop criteria for systems to classified Bins 2–4 will be required to the pathogenic agent in a number of inactivate Cryptosporidium with ozone, provide from 1.0 to 2.5 log of treatment waterborne disease outbreaks across the ultraviolet (UV) light, and chlorine (i.e., 90 to 99.7 percent reduction) for U.S. and in Canada (details in section dioxide. As a result, EPA has concluded Cryptosporidium in addition to II). that it is feasible and appropriate to conventional treatment that complies The intent of the LT2ESWTR is to propose under the LT2ESWTR that all with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR (details supplement existing microbial treatment unfiltered systems treat for in section IV.A). Filtered systems will requirements for systems where Cryptosporidium. meet additional Cryptosporidium additional public health protection is In addition to concern with treatment requirements by using one or needed. Currently, the Interim Cryptosporidium, the LT2ESWTR more treatment or control steps from a Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule proposal is intended to ensure that ‘‘microbial toolbox’’ of options (details (IESWTR) requires large systems that systems maintain adequate protection in section IV.C). Rather than monitoring, filter to remove at least 99% (2 log) of against microbial pathogens as they take filtered systems may elect to comply Cryptosporidium (63 FR 69478, steps to reduce formation of disinfection with the treatment requirements of Bin December 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a). byproducts (DBPs). Along with the 4 directly. The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface LT2ESWTR, EPA is also developing a Under the proposed LT2ESWTR, all Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule surface water systems that are not extends this requirement to small (DBPR), which will further limit required to filter (i.e., unfiltered systems (67 FR 1812, January 14, 2002) allowable levels of trihalomethanes and systems) must provide at least 2 log (i.e., (USEPA 2002a). Subsequent to haloacetic acids. The proposed 99 percent) inactivation of promulgating these regulations, EPA has LT2ESWTR contains disinfection Cryptosporidium. In addition, unfiltered evaluated significant new data on profiling and benchmarking systems will monitor for Cryptosporidium infectivity, requirements to ensure that microbial Cryptosporidium in their source water occurrence, and treatment (details in protection is maintained as systems and must achieve at least 3 log (i.e., 99.9 section III). These data indicate that comply with the Stage 2 DBPR. Also in percent) inactivation of current treatment requirements achieve the proposed LT2ESWTR are Cryptosporidium if the mean level adequate protection for the majority of exceeds 0.01 oocysts/L. Alternatively, requirements to limit risk associated systems, but there is a subset of systems unfiltered systems may elect to provide with existing uncovered finished water with higher vulnerability to 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation storage facilities. Uncovered storage Cryptosporidium where additional directly, instead of monitoring. All facilities are subject to contamination if treatment is necessary. requirements established under the not properly managed or treated. Specifically, national survey data Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) show that average Cryptosporidium Today’s proposed LT2ESWTR reflects (54 FR 27486, June 29, 1989) (USEPA occurrence in filtered systems is lower consensus recommendations from the 1989a) for unfiltered systems will than previously estimated. However, Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection remain in effect, including 3 log these data also demonstrate that Byproducts (M–DBP) Federal Advisory inactivation of Giardia lamblia and 4 log Cryptosporidium concentrations vary Committee. These recommendations are inactivation of viruses. However, the widely among systems, and that a set forth in the Stage 2 M–DBP LT2ESWTR proposal requires that fraction of filtered systems have Agreement in Principle (65 FR 83015, unfiltered systems achieve their overall relatively high levels of source water December 29, 2000) (USEPA 2000a). inactivation requirements using a

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47645

minimum of two disinfectants (details of surface water are affected by the available analytical methods for in section IV.B). proposed LT2ESWTR. Cryptosporidium is described in section III.C; the treated water Cryptosporidium 2. Disinfection Profiling and II. Background levels that the LT2ESWTR will achieve Benchmarking A. What Is the Statutory Authority for are described in section IV.A). The purpose of disinfection profiling the LT2ESWTR? Consequently, today’s proposal for the and benchmarking is to ensure that This section discusses the Safe LT2ESWTR relies on treatment when a system makes a significant technique requirements to reduce health change to its disinfection practice, it Drinking Water Act (SDWA or the Act) sections that direct the development of risks from Cryptosporidium in PWSs. does not compromise the adequacy of When proposing a NPDWR that the LT2ESWTR. existing microbial protection. EPA includes an MCL or treatment The Act, as amended in 1996, requires established the disinfection benchmark technique, the Act requires EPA to EPA to publish a maximum under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR for publish and seek public comment on an contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the Stage 1 M–DBP rules, and the analysis of health risk reduction and promulgate a national primary drinking LT2ESWTR proposal extends cost impacts. This includes an analysis water regulation (NPDWR) with disinfection benchmark requirements to of quantifiable and nonquantifiable apply to the Stage 2 M–DBP rules. enforceable requirements for any costs and health risk reduction benefits, The proposed profiling and contaminant that the Administrator incremental costs and benefits of each benchmarking requirements are similar determines may have an adverse effect alternative considered, the effects of the to those promulgated under IESWTR on the health of persons, is known to contaminant upon sensitive and LT1ESWTR. Systems that meet occur or there is a substantial likelihood subpopulations (e.g., infants, children, specified criteria must prepare that the contaminant will occur in pregnant women, the elderly, and disinfection profiles that characterize public water systems (PWSs) with a individuals with a history of serious current levels of virus and Giardia frequency and at levels of public health illness), any increased risk that may lamblia inactivation over the course of concern, and for which in the sole occur as the result of compliance, and one year. Systems with valid judgement of the Administrator, other relevant factors (section 1412 operational data from profiling regulation of such contaminant presents (b)(3)(C)). EPA’s analysis of health conducted under the IESWTR or a meaningful opportunity for health risk benefits and costs associated with the LT1ESWTR are not required to collect reduction for persons served by PWSs proposed LT2ESWTR is presented in additional data. If a system that is (section 1412 (b)(1)(A)). ‘‘Economic Analysis of the LT2ESWTR’’ required to prepare a profile proposes to MCLGs are non-enforceable health (USEPA 2003a) and is summarized in make a significant change to its goals, and are to be set at a level at section VI of this preamble. However, disinfection practice, the system must which no known or anticipated adverse the Act does not authorize the calculate a disinfection benchmark and effect on the health of persons occur and Administrator to use additional health must consult with the State regarding which allows an adequate margin of risk reduction and cost considerations how the proposed change will affect the safety (sections 1412(b)(4) and to establish MCL or treatment technique current benchmark (details in section 1412(a)(3)). EPA established an MCLG requirements for the control of IV.D). of zero for Cryptosporidium under the Cryptosporidium (section 1412 IESWTR (63 FR 69478, December 16, 3. Uncovered Finished Water Storage (b)(6)(C)). 1998) (USEPA 1998a). The Agency is Finally, section 1412 (b)(2)(C) of Facilities not proposing any changes to the SDWA requires EPA to promulgate a The proposed LT2ESWTR also current MCLG for Cryptosporidium. Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection includes requirements for systems with The Act also requires that at the same Byproducts Rule within 18 months after uncovered finished water storage time EPA publishes an NPDWR and promulgation of the LT1ESWTR, which facilities. The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR MCLG, it must specify in the NPDWR a occurred on January 14, 2002. require systems to cover all new storage maximum contaminant level (MCL) Consistent with statutory requirements facilities for finished water, but these which is as close to the MCLG as is for risk balancing (section rules do not address existing uncovered feasible (sections 1412(b)(4) and 1412(b)(5)(B)), EPA will finalize the finished water storage facilities. Under 1401(1)(c)). The Agency is authorized to LT2ESWTR with the Stage 2 DBPR to the LT2ESWTR proposal, systems with promulgate an NPDWR that requires the ensure parallel protection from uncovered finished water storage use of a treatment technique in lieu of microbial and DBP risks. facilities must cover the storage facility establishing an MCL if the Agency finds or treat the storage facility discharge to that it is not economically or B. What Current Regulations Address achieve 4 log virus inactivation unless technologically feasible to ascertain the Microbial Pathogens in Drinking Water? the State determines that existing risk level of the contaminant (sections This section summarizes the existing mitigation is adequate. Where the State 1412(b)(7)(A) and 1401(1)(C)). The Act regulations that apply to control of makes such a determination, systems specifies that in such cases, the Agency pathogenic microorganisms in surface must develop and implement a risk shall identify those treatment water systems. These rules form the mitigation plan that addresses physical techniques that would prevent known baseline of regulatory protection that access, surface water run-off, animal or anticipated adverse effects on the will be supplemented by the and bird wastes, and on-going water health of persons to the extent feasible LT2ESWTR. quality assessment (details in section (section 1412(b)(7)(A)). 1. Surface Water Treatment Rule IV.E). The Agency has concluded that it is not currently economically or The SWTR (54 FR 27486, June 29, C. Will This Proposed Regulation Apply technologically feasible for PWSs to 1989) (USEPA 1989a) applies to all to My Water System? determine the level of Cryptosporidium PWSs using surface water or ground All community and non-community in finished drinking water for the water under the direct influence water systems that use surface water or purpose of compliance with a finished (GWUDI) of surface water as sources ground water under the direct influence water standard (the performance of (Subpart H systems). It established

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47646 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

MCLGs of zero for Giardia lamblia, requirements for unfiltered public water C. What Public Health Concerns Does viruses, and Legionella, and includes systems; (7) requirements for covers on This Proposal Address? treatment technique requirements to new finished water storage facilities; This section presents the basis for the reduce exposure to pathogenic and (8) sanitary surveys for all surface public health concern associated with microorganisms, including: (1) water systems regardless of size. Cryptosporidium in drinking water by Filtration, unless specified avoidance The IESWTR was developed in summarizing information on criteria are met; (2) maintenance of a conjunction with the Stage 1 Cryptosporidium health effects and disinfectant residual in the distribution Disinfectants and Disinfection outbreaks. This is followed by a system; (3) removal and/or inactivation Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) (63 FR description of the specific areas of of 3 log (99.9%) of Giardia lamblia and 69389; December 16, 1998) (USEPA public health concern that remain after 4 log (99.99%) of viruses; (4) combined 1998b), which reduced allowable levels implementation of the IESWTR and filter effluent turbidity of 5 of certain DBPs, including LT1ESWTR and that are addressed in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) as the LT2ESWTR proposal. More detailed a maximum and 0.5 NTU at 95th trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, information about Cryptosporidium percentile monthly for treatment plants chlorite, and bromate. health effects may be found in the using conventional treatment or direct 4. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water following criteria documents: filtration (with separate standards for Treatment Rule Cryptosporidium: Human Health other filtration technologies); and (5) Criteria Document (USEPA 2001b), watershed protection and source water The LT1ESWTR (67 FR 1812, January Cryptosporidium: Drinking Water quality requirements for unfiltered 14, 2002) (USEPA 2002a) builds upon systems. the microbial control provisions Advisory (USEPA 2001c), and established by the IESWTR for large Cryptosporidium: Risks for Infants and 2. Total Coliform Rule systems, through extending similar Children (USEPA 2001d). The Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (54 FR requirements to small systems. The 1. Introduction 27544, June 29, 1989) (USEPA 1989b) LT1ESWTR applies to PWSs using applies to all PWSs. It established an While modern water treatment surface water or GWUDI as sources that systems have substantially reduced MCLG of zero for total and fecal serve fewer than 10,000 people. Like the coliform bacteria, and an MCL based on waterborne disease incidence, drinking IESWTR, the LT1ESWTR established water contamination remains a the percentage of positive samples the following: 2 log (99 percent) collected during a compliance period. significant health risk management Cryptosporidium removal requirements challenge. EPA’s Science Advisory Coliforms are used as a screen for fecal for systems that filter; individual filter contamination and to determine the Board in 1990 cited drinking water turbidity monitoring and more stringent contamination, particularly integrity of the water treatment process combined filter effluent turbidity and distribution system. Under the TCR, contamination by pathogenic standards for conventional and direct microorganisms, as one of the most no more than 5 percent of distribution filtration plants; disinfection profiling system samples collected in any month important environmental risks (USEPA and benchmarking; inclusion of 1990). This risk is underscored by may contain coliform bacteria (no more Cryptosporidium in the definition of than 1 sample per month may be information from the Centers for Disease GWUDI and in the watershed control Control and Prevention (CDC) which coliform positive in those systems that requirements for unfiltered systems; and collect fewer than 40 samples per indicates that between 1980 and 1998 a the requirement that new finished water month). The number of samples to be total of 419 outbreaks associated with storage facilities be covered. collected in a month is based on the drinking water were reported, with number of people served by the system. 5. Filter Backwash Recycle Rule greater than 511,000 estimated cases of disease. A number of agents were 3. Interim Enhanced Surface Water EPA promulgated the Filter Backwash implicated in these outbreaks, including Treatment Rule Recycling Rule (FBRR) (66 FR 31085, viruses, bacteria, and protozoa, as well The IESWTR (63 FR 69477, December June 8, 2001) (USEPA 2001a) to increase as several chemicals (Craun and 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a) applies to protection of finished drinking water Calderon 1996, Levy et al. 1998, PWSs serving at least 10,000 people and supplies from contamination by Barwick et al. 2000). The majority of using surface water or GWUDI sources. Cryptosporidium and other microbial cases were associated with surface Key provisions established by the pathogens. The FBRR requirements will water, and specifically with the 1993 IESWTR include the following: (1) An reduce the potential risks associated Cryptosporidium outbreak in MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium; (2) with recycling contaminants removed Milwaukee, WI with an estimated Cryptosporidium removal requirements during the filtration process. The FBRR 403,000 cases (Mac Kenzie et al. 1994). of 2 log (99 percent) for systems that provisions apply to all systems that A recent study by McDonald et al. filter; (3) strengthened combined filter recycle, regardless of population served. (2001), which used blood samples from effluent turbidity performance standards In general, the provisions include the Milwaukee children collected during of 1.0 NTU as a maximum and 0.3 NTU following: (1) Recycling systems must and after the 1993 outbreak, suggests at the 95th percentile monthly for return certain recycle streams prior to that Cryptosporidium infection, treatment plants using conventional the point of primary coagulant addition including asymptomatic infection, was treatment or direct filtration; (4) unless the State specifies an alternative more widespread than might be inferred requirements for individual filter location; (2) direct filtration systems from the illness estimates by Mac turbidity monitoring; (5) disinfection recycling to the treatment process must Kenzie et al. (1994). benchmark provisions to assess the level provide detailed recycle treatment It is important to note that the number of microbial protection provided as information to the State; and (3) certain of identified and reported outbreaks in facilities take steps to comply with new conventional systems that practice the CDC database is believed to DBP standards; (6) inclusion of direct recycling must perform a one- substantially understate the actual Cryptosporidium in the definition of month, one-time recycling self incidence of waterborne disease GWUDI and in the watershed control assessment. outbreaks and cases (Craun and

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47647

Calderon 1996, National Research in healthy individuals, and in a small have demonstrated that a low dose of Council 1997). This under reporting is percentage of such cases, death may Cryptosporidium parvum (C. parvum) is due to a number of factors. Many people result. sufficient to cause infection in healthy experiencing gastrointestinal illness do adults (DuPont et al. 1995, Chappell et 2. Cryptosporidium Health Effects and not seek medical attention. Where al. 1999, Messner et al. 2001). Studies Outbreaks medical attention is provided, the of immunosuppressed adult mice have pathogenic agent may not be identified Cryptosporidium is a protozoan demonstrated that a single viable oocyst through routine testing. Physicians often parasite that exists in warm-blooded can induce patent C. parvum infections lack sufficient information to attribute hosts and, upon excretion, may survive (Yang et al. 2000). gastrointestinal illness to any specific for months in the environment (Kato et There is evidence that an immune origin, such as drinking water, and few al., 2001). Ingestion of Cryptosporidium response to Cryptosporidium exists, but States have an active outbreak can lead to cryptosporidiosis, a the degree and duration of this surveillance program. Consequently, gastrointestinal illness. Transmission of immunity is not well characterized. In outbreaks are often not recognized in a cryptosporidiosis often occurs through a study by Chappell et al. (1999), community or, if recognized, are not consumption of feces contaminated food individuals with a blood serum traced to a drinking water source. or water, but may also result from direct antibody (IgG), which can develop from In addition, an unknown but probably or indirect contact with infected persons exposure to C. parvum, demonstrated significant portion of waterborne or animals (Casemore 1990). Surveys immunity to low doses of oocysts. The disease is endemic (i.e. isolated cases (described in Section III) indicate that investigators found the ID50 dose (i.e., not associated with an outbreak) and, Cryptosporidium is common in surface dose that infects 50% of the challenged thus, is even more difficult to recognize. waters used as drinking water supplies. population) of one C. parvum isolate for The Economic Analysis for the Sources of Cryptosporidium adult volunteers who had pre-existing proposed LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a) contamination include animal serum IgG to be 1,880 oocysts in uses data on Cryptosporidium agriculture, wastewater treatment plant comparison to 132 oocysts for occurrence, infectivity, and treatment to discharges, slaughterhouses, birds, wild individuals reported as serologically estimate the baseline endemic incidence animals, and other sources of fecal negative. However, the implications of of cryptosporidiosis attributable to matter. these data for studies of drinking water, as well as the reductions EPA is particularly concerned about Cryptosporidium infectivity are unclear. projected as a result of this rule. Cryptosporidium because, unlike Earlier work did not observe a Most waterborne pathogens cause pathogens such as bacteria and most correlation between the development of gastrointestinal illness with diarrhea, viruses, Cryptosporidium oocysts are antibodies after Cryptosporidium abdominal discomfort, nausea, highly resistant to standard exposure and subsequent protection vomiting, and other symptoms. The disinfectants like chlorine and from illness (Okhuysen et al. 1998). A effects of waterborne disease are usually chloramines. Consequently, control of subsequent investigation by Muller et acute, resulting from a single or small Cryptosporidium in most treatment al. (2001) observed serological number of exposures. Such illnesses are plants is dependent on physical removal responses to Cryptosporidium antigens generally of short duration in healthy processes. Finished water monitoring in samples from individuals reported by people. However, some pathogens, data indicate that Cryptosporidium is Chappel et al. as serologically negative. including Giardia lamblia and sometimes present in filtered, treated Cryptosporidium parvum was first Cryptosporidium, may cause disease drinking water (LeChevallier et al. 1991; recognized as a human pathogen in lasting weeks or longer in otherwise Aboytes et al. 2002). Moreover, as noted 1976 (Juranek 1995). Cases of illness healthy individuals, though this is not later, many of the individuals sickened from Cryptosporidium were rarely typical for Cryptosporidium. by waterborne outbreaks of reported until 1982 when documented Waterborne pathogens also cause more cryptosporidiosis were served by disease incidence increased due to the serious disorders such as hepatitis, filtered surface water supplies (Solo- AIDS epidemic (Current 1983). As peptic ulcers, myocarditis, paralysis, Gabriele and Neumeister, 1996). In some laboratory diagnostic techniques conjunctivitis, swollen lymph glands, cases, these outbreaks were attributed to improved during subsequent years, meningitis, and reactive arthritis, and treatment deficiencies, while in other outbreaks among immunocompetent have been associated with diabetes, cases the cause was unidentified (see persons were recognized as well. encephalitis, and other diseases Table II–1). Human, cattle, dog and deer types of C. (Lederberg 1992). These data suggest that surface water parvum have been found in healthy There are populations that are at systems that filter and disinfect may individuals (Ong et al. 2002, Morgan- greater risk from waterborne disease. still be vulnerable to Cryptosporidium, Ryan et al. 2002). Other These sensitive subpopulations include depending on the source water quality Cryptosporidium species (C. felis, C. children (especially infants), the elderly, and treatment effectiveness. Today’s meleagridis, and possibly C. muris) have the malnourished, pregnant women, the proposed rule addresses concern with infected healthy individuals, primarily disease impaired (e.g., diabetes, cystic passage of Cryptosporidium through children (Xiao et al. 2001, Chalmers et fibrosis), and a broad category of those physical removal processes during al. 2002, Katsumata et al. 2000). Cross- with compromised immune systems, water treatment, as well as in systems species infection occurs. The human such as AIDS patients, those with lacking filtration. type of C. parvum (now named C. autoimmune disorders (e.g., rheumatoid a. Health effects. Cryptosporidium hominis (Morgan-Ryan et al. 2002)) has arthritis, lupus erythematosus, multiple infection is characterized by mild to infected a dugong and monkeys (Spano sclerosis), transplant recipients, and severe diarrhea, dehydration, stomach et al. 1998). The cattle type of C. parvum those on chemotherapy (Rose 1997). cramps, and/or a slight fever. Symptoms infects humans, wild animals, and other This sensitive segment represents typically last from several days to two livestock, such as sheep, goats and deer almost 20% of the population in the weeks, though in a small percentage of (Ong et al. 2002). United States (Gerba et al. 1996). The cases, the symptoms may persist for As noted earlier, there are sensitive severity and duration of illness is often months or longer in otherwise healthy populations that are at greater risk from greater in sensitive subpopulations than individuals. Human feeding studies pathogenic microorganisms.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47648 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Cryptosporidiosis symptoms in b. Waterborne cryptosporidiosis that during outbreaks involving treated immunocompromised subpopulations outbreaks. Cryptosporidium has caused spring or well water, the chlorination are much more severe, including a number of waterborne disease systems were apparently operating debilitating voluminous diarrhea that outbreaks since 1984 when the first one satisfactorily, with a measurable may be accompanied by severe was reported in the U.S. Table II–1 lists chlorine residual. abdominal cramps, weight loss, and low reported outbreaks in community water Although the occurrence of grade fever (Juranek 1995). Mortality is systems (CWS) and non-community a significant threat to the water systems (NCWS). Between 1984— Cryptosporidium in U.S. drinking water immunocompromised infected with 1998, nine outbreaks caused by supplies has been substantiated by data Cryptosporidium: Cryptosporidium were reported in the collected during outbreak U.S. with approximately 421,000 cases investigations, the source and density of the duration and severity of the disease are oocysts associated with the outbreak significant: whereas 1 percent of the associated cases of illness (CDC 1993, immunocompetent population may be 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2001). Solo- have not always been detected or hospitalized with very little risk of mortality, Gabriele and Neumeister (1996) reported. Furthermore, because of Cryptosporidium infections are associated characterized water supplies associated limitations and uncertainties of the with a high rate of mortality in the with U.S. outbreaks of immunofluorescence assay (IFA) immunocompromised (Rose 1997) cryptosporidiosis. They determined that method used in earlier studies, negative A follow-up study of the 1993 almost half of the outbreaks were results in source or finished water Milwaukee, WI outbreak reported that at associated with ground water (untreated during these outbreaks do not least 50 Cryptosporidium-associated or chlorinated springs and wells), but necessarily mean that there were no deaths occurred among the severely that the majority of affected individuals oocysts in the water at the time of immunocompromised (Hoxie et al. were served by filtered surface water sampling. 1997). supplies (rivers and lakes). They found

TABLE II–1.—OUTBREAKS CAUSED BY Cryptosporidium IN PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS: 1984–1998

Year State Cases System Deficiency Source

1984 ...... TX 117 CWS 3 Well. 1987 ...... GA 13,000 CWS 3 River. 1991 ...... PA 551 NCWS 3 Well. 1992 ...... OR †† CWS 3 Spring. 1992 ...... OR †† CWS 3 River. 1993 ...... NV 103 CWS 5 Lake. 1993 ...... WI 403,000 CWS 3 Lake. 1994 ...... WA 134 CWS 2 Well. 1998 ...... TX 1,400 CWS 3 Well. †† =Total estimated cases were 3,000. The locations were nearby and cases overlapped in time Definitions of deficiencies = (1) untreated sur- face water; (2) untreated ground water; (3) treatment deficiency (e.g., temporary interruption of disinfection, chronically inadequate disinfection, and inadequate or no filtration); (4) distribution system deficiency (e.g., cross connection, contamination of water mains during construction or re- pair, and contamination of a storage facility); and (5) unknown or miscellaneous deficiency.

3. Remaining Public Health Concerns EPA to address these public health critical information needs had been Following the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR concerns in the LT2ESWTR proposal. addressed. a. Adequacy of physical removal to The IESWTR proposal (59 FR 38832, This section presents the areas of control Cryptosporidium and the need July 29, 1994) (USEPA 1994) included remaining public health concern for risk based treatment requirements. A two treatment alternatives, labeled B following implementation of the question that received significant and C, that specifically addressed IESWTR and LT1ESWTR that EPA consideration during development of Cryptosporidium. Under Alternative B, proposes to address in the LT2ESWTR. the IESWTR is whether physical the level of required treatment would be These are as follows: (a) Adequacy of removal by filtration plants provides based on the density of physical removal to control adequate protection against Cryptosporidium in the source water. Cryptosporidium and the need for risk Cryptosporidium in drinking water, or The proposal noted concerns with this based treatment requirements; (b) whether certain systems should be approach, though, due to uncertainty in control of Cryptosporidium in unfiltered required to provide inactivation of the risk associated with systems; and (c) uncovered finished Cryptosporidium based on source water Cryptosporidium and the feasibility of water storage facilities. pathogen levels. As discussed in the achieving higher treatment levels EPA recognized each of these issues proposal, notice of data availability through disinfection. Consequently, as a potential public health concern (NODA), and final IESWTR, EPA and EPA also proposed Alternative C, which during development of the IESWTR, but stakeholders concluded that data would require 2 log (99%) removal of could not address them at that time due available during IESWTR development Cryptosporidium by filtration. This was to the absence of key data. Accordingly, were not adequate to support risk based based on the determination that 2 log this section begins with a description of inactivation requirements for Cryptosporidium removal is feasible how EPA considered these issues during Cryptosporidium. However, the Agency using conventional treatment. development of the IESWTR, including maintained that a risk based approach to In the 1996 Information Collection the data gaps that were identified at that Cryptosporidium control would be Rule (61 FR 24354, May 14, 1996) time. This is followed by a statement of considered for the LT2ESWTR when (USEPA 1996a), EPA concluded that the the extent to which new information has data collected under the Information analytical method prescribed for filled these data gaps, thereby allowing Collection Rule were available and other measuring Cryptosporidium was

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47649

adequate for making national understanding of the magnitude and facilities to reduce the potential for occurrence estimates, but would not distribution of risk for this pathogen. contamination by pathogens and suffice for making site specific source Improved analytical methods allow for hazardous chemicals. Potential sources water density estimates. This finding a more accurate assessment of source of contamination to uncovered storage further contributed to the rationale water Cryptosporidium levels, and facilities include airborne chemicals, supporting Alternative C under the recent disinfection studies with UV, runoff, animal carcasses, animal or bird proposed IESWTR. ozone, and chlorine dioxide provide the droppings, and growth of algae and The NODA for the IESWTR (62 FR technical basis to support other aquatic organisms (59 FR 38832, 59498, Nov. 3, 1997) (USEPA 1997a) Cryptosporidium inactivation July 29, 1994) (USEPA 1994). presented the recommendations of the requirements. The final IESWTR established a Stage 1 MDBP Federal Advisory b. Control of Cryptosporidium in requirement to cover all new storage Committee for the IESWTR. As stated in unfiltered systems. There is particular facilities for finished water for which the NODA, the Committee engaged in concern about Cryptosporidium in the construction began after February 16, extensive discussions regarding the source waters of unfiltered systems 1999 (63 FR 69493, Dec. 16, 1998) adequacy of relying solely on physical because this pathogen has been shown (USEPA 1998a). In preamble to the final removal to control Cryptosporidium and to be resistant to conventional IESWTR, EPA described future the need for inactivation. There was an disinfection practices. In the IESWTR, regulation of existing uncovered absence of consensus on whether it was EPA extended watershed control finished water storage facilities as possible at that time to adequately requirements for unfiltered systems to follows: measure Cryptosporidium inactivation include the control of Cryptosporidium. EPA needs more time to collect and efficiencies for various disinfection EPA did not establish Cryptosporidium analyze additional information to evaluate technologies. This was a significant treatment requirements for unfiltered regulatory impacts on systems with existing impediment to addressing inactivation systems because available data uncovered reservoirs on a national basis . . . in the IESWTR. However, the suggested an equivalency of risk in EPA will further consider whether to require Committee recognized that inactivation filtered and unfiltered systems. This is the covering of existing reservoirs during the requirements may be necessary under described in the final IESWTR as development of subsequent microbial future regulatory scenarios, as shown by follows: regulations when additional data and analysis to develop the national costs of the following consensus it appears that unfiltered water systems that coverage are available. recommendation from the Stage 1 comply with the source water requirements MDBP Agreement in Principle: of the SWTR have a risk of cryptosporidiosis EPA continues to be concerned about contamination resulting from uncovered EPA should issue a risk based proposal of equivalent to that of a water system with a the Final Enhanced Surface Water Treatment well operated filter plant using a water finished water storage facilities, Rule for Cryptosporidium embodying the source of average quality (63 FR 69492, Dec. particularly the potential for virus multiple barrier approach (e.g., source water 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a) contamination via bird droppings, and protection, physical removal, inactivation, The Agency noted that data from the now has sufficient data to estimate etc.), including, where risks suggest Information Collection Rule would national cost implications for various appropriate, inactivation requirements (62 FR provide more information on regulatory control strategies. Therefore, 59557, Nov. 3, 1997) (USEPA 1997a). Cryptosporidium levels in filtered and EPA is proposing control measures for The preamble to the final IESWTR (63 unfiltered systems, and that all systems with uncovered finished FR 69478, Dec. 16, 1998) (USEPA Cryptosporidium treatment water storage facilities in the 1998a) states that EPA was unable to requirements would be re-evaluated LT2ESWTR. New data and proposed consider the proposed Alternative B when these data became available. requirements are described in section (treatment requirements for In today’s notice, EPA is proposing IV.E of this preamble. Cryptosporidium based on source water Cryptosporidium inactivation D. Federal Advisory Committee Process occurrence levels) for the IESWTR requirements for unfiltered systems. because occurrence data from the These proposed requirements stem from In March 1999, EPA reconvened the Information Collection Rule survey and an assessment of Cryptosporidium M–DBP Federal Advisory Committee to related analysis were not available in source water occurrence in both filtered develop recommendations for the Stage time to meet the statutory promulgation and unfiltered systems using data from 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. The deadline. The Agency affirmed, though, the Information Collection Rule and Committee consisted of organizational that further control of Cryptosporidium other surveys, as described in Section III members representing EPA, State and would be addressed in the LT2ESWTR. of this preamble. These new data do not local public health and regulatory In today’s notice, EPA is proposing a support the finding described in the agencies, local elected officials, Indian risk based approach for control of IESWTR of equivalent risk in filtered Tribes, drinking water suppliers, Cryptosporidium in drinking water. and unfiltered systems. Rather, chemical and equipment manufacturers, Under this approach, the required level Cryptosporidium treatment by and public interest groups. Technical of additional Cryptosporidium treatment unfiltered systems is necessary to support for the Committee’s discussions relates to the source water pathogen achieve a finished water risk level was provided by a technical workgroup density. EPA believes many of the data equivalent to that of filtered systems. In established by the Committee at its first gaps that prevented the adoption of this addition, the development of meeting. The Committee’s activities approach under the IESWTR have been Cryptosporidium inactivation criteria resulted in the collection and evaluation addressed. As described in Section III of for UV, ozone, and chlorine dioxide in of substantial new information related this preamble, information on the LT2ESWTR has made it feasible for to key elements for both rules. This Cryptosporidium occurrence from the unfiltered systems to provide included new data on pathogenicity, Information Collection Rule and Cryptosporidium treatment. occurrence, and treatment of microbial Information Collection Rule c. Uncovered finished water storage contaminants, specifically including Supplemental Surveys, along with new facilities. In the IESWTR proposal, EPA Cryptosporidium, as well as new data on data on Cryptosporidium infectivity, solicited comment on a requirement that DBP health risks, exposure, and control. have provided EPA with a better systems cover finished water storage New information relevant to the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47650 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

LT2ESWTR is summarized in Section III whether and to what degree existing occurrence data with information on the of this proposal. microbial standards should be revised to performance of treatment plants in In September 2000, the Committee protect public health. It serves as a basis reducing pathogen levels. Data on the signed an Agreement in Principle for the recommendations made by the occurrence of Cryptosporidium are reflecting the consensus Advisory Committee and for provisions described in section III.C of this recommendations of the group. The in today’s proposed rule. This section preamble and in Occurrence and Agreement was published in a begins with an overview of critical Exposure Assessment for the December 29, 2000 Federal Register factors that EPA considers when LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003b). notice (65 FR 83015, December 29, evaluating regulation of microbial Cryptosporidium treatment studies are 2000) (USEPA 2000a). The Agreement is pathogens. New information is then described in section III.D of this divided into Parts A & B. The entire presented on three key topics: preamble. Committee reached consensus on Part Cryptosporidium infectivity, Risk characterization is the A, which contains provisions that occurrence, and treatment. culminating step of the risk assessment directly apply to the Stage 2 DBPR and process. It is a description of the nature LT2ESWTR. The full Committee, with A. Overview of Critical Factors for and magnitude of risk, and characterizes the exception of one member, agreed to Evaluating Regulation of Microbial strengths, weaknesses, and attendant Part B, which has recommendations for Pathogens uncertainties of the assessment. EPA’s future activities by EPA in the areas of When proposing a national primary risk characterization for distribution systems and microbial drinking water regulation that includes Cryptosporidium is described in water quality criteria. a maximum contaminant level or Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR The Committee reached agreement on treatment technique, SDWA requires (USEPA 2003a). the following major issues discussed in EPA to analyze the health risk reduction Estimating the health benefits and this notice and the proposed Stage 2 benefits and costs likely to result from costs that would result from a new DBPR: alternative regulatory levels that are regulatory requirement involves a LT2ESWTR: (1) Additional being considered. For assessing risk, number of steps, including evaluating Cryptosporidium treatment based on EPA follows the paradigm described by the efficacy and cost of treatment source water monitoring results; (2) the National Academy of Science (NRC, strategies to reduce exposure to the Filtered systems that must comply with 1983) which involves four steps: (1) contaminant, forecasting the number of additional Cryptosporidium treatment Hazard identification, (2) dose-response systems that would implement different requirements may choose from a assessment, (3) exposure assessment, treatment strategies to comply with the ‘‘toolbox’’ of treatment and control and (4) risk characterization. The regulatory standard, and projecting the options; (3) Reduced monitoring burden application of these steps to microbial reduction in exposure to the for small systems; (4) Future monitoring pathogens is briefly described in this contaminant and consequent health risk to confirm source water quality section, followed by a summary of how reduction benefits stemming from assessments; (5) Cryptosporidium EPA estimates the health benefits and regulatory compliance. EPA’s estimates inactivation by all unfiltered systems; costs of regulatory alternatives. of health benefits and costs associated (6) Unfiltered systems meet overall Hazard identification for microbial with the proposed LT2ESWTR are inactivation requirements using a pathogens is a description of the nature, presented in Economic Analysis for the minimum of 2 disinfectants; (7) severity, and duration of the health LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a) and are Development of criteria and guidance effects stemming from infection. Under summarized in section VI of this for UV disinfection and other toolbox SDWA, EPA must consider health preamble. options; (8) Cover or treat existing effects on the general population and on B. Cryptosporidium Infectivity uncovered finished water reservoirs subpopulations that are at greater risk of (i.e., storage facilities) or implement risk adverse health effects. See section II.C.2 This section presents information on mitigation plans. of this preamble for health effects the infectivity of Cryptosporidium Stage 2 DBPR: (1) Compliance associated with Cryptosporidium. oocysts. Infectivity relates the calculation for total trihanomethanes Dose-response assessment with probability of infection by (TTHM) and five haloacetic acids microorganisms is commonly termed Cryptosporidium with the number of (HAA5) revised from a running annual infectivity and is a description of the oocysts that a person ingests, and it is average (RAA) to a locational running relationship between the number of used to predict the disease burden annual average (LRAA); (2) Compliance pathogens ingested and the probability associated with different carried out in two phases of the rule; (3) of infection. Information on Cryptosporidium levels in drinking Performance of an Initial Distribution Cryptosporidium infectivity is presented water. Information on Cryptosporidium System Evaluation; (4) Continued in section III.B of this preamble. infectivity comes from dose-response importance of simultaneous compliance Exposure to microbial pathogens in studies where healthy human subjects with DBP and microbial regulations; (5) drinking water is generally a function of ingest different numbers of oocysts and Unchanged MCL for bromate. the concentration of the pathogen in are subsequently evaluated for signs of finished water and the volume of water infection and illness. III. New Information on ingested (exposure also occurs through Data from a human dose-response Cryptosporidium Health Risks and secondary routes involving infected study of one Cryptosporidium isolate Treatment individuals). Because it is difficult to (the IOWA study, conducted at the The purpose of this section is to directly measure pathogens at the low University of Texas-Houston Health describe information related to health levels typically present in finished Science Center) had been published risks and treatment of Cryptosporidium water, EPA’s information on pathogen prior to the IESWTR (DuPont et al. in drinking water that has become exposure is primarily derived from 1995). Following IESWTR available since EPA developed the surveys of source water occurrence. EPA promulgation, a study of two additional IESWTR. Much of this information was estimates the concentration of isolates (TAMU and UCP) was evaluated by the Stage 2 M–DBP Federal pathogens in treated water by completed and published (Okhuysen et Advisory Committee when considering combining source water pathogen al. 1999). This study also presented a

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47651

reanalysis of the IOWA study results. As become infected (known as the median TABLE III–1.—Cryptosporidium described in more detail later in this infectious dose or ID50) is 165. Parvum INFECTIVITY IN HEALTHY section, this new study indicates that 2. New Data on Cryptosporidium ADULT VOLUNTEERS—Continued the infectivity of Cryptosporidium Infectivity oocysts varies over a wide range. The Isolate and dose Number of Number in- UCP oocysts appeared less infective A study of two additional (# of oocysts) subjects 1 fected 1 than those of the IOWA study while the Cryptosporidium isolates was TAMU oocysts were much more conducted at the University of Texas- 500 ...... 5 5 infective. Although the occurrence of Houston Health Science Center UCP: 500 ...... 5 3 these isolates among environmental (Okhuysen et al. 1999). One of the isolates (UCP) was originally collected 1,000 ...... 3 2 oocysts is unknown, a meta-analysis of 5,000 ...... 5 2 these data conducted by EPA suggests from naturally infected calves. The 10,000 ...... 4 4 the overall infectivity of other isolate (TAMU) was originally Cryptosporidium may be significantly collected from a veterinary student who 1 The two right columns list the number of subjects belonging to each category. greater than was estimated for the became infected during necropsy on an IESWTR (USEPA 2003a). infected foal. EPA conducted a meta-analysis of This section begins with a description The TAMU and UCP studies were these results in which the three isolates of the infectivity data considered for the conducted with 14 and 17 subjects, were considered as a random sample (of IESWTR. This is followed by a respectively. Because thousands of size three) from a larger population of presentation of additional data that have oocysts per gram of stool can go environmental oocysts (Messner et al. been evaluated for the proposed undetected, researchers elected to use 2001). This meta analysis was reviewed LT2ESWTR and a characterization of both stool test results and symptoms as by the Science Advisory Board (SAB). In the significance of these new data. markers of infection (only stool test written comments from a December results had been used for the IOWA 2001 meeting of the Drinking Water 1. Cryptosporidium Infectivity Data study). Under this definition, two Committee, SAB members Evaluated for IESWTR additional IOWA subjects were regarded recommended the following: (1) two Data from the IOWA study (DuPont et as having been infected. As shown in assumed infectivity distributions (of al. 1995) were evaluated for the Table III–1, all but two of the TAMU parameter r = 1/k as logit normal and IESWTR. In that study, 29 individuals subjects were presumed infected and all logit-t) should be used in order to were given single doses ranging from 30 but six of the UCP subjects were characterize uncertainty and (2) EPA oocysts to 1 million oocysts. This oocyst presumed infected following ingestion should consider excluding the UCP data isolate was originally obtained from a of the indicated oocyst doses. set because it seems to be an outlier (see naturally infected calf. Seven persons Section VII.K). In response, EPA has received doses above 500, and all were TABLE III–1.—Cryptosporidium used the two recommended infected. Eleven of the twenty two Parvum INFECTIVITY IN HEALTHY distributions for infectivity and has individuals receiving doses of 500 or ADULT VOLUNTEERS conducted the meta-analysis both with fewer were classified as infected based and without the UCP data due to on oocysts detected in stool samples. Isolate and dose Number of Number in- uncertainty about whether it is 1 1 The IOWA study data were analyzed (# of oocysts) subjects fected appropriate to exclude these data. using an exponential dose-response IOWA: Table III–2 presents meta-analysis model established by Haas et al. (1996) 30 ...... 5 2 estimates of the probability of infection for Cryptosporidium: 100 ...... 8 4 given one oocyst ingested. Results are Probability {Infection / Dose} = 300 ...... 3 2 shown for the four different analysis 1¥e ¥Dose/k 500 ...... 6 5 conditions (log normal and log-t Based on the maximum likelihood 1,000 ...... 2 2 distributions; with and without UCP estimate of k (238), the probability of 10,000 ...... 3 3 data) as well as a combined result 100,000 ...... 1 1 infection from ingesting a single oocyst 1,000,000 ...... 1 1 derived by sampling equally from each (1/k) is approximately 0.4% (4 persons TAMU: distribution. A more complete infected for every 1,000 who each ingest 10 ...... 3 2 description of the infectivity analysis is one oocyst). Based on the same estimate, 30 ...... 3 2 provided in Economic Analysis for the the dose at which 50% of persons 100 ...... 3 3 LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a).

TABLE III–2.—RISK OF INFECTION, GIVEN ONE OOCYST INGESTED

Basis for analysis Probability of infection, one oocyst ingested Studies used Distributional model 80% Cred- Mean ible interval

IOWA, TAMU, and UCP ...... Normal ...... 0.07 0.007–0.19 IOWA, TAMU, and UCP ...... Student’s t (3df) 1 ...... 0.09 0.015–0.20 IOWA and TAMU ...... Normal ...... 0.09 0.011–0.23 IOWA and TAMU ...... Student’s t (3df) 1 ...... 0.10 0.014–0.25

Equal Mix of the Four Above ...... 0.09 0.011–0.22 1 Student’s t distribution with 3 degrees of freedom (3df).

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47652 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

The results in Table III–2 show that a typical unfiltered surface water source LeChevallier and Norton (1995) the mean probability of infection from had about 0.01 oocysts per liter, a produced the largest data set and data ingesting a single infectious oocyst difference of two orders of magnitude. from this study were used for the ranges from 7% to 10% depending on Subsequent to promulgating the IESWTR risk assessment. This study the assumptions used. In comparison, IESWTR, EPA obtained data from two provided estimates of mean occurrence the best estimate in the IESWTR of this national surveys: the Information at 69 locations from the eastern and probability was 0.4%, based on the Collection Rule and the Information central U.S. Although limited by the IOWA isolate alone, and using the Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys small number of samples per site (one earlier definition of infection. Thus, (ICRSS). These surveys were designed to to sixteen samples; most sites were these data suggest that both the range provide improved estimates of sampled five times), variation within and magnitude of Cryptosporidium occurrence on a national basis. As and between sites appeared to be infectivity is higher than was estimated described in more detail later in this lognormal. The study’s median in the final IESWTR. section, the Information Collection Rule measured source water concentration It should be noted that although and ICRSS results show three main was 2.31 oocysts/L and the interquartile significantly more data on differences in comparison to range (i.e., 25th and 75th percentile) Cryptosporidium infectivity are Cryptosporidium occurrence data used was 1.03 to 5.15 oocysts/L. available now than when EPA for the IESWTR: b. Unfiltered systems. To assess established the IESWTR, there remains (1) Average Cryptosporidium occurrence is Cryptosporidium occurrence in uncertainty about this parameter in lower. Median oocyst levels for the unfiltered systems under the IESWTR, several areas. It is unknown how well Information Collection Rule and ICRSS data EPA evaluated Cryptosporidium the oocysts used in the feeding studies are approximately 0.05/L, which is more than monitoring results from several represent Cryptosporidium naturally an order of magnitude lower than IESWTR unfiltered water systems that had been occurring in the environment, and the estimates. summarized by the Seattle Water (2) Cryptosporidium occurrence is more analyses do not fully account for Department (Montgomery Watson, variability in host susceptibility and the variable from location to location than was 1995). The median (central tendency) of effect of previous infections. shown by the data considered for the these data was approximately 0.01 Furthermore, the sample sizes are IESWTR. This indicates that although oocysts/L. Thus, the median relatively small, and the confidence median occurrence levels are below those assumed for the IESWTR, there is a subset of concentration in these data set was bands on the estimates span more than systems whose levels are considerably greater about 2 orders of magnitude less than an order of magnitude. Another than the median. the median concentration in the data set limitation is that none of the studies (3) There is a smaller difference in used for filtered systems. These data, included doses below 10 oocysts, while Cryptosporidium levels between typical coupled with the assumption that when people ingest oocysts in drinking filtered and unfiltered system water sources. filtered systems will remove at least 2 water it is usually a single oocyst. The Information Collection Rule data do not support the IESWTR finding that unfiltered log of Cryptosporidium as required by 3. Significance of New Infectivity Data water systems have a risk of the IESWTR, suggested that unfiltered The new infectivity data reveal that cryptosporidiosis equivalent to that of a filter systems that comply with the source oocysts vary greatly in their ability to plant with average quality source water. water requirements of the SWTR may infect human hosts. Moreover, due to This section begins with a summary have a risk of cryptosporidiosis this variability and the finding of a of occurrence data that were used to equivalent to that of a filter plant using highly infectious isolate, TAMU, the assess risk under the IESWTR (these a water source of average quality (62 FR overall population of oocysts appears to data were also used in the main risk 59507, November 3, 1997) (USEPA be more infective than assumed for the assessment for the LT1ESWTR). This is 1997a). IESWTR. The meta-analysis described followed by a discussion of the 2. Overview of the Information earlier indicates the probability of Information Collection Rule and ICRSS Collection Rule and Information infection at low Cryptosporidium that covers the scope of the surveys, Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys concentrations may be about 20 times as analytical methods, results, and a (ICRSS) great as previously estimated (which characterization of how these new data was based on the IOWA isolate alone impact current understanding of The Information Collection Rule and and using the earlier definition of Cryptosporidium exposure. A more the Information Collection Rule infection (stool-confirmed infections)). detailed description of occurrence data Supplemental Surveys (ICRSS) were is available in Occurrence and Exposure national monitoring studies. They were C. Cryptosporidium Occurrence Assessment for the Long Term 2 designed to provide EPA with a more This section presents information on Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule comprehensive understanding of the the occurrence of Cryptosporidium (USEPA 2003b). occurrence of microbial pathogens in oocysts in drinking water sources. drinking water sources in order to Occurrence information is important 1. Occurrence Data Evaluated for support regulatory decision making. The because it is used in assessing the risk IESWTR surveys attempted to control protozoa associated with Cryptosporidium in Occurrence information evaluated for measurement error through requiring both filtered and unfiltered systems, as the IESWTR is detailed in Occurrence that (1) laboratories meet certain well as in estimating the costs and and Exposure Assessment for The qualification criteria, (2) standardized benefits of the proposed LT2ESWTR. Interim Enhanced Surface Water methods be used to collect data, and (3) For the IESWTR, EPA had no national Treatment Rule (USEPA 1998c). This laboratories analyze performance survey data and relied instead on information is summarized in the next evaluation samples throughout the several studies that were local or two paragraphs. duration of the study to ensure adequate regional. Those data suggested that a a. Filtered systems. In developing the analytical performance. Information typical (median) filtered surface water IESWTR, EPA evaluated Collection Rule monitoring took place source had approximately 2 Cryptosporidium occurrence data from a from July 1997 to December 1998; Cryptosporidium oocysts per liter, while number of studies. Among these studies, ICRSS Cryptosporidium monitoring

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47653

began in March 1999 and ended in the first 4 months; then Method 1623 Cryptosporidium and Giardia) to February 2000. was implemented so that Giardia achieve higher recovery rates and lower a. Scope of the Information Collection concentrations could also be measured). inter- and intra-laboratory variability Rule. The Information Collection Rule a. Information Collection Rule than previous methods. These methods (61 FR 24354, May 14, 1996) (USEPA Protozoan Method. With the incorporate improvements in the 1996a) required large PWSs to collect Information Collection Rule Method concentration, separation, staining, and water quality and treatment data related (USEPA 1996b), samples were collected microscope examination procedures. to DBPs and microbial pathogens over by passing water through a filter, which Specific improvements include the use an 18-month period. PWSs using surface was then delivered to an EPA-approved of more effective filters, water or ground water under the direct Information Collection Rule laboratory immunomagnetic separation (IMS) to influence of surface water as sources for analysis. The laboratory eluted the separate the oocysts and cysts from and serving at least 100,000 people were filter, centrifuged the eluate, and extraneous materials present in the required to monitor their raw water separated Cryptosporidium oocysts and water sample, and the addition of 4, 6- monthly for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Giardia cysts from other debris by diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) stain viruses, total coliforms, and E. coli. density-gradient centrifugation. The for microscopic analysis. The Approximately 350 plants monitored for oocysts and cysts were then stained and performance of these methods was microbial parameters. counted. Differential interference tested through single-laboratory studies b. Scope of the ICRSS. The ICRSS contrast (DIC) microscopy was used to and validated through multiple- were designed to complement the examine internal structures. laboratory validation (round robin) Information Collection Rule data set The Information Collection Rule studies. with data from systems serving fewer Method provided a quantitative The per-sample volume analyzed for than 100,000 people and by employing measurement of Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium during the ICRSS was an improved analytical method for oocysts and Giardia cysts, but it is larger than in the Information Collection protozoa (described later). The ICRSS believed to have generally Rule, due to a requirement that included 47 large systems (serving undercounted the actual occurrence laboratories analyze a minimum of 10 L greater than 100,000 people), 40 (modeling, described later, adjusted for or 2 mL of packed pellet with Methods medium systems (serving 10,000 to undercounting). This undercounting 1622/23 (details in section IV.K). To 100,000 people) and 39 small systems was due to low volumes analyzed and assess method recovery, matrix spike (serving fewer than 10,000 people). low method recovery. The volume samples were analyzed on five sampling Medium and large systems conducted 1 analyzed directly influences the events for each plant. The protozoa year of twice-per-month sampling for sensitivity of the analytical method and laboratory spiked the additional sample Cryptosporidium, Giardia , temperature, the Information Collection Rule Method with a known quantity of pH, turbidity, and coliforms. Other did not require a specific volume Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia water quality measurements were taken analyzed. As a result, sample volumes cysts (the quantity was unknown to the once a month. Small systems did not analyzed during the Information laboratory performing the analysis) and test for protozoa but tested for all other Collection Rule varied widely, filtered and analyzed both samples water quality parameters. depending on the water matrix and using Methods 1622/23. Recovery in the analyst discretion, with a median 3. Analytical Methods for Protozoa in ICRSS matrix spike study averaged 43% volume analyzed of only 3 L. for Cryptosporidium with an RSD of the Information Collection Rule and Method recovery characterizes the ICRSS 47% (Connell et al. 2000). Thus, mean likelihood that an oocyst present in the Cryptosporidium recovery with This subsection describes analytical original sample will be counted. Loss of Methods 1622/23 under the ICRSS was methods for Cryptosporidium that were organisms may occur at any step of the more than 3.5 times higher than mean used in the Information Collection Rule analytical process, including filtration, recovery in the Information Collection and ICRSS. Information on elution, concentration of the eluate, and Rule lab spiking program and relative Cryptosporidium analytical methods is purification of the concentrate. To standard deviation was reduced by more important for the LT2ESWTR for several assess the performance of the than half. reasons: (1) It is relevant to the quality Information Collection Rule Method, Although Methods 1622 and 1623 of Cryptosporidium occurrence data EPA implemented the Information have several advantages over the used to assess risk and economic impact Collection Rule Laboratory Spiking Information Collection Rule method, of the LT2ESWTR proposal, (2) it Program. This program involved they also have some of the same provides a basis for the statistical collection of duplicate samples on two limitations. These methods do not procedures employed to analyze the dates from 70 plants. On each occasion, determine whether a cyst or oocyst is occurrence data, and (3) it is used to one of the duplicate samples was spiked viable and infectious, and both methods assess the adequacy of Cryptosporidium with a known quantity of Giardia cysts require a skilled microscopist and methods to support source-specific and Cryptosporidium oocysts (the several hours of sample preparation and decisions under the LT2ESWTR. quantity was unknown to the laboratory analyses. The Information Collection Rule and performing the analysis), and both ICRSS data sets were generated using samples were processed according to 4. Cryptosporidium Occurrence Results different analytical methods. The the method. Recovery of spiked from the Information Collection Rule Information Collection Rule Protozoan Cryptosporidium oocysts ranged from and ICRSS Method (ICR Method) was used to 0% to 65% with a mean of 12% and a This section describes analyze water samples for standard deviation nearly equal to the Cryptosporidium monitoring results Cryptosporidium during the Information mean (relative standard deviation (RSD) from the Information Collection Rule Collection Rule. For the ICRSS, a similar approximately 100%) (Scheller et al. and ICRSS. The focus of this discussion but improved method, EPA Method 2002). is the national distribution of mean 1622 (later 1623), was used for protozoa b. Method 1622 and Method 1623. Cryptosporidium occurrence levels in analyses (samples were analyzed for EPA developed Method 1622 (detects the sources of filtered and unfiltered Cryptosporidium using Method 1622 for Cryptosporidium) and 1623 (detects plants.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47654 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

The observed (raw, unadjusted) large and medium system data from the method recovery of 12% and the Cryptosporidium data from the ICRSS. The model included parameters modeled estimate of the underlying Information Collection Rule and ICRSS for location, month, source water type, distribution, along with 90% confidence do not accurately characterize true and turbidity. Markov Chain Monte bounds. The two distributions (observed concentrations because of (a) the low Carlo methods were used to estimate and modeled) are similar for plants and variable recovery of the analytical these parameters, producing a large where Cryptosporidium was detected method, (b) the small volumes analyzed, number of estimate sets that represent (196 of 350 Information Collection Rule and (c) the relatively small number of uncertainty. This analysis is described plants did not detect Cryptosporidium sample events. EPA employed a more completely in Occurrence and in any source water samples). The statistical treatment to estimate the true Exposure Assessment for the Long Term modeled distribution allows for underlying occurrence that led to the 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment estimation of Cryptosporidium data observed in the surveys and to Rule (USEPA 2003b). place uncertainty bounds about that a. Information Collection Rule results. concentrations in sources where oocysts estimation. Figure III–1 presents plant-mean may have been present but were not A hierarchical model with Bayesian Cryptosporidium levels for Information detected due to low sample volume and parameter estimation techniques was Collection Rule plants as a cumulative poor method recovery (this concept is used to separately analyze filtered and distribution. Included in Figure III–1 are explained further later in this section). unfiltered system data from the distributions of both the observed raw BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Information Collection Rule and the data adjusted for mean analytical

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P contamination and a fraction of plants 0.048 and 1.3 oocysts/L, respectively. The results shown in Figure III–1 with elevated source water pathogen These levels are lower than indicate that mean Cryptosporidium levels. The median and 90th percentile Cryptosporidium occurrence estimates levels among Information Collection estimates of Information Collection Rule used in the IESWTR (USEPA 1998c), Rule plants vary widely, with many plant-mean Cryptosporidium levels are and the distribution of Information plants having relatively little

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.000 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47655

Collection Rule data is broader (i.e., of sampling and were not detected due probability of a non-detect is 97%. more source-to-source variability). Also, to poor analytical method recovery and Consequently, EPA has concluded that the occurrence of Cryptosporidium in low sample volumes. it is appropriate and necessary to use a flowing stream sources was greater and This concept is illustrated by Figure statistical model to estimate the more variable than in reservoir/lake III–2, which shows the likelihood of no underlying distribution. sources (shown in USEPA 2003b). oocysts being detected by the The fact that only 44% of Information Information Collection Rule method as EPA modeled Cryptosporidium Collection Rule plants had one or more a function of source water concentration occurrence separately for filtered and samples positive for Cryptosporidium (assumes median Information Collection unfiltered plants that participated in the and that only 7% of all Information Rule sample volume of 3 L). As can be Information Collection Rule because Collection Rule samples were positive seen in Figure III–2, when the source unfiltered plants comply with different for Cryptosporidium suggests that water concentration is 1 oocyst/L, regulatory requirements than filtered oocyst levels were relatively low in which is a relatively high level, the plants. As shown in Table III–3, the many source waters. However, as noted probability of no oocysts being detected occurrence of Cryptosporidium was earlier, it is expected that in a 3 L sample is 73%; for a source lower for unfiltered sources. Cryptosporidium oocysts were present water with 0.1 oocyst/L, which is close BILLING CODE 6560–50–P in many more source waters at the time to the median occurrence level, the

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.001 47656 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

TABLE III–3.—SUMMARY OF INFORMATION COLLECTION RULE Cryptosporidium MODELED SOURCE WATER DATA FOR UNFILTERED AND FILTERED PLANTS

Information collection rule modeled plant-mean (oocysts/L) Source 90th Mean Median per- centile

Unfiltered ...... 0.014 0.0079 0.033 Filtered ...... 0.59 0.052 1.4

The median Cryptosporidium levels for ICRSS medium and large medium and large systems both had occurrence level for unfiltered systems systems, respectively, as cumulative median plant-mean Cryptosporidium in the Information Collection Rule was distributions. Medium and large system levels of approximately 0.05 oocysts/L, 0.0079 oocysts/L, which is close to the data were analyzed separately to which is close to the median oocyst median level of 0.01 oocysts/L reported identify differences between the two level in the Information Collection Rule for unfiltered systems in the IESWTR data sets. Similar to the Information data set as well. However, the 90th (Montgomery Watson, 1995). However, Collection Rule data plot, Figures III–3 percentile plant-mean was 0.33 oocysts/ the Information Collection Rule data do and III–4 include distributions for both L for ICRSS medium systems and 0.24 not show the 2 log difference in median the observed raw data adjusted for mean oocysts/L for ICRSS large systems. Note Cryptosporidium levels between filtered analytical method recovery of 43% and that in the Information Collection Rule and unfiltered systems that was the modeled estimate of the underlying distribution, the 90th percentile observed for the data used in the distribution, along with 90% confidence Cryptosporidium concentration is 1.3 IESWTR. The ratio of median plant- bounds. The observed and modeled oocysts/L, which is significantly higher mean occurrence in unfiltered plants to distributions are similar for the 85% of than either the ICRSS medium or large filtered plants is about 1:7 (see Table ICRSS plants that detected system distribution. III–3). Thus, based on an assumption of Cryptosporidium, and the modeled The reasons for different results a minimum 2 log removal of distribution allows for estimation of between the surveys are not well Cryptosporidium by filtration plants (as Cryptosporidium concentrations for understood, but may stem from year-to- required by the IESWTR and source waters where oocysts may have year variation in occurrence, systematic LT1ESWTR), these data indicate that, on been present but were not detected. differences in the sampling or average, finished water oocysts levels Plant-mean Cryptosporidium measurement methods employed, and are higher in unfiltered systems than in concentrations for large and medium differences in the populations sampled. filtered systems. systems in the ICRSS are similar at the This topic is discussed further at the b. ICRSS results. Figures III–3 and III– mid and lower range of the distribution end of this section. 4 present plant-mean Cryptosporidium and differ at the upper end. ICRSS BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47657

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.002 47658 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C broader). This is illustrated by considering well-operated filter plant using a water 5. Significance of new the ratio of the 90th percentile to the median source of average quality (63 FR 69492, Cryptosporidium occurrence data. plant-mean concentration. In the December 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a). The Information Collection Rule and LeChevallier and Norton (1995) data used for Rather, these data indicate that Agency ICRSS data substantially improve the IESWTR, this ratio was 4.6, whereas in the Information Collection Rule data, this conclusions regarding the risk overall knowledge of the occurrence ratio is 27. comparison between unfiltered and distribution of Cryptosporidium in filtered drinking waters must be revised. drinking water sources. They provide These data, therefore, support the For protection equivalent to that data on many more water sources than finding that Cryptosporidium levels are provided by filtered systems, unfiltered were available when the IESWTR was relatively low in most water sources, but systems must take additional steps to developed and the data are of more there is a subset of sources with strengthen their microbial barriers. uniform quality. In regard to filtered relatively higher concentrations where systems, these new data demonstrate additional treatment may be 6. Request for Comment on Information two points: appropriate. Collection Rule and ICRSS Data Sets (1) The occurrence of Cryptosporidium in In regard to unfiltered plants, the EPA notes that there are significant many drinking water sources is lower than Information Collection Rule data are differences in the Information was indicated by the data used in IESWTR. consistent with the Cryptosporidium Collection Rule and ICRSS medium and Median plant-mean levels for the Information occurrence estimates for unfiltered large system data sets. The median Collection Rule and ICRSS data sets are systems in the IESWTR. However, due values for these data sets are 0.048, approximately 0.05 oocysts/L, whereas the to the lower occurrence estimates for 0.050, and 0.045 oocysts/L, respectively, median oocyst concentration in the filtered systems noted previously, the while the 90th percentile values are 1.3, LeChevallier and Norton (1995) data used in Information Collection Rule data do not 0.33, and 0.24 oocysts/L. The reasons the IESWTR risk assessment was 2.3 oocysts/ L. support the IESWTR finding that for these differences are not readily (2) Cryptosporidium occurrence is more unfiltered water systems in compliance apparent. The ICRSS used a newer variable from plant to plant than was with the source water requirements of method with better quality control that indicated by the data considered for the the SWTR have a risk of yields significantly higher recovery, and IESWTR (i.e., occurrence distribution is cryptosporidiosis equivalent to that of a this suggests that these data are more

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.003 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47659

reliable for estimating concentrations at D. Treatment the Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in individual plants. However, the Principle, which states as follows: 1. Overview Information Collection Rule included a The additional treatment requirements in much larger number of plants (350 v. 40 This section presents information on the (LT2ESWTR) bin requirement table are each for the ICRSS medium and large treatment processes for reducing the risk based, in part, on the assumption that system surveys) and, consequently, may from Cryptosporidium in drinking conventional treatment plants in compliance be more reliable for estimating water. Treatment information is critical with the IESWTR achieve an average of 3 logs occurrence nationally. The surveys to two aspects of the LT2ESWTR: (1) removal of Cryptosporidium. included a similar number of samples estimates of the efficiency of water In addition, the Agency finds that per plant (18 v. 24 in the ICRSS). The filtration plants in removing available data support an estimate of 3 two surveys cover different time periods Cryptosporidium are used in assessing log average Cryptosporidium removal (7/97–12/98 for the Information risk in treated drinking water and (2) the for well operated slow sand and DE Collection Rule and 3/99–2/00 for the performance and availability of plants. Direct filtration plants are ICRSS). treatment technologies like ozone, UV estimated to achieve a 2.5 log average In order to better understand the light, and membranes that effectively Cryptosporidium reduction, in factors that may account for the inactivate or remove Cryptosporidium consideration of the absence of a differences in the three data sets, EPA impact the feasibility of requiring sedimentation process in these plants. conducted several additional analyses. additional treatment for this pathogen. The most significant developments in First, EPA compared results for the The majority of plants treating surface the treatment of Cryptosporidium since subset of 40 plants that were in both the water use conventional filtration IESWTR promulgation are in the area of Information Collection Rule and ICRSS treatment, which is defined in 40 CFR inactivation. During IESWTR large system surveys. The medians for 141.2 as a series of processes including development, EPA determined that the two data sets were 0.13 and 0.045 coagulation, flocculation, available data were not sufficient to oocysts/L, respectively, while the 90th sedimentation, and filtration. Direct identify criteria for awarding percentiles were 1.5 and 0.24 oocysts/L. filtration, which is typically used on Cryptosporidium treatment credit for Clearly, the discrepancy between the sources with low particulate levels, any disinfectant. As presented in two surveys persists for the subsample includes coagulation and filtration but section IV.C.14, EPA has now acquired of data from plants that participated in not sedimentation. Other common the necessary data to specify the both surveys. This suggests that the filtration processes are slow sand, disinfectant concentrations and contact different sample groups in the full data diatomaceous earth (DE), membranes, times necessary to achieve different sets are not the primary factor that and bag and cartridge filters. levels of Cryptosporidium inactivation accounts for the different results. For the IESWTR (and later the with chlorine dioxide and ozone. Additionally, recent studies have Next, EPA looked at the six month LT1ESWTR), EPA evaluated results demonstrated that UV light will produce period (July through December) that was from pilot and full scale studies of high levels of Cryptosporidium and sampled in two consecutive years (1997 Cryptosporidium removal by various Giardia lamblia inactivation at low and 1998) during the Information types of filtration plants. Based on these doses. Section IV.C.15 provides criteria Collection Rule survey to investigate studies, EPA concluded that for systems to achieve credit for year-to-year variations at the same conventional and direct filtration plants disinfection of Cryptosporidium, plants. Estimated medians for 1997 and meeting IESWTR filter effluent turbidity Giardia lamblia, and viruses by UV. 1998 were 0.062 and 0.040 oocysts/L, standards will achieve a minimum 2 log This section begins with a summary respectively, while the 90th percentiles (99%) removal of Cryptosporidium. The of treatment information considered for were 1.1 and 1.3 oocysts/L. While these Agency reached the same conclusion for the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, followed comparisons show some interyear slow sand and DE filtration plants by a discussion of additional data that variability, it is less than the variability meeting SWTR turbidity standards. EPA has evaluated since promulgating observed between the Information Treatment credit for technologies like those regulations. Further information Collection Rule and ICRSS data sets. membranes and bag and cartridge filters on treatment of Cryptosporidium is EPA has no data comparing the same was to be made on a product-specific available in Technologies and Costs for plants using the same methods for the basis. Control of Microbial Contaminants and time periods in question (1997–98 and Subsequent to promulgating the Disinfection Byproducts (USEPA 1999–2000) so it is not known if the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, EPA has 2003c), Occurrence and Exposure variation between these time periods reviewed additional studies of the Assessment for the Long Term 2 was larger than the apparent variation performance of treatment plants in Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule between 1997 and 1998 in the removing Cryptosporidium, as well as (USEPA 2003b) and section IV.C of this Information Collection Rule data set. other micron size particles (e.g., aerobic preamble. The choice of data set has a spores) that may serve as indicators of significant effect on exposure, cost, and Cryptosporidium removal. As discussed 2. Treatment information considered for benefit estimates for the LT2ESWTR. later in this section, the Agency has the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR Due to the lack of any clear criterion for concluded that these studies support an Treatment studies that were evaluated favoring one data set over the other, estimate of 3 log (99.9%) for the average during development of the IESWTR are EPA has conducted the analyses for this Cryptosporidium removal efficiency of described in the IESWTR NODA (62 FR proposed rule separately for each, and conventional treatment plants in 59486, November 3, 1997) (USEPA presents a range of estimates based on compliance with the IESWTR or 1997b), the Regulatory Impact Analysis the three data sets. EPA requests LT1ESWTR. Section IV.A describes how for the IESWTR (USEPA 1998d), and comment on this approach. EPA will this estimate of average removal Technologies and Costs for the continue to evaluate the relative efficiency is used in determining the Microbial Recommendations of the M/ strengths and limitations of the three need for additional Cryptosporidium DBP Advisory Committee (USEPA data sets, as well as any new data that treatment under the LT2ESWTR. 1997b). Treatment information may become available for the final rule. Further, this estimate is consistent with considered in development of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47660 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

LT1ESWTR is described in the proposed The LT1ESWTR proposal included inactivation, albeit at doses much higher rule (65 FR 59486, April 10, 2000) summaries of additional studies of than those required to inactivate (USEPA 2000b). Pertinent information is Cryptosporidium removal by Giardia. Results of these studies also summarized in the following conventional treatment (Dugan et al. exhibited significant variability due to paragraphs. 1999), direct filtration (Swertfeger et al. factors like different infectivity assays a. Physical removal. EPA evaluated 1998), and DE filtration (Ongerth and and methods of dose calculation. eight studies on removal of Hutton 1997). These studies supported The status of chlorine dioxide Cryptosporidium by rapid granular IESWTR conclusions stated previously inactivation of Cryptosporidium during filtration for the IESWTR. These were regarding the performance of these IESWTR development was similar to Patania et al. (1995), Nieminski and processes. The LT1ESWTR proposal that of ozone. EPA evaluated a number Ongerth (1995), Ongerth and Pecoraro also summarized studies of membranes, of studies that indicated that relatively (1995), LeChevallier and Norton (1992), bag filters, and cartridge filters high doses of chlorine dioxide could LeChevallier et al. (1991), Foundation (Jacangelo et al. 1995, Drozd and achieve significant inactivation of for Water Research (1994), Kelley et al. Schartzbrod 1997, Hirata and Cryptosporidium (Peeters et al. 1989, (1995), and West et al. (1994). These Hashimoto 1998, Goodrich et al. 1995, Korich et al. 1990, Ransome et al. 1993, studies included both pilot and full Collins et al. 1996, Lykins et al. 1994, Finch et al. 1995 and 1997, and scale plants. Adham et al. 1998). This research LeChevallier et al. 1997). Data from Full scale plants in these studies demonstrated that these technologies these studies showed a high level of typically demonstrated 2–3 log removal may be capable of achieving 2 log or variability due to methodological of Cryptosporidium, and pilot plants greater removal of Cryptosporidium. differences, and the feasibility of high achieved up to almost 6 log removal However, EPA concluded that variation chlorine dioxide doses was uncertain under optimized conditions. In general, in performance among different due to the MCL for chlorite that was the degree of removal that can be manufacturers and models necessitates established by the Stage 1 DBPR. After reviewing these studies, EPA quantified in full scale plants is limited that determinations of treatment credit and the Stage 1 Federal Advisory because Cryptosporidium levels be made on a technology-specific basis Committee concluded that available following filtration are often below the (65 FR 19065, April 10, 2000) (USEPA data were not adequate to award detection limit of the analytical method. 2000b). Cryptosporidium inactivation credit for Pilot scale studies overcome this b. Inactivation. In the IESWTR NODA UV, ozone, or chlorine dioxide. limitation by seeding high (62 FR 59486) (USEPA 1997a), EPA concentrations of oocysts to the plant cited studies that demonstrated that 3. New Information on Treatment for chlorine is ineffective for inactivation of influent, but extrapolation of the Control of Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium at doses practical for performance of a pilot plant to the treatment plants (Korich et al. 1990, a. Conventional filtration treatment routine performance of full scale plants Ransome et al. 1993, Finch et al. 1997). and direct filtration. This section is uncertain. The Agency also summarized studies of provides brief descriptions of seven Cryptosporidium removal efficiency Cryptosporidium inactivation by UV, recent studies of Cryptosporidium in these studies was observed to depend ozone, and chlorine dioxide. EPA removal by conventional treatment and on a number of factors including: water evaluated these disinfectants to direct filtration, followed by a summary matrix, coagulant application, treatment determine if sufficient data were of key points. optimization, filtered water turbidity, available to develop prescriptive Dugan et al. (2001) evaluated the and the filtration cycle. The highest disinfection criteria for ability of conventional treatment to removal rates were observed in plants Cryptosporidium. control Cryptosporidium under varying that achieved very low effluent The studies of UV disinfection of water quality and treatment conditions, turbidities. Cryptosporidium that were available and assessed turbidity, total particle EPA also evaluated studies of during IESWTR development were counts (TPC), and aerobic endospores as Cryptosporidium removal by slow sand inconclusive due to methodological indicators of Cryptosporidium removal. (Schuler and Ghosh 1991, Timms et al. factors. These studies included: Fourteen runs were conducted on a 1995) and DE filtration (Schuler and Lorenzo-Lorenzo et al. (1993), Ransome small pilot scale plant that had been Gosh 1990) for the IESWTR. These et al. (1993), Campbell et al. (1995), determined to provide equivalent studies indicated that a well designed Finch et al. (1997), and Clancy et al. performance to a larger plant. Under and operated plant using these (1997). A common limitation among optimal coagulation conditions, oocyst processes could achieve 3 log or greater these studies was the use of in vitro removal across the sedimentation basin removal of Cryptosporidium. assays, such as excystation and vital dye ranged from 0.6 to 1.8 log, averaging 1.3 After considering these studies, EPA staining, to measure loss of infectivity. log, and removal across the filters concluded that conventional and direct These assays subsequently were shown ranged from 2.9 to greater than 4.4 log, filtration plants in compliance with the to overestimate the UV dose needed to averaging greater than 3.7 log. Removal effluent turbidity criteria of the inactivate protozoa (Clancy et al. 1998, of aerobic spores, TPC, and turbidity all IESWTR, and slow sand and DE plants Craik et al. 2000). In another case, a correlated with removal of in compliance with the effluent reactor vessel that blocked germicidal Cryptosporidium by sedimentation, and turbidity criteria established for these light was used (Finch et al. 1997). these parameters were conservative processes by the SWTR, would achieve EPA evaluated the following studies indicators of Cryptosporidium removal at least 2 log removal of of ozone inactivation of across filtration. Sedimentation removal Cryptosporidium. Recognizing that Cryptosporidium for the IESWTR: under optimal conditions related to raw many plants will achieve more than the Peeters et al. (1989), Korich et al. (1990), water quality, with the lowest minimum 2 log reduction, EPA Parker et al. (1993), Ransome et al. Cryptosporidium removals observed estimated median Cryptosporidium (1993), Finch et al. (1997), Daniel et al. when raw water turbidity was low. removal among filtration plants as near (1993), and Miltner et al. (1997). These Suboptimal coagulation conditions 3 log (99.9%) for the purpose of studies demonstrated that ozone could (underdosed relative to jar test assessing risk. achieve high levels of Cryptosporidium predictions) significantly reduced plant

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47661

performance. Oocyst removal in the these spike events. Cryptosporidium log. For the late breakthrough period, sedimentation basin averaged 0.2 log, removal in the pilot scale spiking study where effluent turbidity began at and removal by filtration averaged 1.5 averaged nearly 4 log, regardless of the approximately 0.25 NTU and ended at log. Under suboptimal coagulation influent oocyst concentration. Pilot 0.35 NTU, Cryptosporidium removal conditions, low sedimentation removals study results indicated a strong dropped to an average of 1.4 log. Two of Cryptosporidium were observed relationship between removal of experiments tested Cryptosporidium regardless of raw water turbidity. Cryptosporidium and removal of removal during the end-of-run Nieminski and Bellamy (2000) particles (> 3 µm) during runs using operation, when effluent turbidities investigated surrogates as indicators of optimal coagulation and similar generally start increasing. Turbidity Giardia and Cryptosporidium in source temperatures. started at about 0.04 NTU for both water and as measures of treatment Patania et al. (1999) evaluated experiments and ended at 0.06 NTU for plant effectiveness. It involved sampling removal of Cryptosporidium at varied the first experiment and 0.13 NTU for for microbial pathogens (Giardia, raw water and filter effluent turbidity the second. Reported Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium, and enteric viruses), levels using direct filtration. Runs were removal ranged from 1.8 to 3.3 log, with potential surrogates (bacteria, bacteria conducted with both low (2 NTU) and an average of 2.5 log for both spores, bacterial phages, turbidity, high (10 NTU) raw water turbidity. experiments. particles), and other water quality Targeted filtered water turbidity was Harrington et al. (2001) studied the parameters in the source and finished either 0.02 or 0.05 NTU. At equivalent removal of Cryptosporidium and waters of 23 surface water filtration filtered water turbidity, emerging pathogens by filtration, facilities and one unfiltered system. Cryptosporidium removal was slightly sedimentation, and dissolved air While Giardia and Cryptosporidium higher when the raw water turbidity flotation (DAF) using bench scale jar were found in the majority of source was higher. Also, Cryptosporidium tests and pilot scale conventional water samples, the investigators could removal was enhanced by an average of treatment trains. In the bench scale not establish a correlation between 1.5 log when steady-state filtered water experiments, all run at optimized either occurrence or removal of these turbidity was 0.02 NTU compared to coagulant doses, mean log removal of protozoa and any of the surrogates 0.05 NTU. Cryptosporidium was 1.2 by tested. This was attributed, in part, to Huck et al. (2000) evaluated filtration sedimentation and 1.7 by DAF. low concentrations of Giardia and efficiency during optimal and Cryptosporidium removal was similar in Cryptosporidium in raw water and high suboptimal coagulation conditions with all four water sources that were analytical method detection limits. two pilot scale filtration plants. One evaluated and was not significantly Removal of Cryptosporidium and plant employed a high coagulation dose affected by lower pH or coagulant aid Giardia averaged 2.2 and 2.6 log, for both total organic carbon (TOC) and addition. However, removal of respectively, when conservatively particle removal, and the second plant Cryptosporidium was greater at 22°C estimated using detection limits in used a low dose intended for particle than at 5°C, and was observed to be filtered water. Aerobic spores were removal only. Under optimal operating higher with alum coagulant than with found in 85% of filtered water samples conditions, which were selected to either polyaluminum and were considered a measure of achieve filtered water turbidity below hydroxychlorosulfate or ferric chloride. general treatment effectiveness. Average 0.1 NTU, median Cryptosporidium In the pilot scale experiments, mean reduction of aerobic spores was 2.84 log. removal was 5.6 log at the high log removal of Cryptosporidium was 1.9 Direct filtration plants removed fewer coagulant dose plant and 3 log at the in filtered water with turbidity of 0.2 aerobic spores than conventional or low dose plant. Under suboptimal NTU or less. Removal increased as softening plants. coagulation conditions, where the filtered water turbidity dropped below McTigue et al. (1998) conducted an coagulant dose was reduced to achieve 0.3 NTU. There was no apparent effect on-site survey of 100 treatment plants filtered water turbidity of 0.2 to 0.3 of filtration rate on removal efficiency. for particle counts, pathogens NTU, median Cryptosporidium In comparing Cryptosporidium removal (Cryptosporidium and Giardia), and removals dropped to 3.2 log and 1 log by sand, dual media (anthracite/sand), operational information. The authors at the high dose and low dose plants, and trimedia (anthracite/sand/garnet) also performed pilot scale spiking respectively. Oocyst removal also filters, no difference was observed near studies. Median removal of particles decreased substantially at the end of the neutral pH. However, at pH 5.7, removal greater than 2 mm was 2.8 log, with filter cycle, although this was not increased significantly in the sand filter values ranging from 0.04 to 5.5 log. always indicated by an increase in and it outperformed the other filter Removal generally increased with turbidity. Runs conducted with no media configurations. The authors increasing raw water particle coagulant resulted in very little found no apparent explanation for this concentration. Results were consistent Cryptosporidium removal. behavior. There was no observable effect with previously collected data. Emelko et al. (2000) investigated of a turbidity spike on Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium and Giardia were Cryptosporidium removal during removal. found in the majority of raw water vulnerable filtration periods using a sources, but calculation of their log pilot scale direct filtration system. The Significance of Conventional and Direct removal was limited by the authors evaluated four different Filtration Studies concentration present. River sources operational conditions: stable, early The performance of treatment plants had a higher incidence of pathogen breakthrough, late breakthrough, and under current regulations is a significant occurrence. Direct filtration plants had end of run. During stable operation, factor in determining the need for higher levels of pathogens in the filtered effluent turbidity was approximately additional treatment. As described in water than others in the survey. 0.04 NTU and Cryptosporidium removal section IV.A, the proposed Nearly all of the filter runs evaluated ranged from 4.7 to 5.8 log. In the early Cryptosporidium treatment in the survey exhibited spikes where breakthrough period, effluent turbidity requirements associated with filtered water particle counts increased, increased from approximately 0.04 to LT2ESWTR risk bins for filtered systems and pilot work showed that pathogens 0.2 NTU, and Cryptosporidium removal are based, in part, on an estimate that are more likely to be released during decreased significantly, averaging 2.1 conventional plants in compliance with

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47662 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

the IESWTR achieve an average of 3 log sedimentation basins, which are absent from 0.1–0.5 log for Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium removal. The in direct filtration, can achieve 0.5 log and 0.9–1.4 log for Giardia. Raw water following discussion illustrates why or greater Cryptosporidium reduction turbidity ranged from 1.3 to 1.6 NTU EPA believes that available data support (Dugan et al. 2001, Patania et al. 1995, and decreased to 0.35–0.31 NTU after this estimate. Edzwald and Kelly 1998, Payment and filtration. The authors attributed the low While Cryptosporidium removal at Franco 1993, Kelley et al. 1995). In Cryptosporidium and Giardia removals full scale plants is difficult to quantify addition, Patania et al. (1995) observed to the relatively poor grade of filter due to limitations with analytical direct filtration to achieve less media and lower water temperature. methods, pilot scale studies show that Cryptosporidium removal than The sand had a higher uniformity reductions in aerobic spores and total conventional treatment, and McTigue et coefficient than recommended by design particle counts are often conservative al. (1998) found a higher incidence of standards. This creates larger pore indicators of filtration plant removal Cryptosporidium in the treated water of spaces within the filter bed that retard efficiency for Cryptosporidium (Dugan direct filtration plants. Given these biological removal capacity. Lower et al. 2001, McTigue et al. 1998, Yates findings, EPA has estimated that direct water temperatures (1 °C) also decreased et al. 1998, Emelko et al. 1999 and filtration plants achieve an average of biological activity in the filter media. 2000). Surveys of full scale plants have 2.5 log Cryptosporidium reduction (i.e., Hall et al. (1994) examined the reported average reductions near 3 log 0.5 log less than conventional removal of Cryptosporidium with a pilot for both aerobic spores (Nieminski and treatment). scale slow sand filtration plant. Bellamy, 2000) and total particle counts i. Dissolved air flotation. Dissolved air Cryptosporidium removals ranged from (McTigue et al. 1998). Consequently, flotation (DAF) is a solid-liquid 2.8 to 4.3 log after filter maturation, these findings are consistent with an separation process that can be used in with an average of 3.8 log (at least one estimate that average removal of conventional treatment trains in place of week after filter scraping). Raw water Cryptosporidium by filtration plants is gravity sedimentation. DAF takes turbidity ranged from 3.0 NTU to 7.5 approximately 3 log. advantage of the buoyancy of oocysts by NTU for three of four runs and 15.0 Pilot scale Cryptosporidium spiking floating oocyst/particle complexes to the NTU for a fourth run. Filtered water studies (Dugan et al. 2001, Huck et al. surface for removal. In DAF, air is turbidity was 0.2 to 0.4 NTU, except for 2000, Emelko et al. 2000, McTigue et al. dissolved in pressurized water, which is the fourth run which had 2.5 NTU 1998, Patania et al. 1995) suggest that a then released into a flotation tank filtered water turbidity. This study also conventional treatment plant has the containing flocculated particles. As the included an investigation of potential to achieve greater than 5 log water enters the tank, the dissolved air Cryptosporidium removal during filter removal of Cryptosporidium under forms small bubbles that collide with start-up where the filtration rate was optimal conditions. However, these high and attach to floc particles and float to slowly increased over a 4 day period. removals are typically observed at very the surface (Gregory and Zabel, 1990). Results indicate that filter ripening did low filter effluent turbidity values, and In comparing DAF with gravity not appear to affect Cryptosporidium the data show that removal efficiency sedimentation, Plummer et al. (1995) removal. can decrease substantially over the observed up to 0.81 log removal of The study by Fogel et al. is significant course of a filtration cycle or if oocysts in the gravity sedimentation because it indicates that a slow sand coagulation is not optimized (Dugan et process, while DAF achieved 0.38 to 3.7 filtration plant may achieve less than 2 al. 2001, Huck et al. 2000, Emelko et al. log removal, depending on coagulant log removal of Cryptosporidium removal 2000, Harrington et al. 2001). Removal dose. Edzwald and Kelley (1998) while being in compliance with the efficiency also appears to be impacted demonstrated a 3 log removal of oocysts effluent turbidity requirements of the by source water quality (Dugan et al. using DAF, compared with a 1 log IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. The authors 2001, McTigue et al. 1998). Given these removal using gravity sedimentation in attributed this poor performance to the considerations, EPA believes that 3 log the clarification process before filter being improperly designed, which, is a reasonable estimate of average filtration. In bench scale testing by if correct, illustrates the importance of Cryptosporidium removal efficiency for Harrington et al. (2001), DAF averaged proper design for removal efficiency in conventional treatment plants in 0.5 log higher removal of slow sand filters. In contrast, the study compliance with the IESWTR or Cryptosporidium than gravity by Hall et al. (1994) supports other work LT1ESWTR. sedimentation. Based on these results, (Schuler and Ghosh 1991, Timms et al. The Stage 2 M–DBP Advisory EPA has concluded that a treatment 1995) in finding that slow sand filtration Committee did not address direct plant using DAF plus filtration can can achieve Cryptosporidium removal filtration plants, which lack the achieve levels of Cryptosporidium greater than 3 log. Overall, this body of sedimentation basin of a conventional removal equivalent to or greater than a work appears to show that slow sand treatment train, but recommended that conventional treatment plant with filtration has the potential to achieve EPA address these plants in the gravity sedimentation. Cryptosporidium removal efficiencies LT2ESWTR proposal (65 FR 83015, b. Slow sand filtration. Slow sand similar to that of a conventional plant, December 29, 2000) (USEPA 2000a). filtration is a process involving passage but proper design and operation are While some studies have observed of raw water through a bed of sand at critical to realizing treatment goals. similar levels of Cryptosporidium low velocity (generally less than 0.4 m/ c. Diatomaceous earth filtration. removal in direct and conventional h) resulting in substantial particulate Diatomaceous earth filtration is a filtration plants (Nieminski and removal by physical and biological process in which a precoat cake of filter Ongerth, 1995, Ongerth and Pecoraro mechanisms. For the LT2ESWTR media is deposited on a support 1995), EPA has concluded that the proposal, EPA has reviewed two membrane and additional filter media is majority of available data support a additional studies of slow sand continuously added to the feed water to lower estimate of Cryptosporidium filtration. maintain the permeability of the filter removal efficiency for direct filtration Fogel et al. (1993) evaluated removal cake. Since the IESWTR and plants. efficiencies for Cryptosporidium and LT1ESWTR, EPA has reviewed one new As described in section IV.C.5, pilot Giardia with a full scale slow sand study of DE filtration (Ongerth and and full scale studies demonstrate that filtration plant. The removals ranged Hutton 2001). It supports the findings of

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47663

earlier studies (Schuler and Gosh 1990, i. Ozone and chlorine dioxide. With treatment credit as a function of Ongerth and Hutton 1997) in showing the completion of several major studies, disinfection conditions. CT tables for that a well designed and operated DE EPA has acquired sufficient information ozone and chlorine dioxide inactivation plant can achieve Cryptosporidium to develop standards for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium are presented in removal equivalent to a conventional of Cryptosporidium by ozone and Section IV.C.14 of this preamble. treatment plant (i.e., average of 3 log). chlorine dioxide. For both of these ii. Ultraviolet light. A major recent d. Other filtration technologies. In disinfectants, today’s proposal includes development is the finding that UV light today’s proposal, information about bag CT tables that specify a level of is highly effective for inactivating filters, cartridge filters, and membranes, Cryptosporidium treatment credit based Cryptosporidium and Giardia at low including criteria for awarding on the product of disinfectant doses. Research prior to 1998 had Cryptosporidium treatment credit, is concentration and contact time. indicated that very high doses of UV presented in section IV.C as part of the For ozone, the CT tables in today’s light were required to achieve microbial toolbox. Section IV.C also proposal were developed through substantial disinfection of protozoa. addresses credit for pretreatment considering four sets of experimental However, as noted previously, these options like presedimentation basins data: Li et al. (2001), Owens et al. results were largely based on the use of and bank filtration. (2000), Oppenheimer et al. (2000), and in vitro assays, which were later shown e. Inactivation. Substantial advances Rennecker et al. (1999). Chlorine to substantially overestimate the UV in understanding of Cryptosporidium dioxide CT tables are based on three doses required to prevent infection inactivation by ozone, chlorine dioxide, experimental data sets: Li et al. (2001), (Clancy et al. 1998, Bukhari et al. 1999, and UV have been made following the Owens et al. (1999), and Ruffell et al. Craik et al. 2000). Recent research using IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. These (2000). Together these studies provide a in vivo assays (e.g., neonatal mouse advances have allowed EPA to develop large body of data that covers a range of infectivity) and cell culture techniques criteria to award Cryptosporidium water matrices, both laboratory and to measure infectivity has provided treatment credit for these disinfectants. natural. While the data exhibit strong evidence that both Relevant information is summarized variability, EPA believes that Cryptosporidium and Giardia are highly next, with additional information collectively they are sufficient to sensitive to low doses of UV. sources noted. determine appropriate levels of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47664 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C Zheng et al. 1999). Malley et al. (1995) describes proposed criteria for awarding Figure III–5 presents data from evaluated DBP formation in a number of treatment credit for UV inactivation of selected studies of UV inactivation of surface and ground waters with UV Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium. While the data in doses between 60 and 200 mJ/cm2. UV viruses. These criteria include UV dose Figure III–5 show substantial scatter, light did not directly form DBPs, such tables, validation testing, and they are consistent in demonstrating a as trihalomethanes (THM) and monitoring standards. In addition, EPA high level of inactivation at relatively haloacetic acids (HAA), and did not is preparing a UV Disinfection Guidance low UV doses. These studies generally alter the concentration or species of Manual with information on design, demonstrated at least 3 log DBPs formed by post-disinfection with testing, and operation of UV systems. A Cryptosporidium inactivation at UV chlorine or chloramines. A study by draft of this guidance is available in the doses of 10 mJ/cm 2 and higher. In Zheng et al. (1999) reported that docket for today’s proposal (http:// comparison, typical UV dose for applying UV light following chlorine www.epa.gov/edocket/). drinking water disinfection are 30 to 40 disinfection had little impact on THM iii. Significance of new information mJ/cm 2. A recent investigation by and HAA formation. In addition, data on inactivation. The research on ozone, Clancy et al. (2002) showed that UV suggest that photolysis of nitrate to chlorine dioxide, and UV light light at 10 mJ/cm 2 provided at least 4 nitrite, a potential concern with certain described in this proposal has made log inactivation of five strains of types of UV lamps, will not result in these disinfectants available for systems Cryptosporidium that are infectious to nitrite levels near the MCL under to use in meeting additional humans. Studies of UV inactivation of typical drinking water conditions Cryptosporidium treatment Giardia have reported similar results (Peldszus et al. 2000, Sharpless and requirements under LT2ESWTR. This (Craik et al. 2000, Mofidi et al. 2002, Linden 2001). overcomes a significant limitation to Linden et al. 2002, Campbell and Wallis These studies demonstrate that UV establishing inactivation requirements 2002, Hayes et al. 2003). light is an effective technology for for Cryptosporidium that existed when In addition to efficacy for protozoa inactivating Giardia and the IESWTR was developed. The Stage inactivation, data indicate that UV Cryptosporidium, and that it does not 1 Advisory Committee recognized the disinfection does not promote the form DBPs at levels of concern in need for inactivation criteria if EPA formation of DBPs (Malley et al. 1995, drinking water. Section IV.C.15 were to consider a risk based proposal

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.004 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47665

for Cryptosporidium in future DBP Federal Advisory Committee (65 drinking water sources that are rulemaking (62 FR 59498, November 3, FR 83015, December 29, 2000) (USEPA susceptible to high concentrations of 1997) (USEPA 2000b). The CT tables for 2000a), which described this approach Cryptosporidium. As described next, ozone and chlorine dioxide provide as a ‘‘microbial framework’’. This these data will be applied to small such criteria. In addition, the approach targets additional treatment system LT2ESWTR monitoring. availability of UV furnishes another requirements to those systems with the relatively low cost tool to achieve highest source water Cryptosporidium Small Systems Cryptosporidium inactivation and DBP levels and, consequently, the highest EPA is proposing a 2-phase control. vulnerability to this pathogen. In so monitoring strategy for small systems While no single treatment technology doing, today’s proposal builds upon the (serving fewer than 10,000 people) to is appropriate for all systems, EPA current treatment technique reduce their monitoring burden. This believes that these disinfectants, along requirement for Cryptosporidium under approach is based on Information with the other management and which all filtered systems must achieve Collection Rule and ICRSS data treatment options in the microbial at least a 2 log reduction, regardless of indicating that systems with low source toolbox presented in section IV.C, make source water quality. The intent of this water E. coli levels are likely to have it feasible for systems to meet the proposal is to assure that public water low Cryptosporidium levels, such that additional Cryptosporidium treatment systems with the higher risk source additional treatment would not be requirements in today’s proposal. water achieve a level of public health required under the LT2ESWTR. Under IV. Discussion of Proposed LT2ESWTR protection commensurate with systems this approach, small systems must Requirements with less contaminated source water. initially conduct one year of bi-weekly b. Monitoring requirements. Today’s sampling (one sample every two weeks) A. Additional Cryptosporidium proposal requires systems to monitor for E. coli, beginning 2.5 years after Treatment Technique Requirements for their source water (influent water prior LT2ESWTR promulgation. Small Filtered Systems to treatment plant) for Cryptosporidium, systems are triggered into E. coli, and turbidity. The purpose of the 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? Cryptosporidium monitoring only if the monitoring is to assess source water a. Overview of framework approach. initial E. coli monitoring indicates a Cryptosporidium levels and, thereby, mean concentration greater than 10 E. EPA is proposing treatment technique classify systems in different risk bins. requirements to supplement the existing coli/100 mL for systems using a Proposed monitoring requirements for reservoir or lake as their primary source requirements of the SWTR, IESWTR, large and small systems are summarized and LT1ESWTR (see section II.B). The or greater than 50 E. coli/100 mL for in Table IV–I and are characterized in systems using a flowing stream as their proposed requirements will achieve the following discussion. increased protection against primary source. Small systems that Cryptosporidium in public water Large Systems exceed these E. coli trigger values must systems that use surface water or ground Large systems (serving at least 10,000 conduct one year of twice-per-month water under the direct influence of people) must sample their source water Cryptosporidium sampling, beginning 4 surface water as sources. Under this at least monthly for Cryptosporidium, E. years after LT2ESWTR promulgation. proposal, filtered systems will be coli, and turbidity for a period of 2 The analysis supporting the proposed assigned to one of four risk categories years, beginning no later than 6 months E. coli values that trigger (or ‘‘bins’’), based on the results of after LT2ESWTR promulgation. Systems Cryptosporidium monitoring by small source water Cryptosporidium may sample more frequently (e.g., twice- systems is presented in Section IV.A.2. monitoring. Systems assigned to the per-month, once-per-week), provided However, as recommended by the Stage lowest risk bin incur no additional the same sampling frequency is used 2 M–DBP Advisory Committee, EPA treatment requirements, while systems throughout the 2-year monitoring will evaluate Cryptosporidium indicator assigned to higher risk bins must reduce period. As described in section IV.A.1.c, relationships in the LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium levels beyond IESWTR systems that sample more frequently (at monitoring data collected by large and LT1ESWTR requirements. Systems least twice-per-month) use a different systems. If these data support the use of will comply with additional calculation that is potentially less different indicator levels to trigger small Cryptosporidium treatment conservative to determine their bin system Cryptosporidium monitoring, requirements by selecting treatment and classification. EPA will issue guidance with management strategies from a The purpose of requiring large recommendations. The proposed ‘‘microbial toolbox’’ of control options. systems to collect E. coli and turbidity LT2ESWTR allows States to specify Today’s proposal reflects data is to further evaluate these alternative indicator values for small recommendations from the Stage 2 M– parameters as indicators to identify systems, based on EPA guidance.

TABLE IV–1.—LT2ESWTR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Monitoring parameters and sample frequency requirements Public water systems Monitoring begins Monitoring dura- tion Cryptosporidium E. coli Turbidity

Large systems (serving 6 months after promul- 2 years ...... minimum 1 sample/ minimum 1 sam- minimum 1 measure- 10,000 or more people). gation of month b. ple/month b. ment/month b. LT2ESWTR a. Small systems (serving 30 months (21⁄2 years) 1 year ...... See following rows ...... 1 sample every N/A fewer than 10,000 peo- after promulgation of two weeks. ple). LT2ESWTR.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47666 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

TABLE IVÐ1.—LT2ESWTR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Monitoring parameters and sample frequency requirements Public water systems Monitoring begins Monitoring dura- tion Cryptosporidium E. coli Turbidity

Possible additional monitoring requirement for Cryptosporidium. If small systems exceed E. coli trigger levels c, then * * *

Small systems (serving 48 months (4 years) 1 year ...... 2 samples/month ...... N/A ...... N/A. fewer than 10,000 peo- after promulgation of ple) c. LT2ESWTR. a Public water systems may use equivalent previously collected (grandfathered) data to meet LT2ESWTR requirements. See section IV.A.1.d for details. b Public water systems may sample more frequently (e.g., twice-per-month, once-per-week). c Small systems must monitor for Cryptosporidium for one year, beginning 6 months after completion of E. coli monitoring, if the E. coli annual mean concentration exceeds 10/100 mL for systems using lakes/reservoir sources or 50/100 mL for systems using flowing stream sources. N/A = Not applicable. No monitoring required.

Sampling Location collecting or analyzing a sample would similar to the approach currently used be problematic. under the Unregulated Contaminants Source water samples must be Systems must collect samples within Monitoring Rule (64 FR 50555, representative of the intake to the 2 days before or 2 days after a scheduled September 17, 1999) (USEPA 1999c). filtration plant. Generally, sampling sampling date. If a system does not Small systems will report data to EPA must be performed individually for each sample within this 5-day window, the or States, depending on whether States plant that treats a surface water source. system will incur a monitoring violation have assumed primacy for the However, where multiple plants receive unless either of the following two LT2ESWTR. all of their water from the same influent conditions apply: (e.g., multiple plants draw water from Previously Collected Monitoring Results the same pipe), the same set of (1) If extreme conditions or situations exist that may pose danger to the sample collector, EPA is proposing to allow systems to monitoring results may be applicable to or which are unforeseen or cannot be avoided use previously collected (i.e., each plant. Typically, samples must be and which cause the system to be unable to grandfathered) Cryptosporidium collected prior to any treatment, with sample in the required time frame, the monitoring data to meet LT2ESWTR exceptions for certain pretreatment system must sample as close to the required monitoring requirements if the data are processes. Directions on sampling date as feasible and submit an explanation equivalent to data that will be collected location for plants using off-stream for the alternative sampling date with the under the rule (e.g., sample volume, storage, presedimentation, and bank analytical results. sampling frequency, analytical method filtration are provided in section IV.C. (2) Systems that are unable to report a valid quality control). Criteria for acceptance Cryptosporidium analytical result for a of previously collected data are Systems with plants that use multiple scheduled sampling date due to failure to water sources at the same time must comply with analytical method quality specified in section IV.A.1.d. collect samples from a tap where the control requirements (described in section Providing Additional Treatment Instead sources are combined prior to treatment IV.K) must collect a replacement sample of Monitoring if available. If a blended source tap is within 14 days of being notified by the Filtered systems are not required to not available, systems must collect laboratory or the State that a result cannot be conduct source water monitoring under samples from each source and either reported for that date. Systems must submit an explanation for the replacement sample the LT2ESWTR if the system currently analyze a weighted composite (blended) with the analytical results. Where possible, provides or will provide a total of at sample or analyze samples from each the replacement sample collection date least 5.5 log of treatment for source separately and determine a should not coincide with any other Cryptosporidium, equivalent to meeting weighted average of the results. scheduled LT2ESWTR sampling dates. the treatment requirements of Bin 4 as Sampling Schedule shown in Table IV–4 (i.e., the maximum Approved Analytical Methods and required in today’s proposal). Systems Large systems must submit a sampling Laboratories must notify EPA or the State not later schedule to EPA within 3 months after To ensure the quality of LT2ESWTR than the date the system is otherwise promulgation of the LT2ESWTR. Small monitoring data, today’s proposal required to submit a sampling schedule systems must submit a sampling requires systems to use approved for monitoring and must install and schedule for E. coli monitoring to their methods for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, operate technologies to provide a total primacy agency within 27 months after and turbidity analyses (see section IV.K of at least 5.5 log of treatment for rule promulgation; small systems for sample analysis requirements), and Cryptosporidium by the applicable date required to monitor for Cryptosporidium to have these analyses performed by in Table IV–23. Any filtered system that must submit a Cryptosporidium approved laboratories (described in fails to complete LT2ESWTR monitoring sampling schedule within 45 months section IV.L). requirements must meet the treatment after promulgation. The sampling requirements for Bin 4. schedules must specify the calendar Reporting date on which the system will collect Because source water monitoring by Ongoing Source Assessment and Second each sample required under the large systems will begin 6 months after Round of Monitoring LT2ESWTR. Scheduled sampling dates promulgation of the LT2ESWTR, EPA is Because LT2ESWTR treatment should be evenly distributed throughout proposing that monitoring results for requirements are related to the degree of the monitoring period, but may be large systems be reported directly to the source water contamination, today’s arranged to accommodate holidays, Agency though an electronic data proposal contains provisions to assess weekends, and other events when system (described in section IV.J), changes in a system’s source water

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47667

quality following initial risk bin Cryptosporidium concentrations the minimum removal that plants will classification. These provisions include measured for individual samples. achieve. Specifically, in the IESWTR source water assessment during sanitary and LT1ESWTR, EPA determined that surveys and a second round of TABLE IVÐ2.— BIN CLASSIFICATION filtration plants, including monitoring. TABLE FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS conventional, direct, slow sand, and DE, Under 40 CFR 142.16(b)(3)(i), source meeting the required filter effluent water is one of the components that If your average Then your bin turbidity criteria will achieve at least 2 States must address during the sanitary Cryptosporidium con- classification is log removal of Cryptosporidium. 1 surveys that are required for surface centration is ...... Consequently, these plants were water systems. These sanitary surveys Cryptosporidium <0.075/L Bin 1. awarded a 2 log Cryptosporidium must be conducted every 3 years for 0.075/L ≤ Cryptosporidium Bin 2. removal credit, which equals the community systems and every 5 years < 1.0/L. maximum treatment required under for non-community systems. EPA is 1.0/L ≤ Cryptosporidium < Bin 3. these regulations. proposing that if the State determines 3.0/L. The LT2ESWTR will supplement during the sanitary survey that Cryptosporidium ≥ 3.0/L ... Bin 4. existing regulations by mandating significant changes have occurred in the additional treatment at certain plants 1 All concentrations shown in units of watershed that could lead to increased oocysts/L based on site specific conditions (i.e., contamination of the source water, the source water Cryptosporidium level). State may require systems to implement The approach that systems will use to When assessing the need for additional specific actions to address the average individual sample treatment beyond baseline requirements contamination. These actions include concentrations to determine their bin for higher risk systems, the Agency has implementing options from the classification depends on the number of determined that it is appropriate to microbial toolbox discussed in section samples collected and the length of the consider the average removal efficiency IV.C. monitoring period. Systems serving at achieved by treatment plants. As EPA is proposing that systems least 10,000 people are required to described in section III.D, EPA has conduct a second round of source water monitor for 24 months, and their bin concluded that conventional, slow sand, monitoring, beginning six years after classification must be based on the and DE plants in compliance with the systems are initially classified in following: SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR LT2ESWTR risk bins. To prepare for (1) Highest twelve month running achieve an average Cryptosporidium this second round of monitoring, the annual average for monthly sampling, or reduction of 3 log. Consequently, EPA is Advisory Committee recommended that (2) two year mean if system conducts proposing to award these plants a 3 log EPA initiate a stakeholder process four twice-per-month or more frequent credit towards Cryptosporidium years after large systems complete initial sampling for 24 months (i.e., at least 48 treatment requirements under the bin classification. The purpose of the samples). LT2ESWTR. As noted previously, this stakeholder process would be to review Systems serving fewer than 10,000 approach is consistent with the Stage 2 risk information, and to determine the people are required to collect 24 M–DBP Agreement in Principle. appropriate analytical method, Cryptosporidium samples over 12 For other types of filtration plants, monitoring frequency, monitoring months if they exceed the E. coli trigger treatment credit under the LT2ESWTR location, and other criteria for the level, and their bin classification must differs. Conventional treatment is second round of monitoring. be based on the mean of the 24 samples. defined in 40 CFR 141.2 as a series of If EPA does not modify LT2ESWTR As noted earlier, systems that fail to processes including coagulation, requirements through issuing a new complete the required Cryptosporidium flocculation, sedimentation, and regulation prior to the second round of monitoring will be classified in Bin 4. filtration, with sedimentation defined as monitoring, systems must carry out this When determining LT2ESWTR bin a process for removal of solids before monitoring according to the classification, systems must calculate filtration by gravity or separation. Thus, requirements that apply to the initial individual sample concentrations using plants with separation (i.e., round of source water monitoring. the total number of oocysts counted, clarification) processes other than Moreover, systems will be reclassified unadjusted for method recovery, gravity sedimentation between in LT2ESWTR risk bins based on the divided by the volume assayed (see flocculation and filtration, such as DAF, second round monitoring results and section IV.K for details). As described in may be regarded as conventional using the criteria specified in this Section IV.A.2, the ranges of treatment for purposes of awarding section for initial bin classification. Cryptosporidium concentrations that treatment credit under the LT2ESWTR. However, if EPA changes the define LT2ESWTR bins reflect However, for direct filtration plants, LT2ESWTR risk bin structure to reflect consideration of analytical method which lack a sedimentation process, a new analytical method or new risk recovery and the percent of EPA is proposing a 2.5 log information, systems will undergo a site Cryptosporidium oocysts that are Cryptosporidium removal credit. specific risk characterization in infectious. Consequently, sample Studies that support awarding direct accordance with the revised rule. analysis results will not be adjusted for filtration plants less treatment credit these factors. than conventional plants are c. Treatment Requirements ii. Credit for treatment in place. A key summarized in section III.D. i. Bin classification. Under the parameter in determining additional EPA is unable to estimate an average proposed LT2ESWTR, surface water Cryptosporidium treatment log removal for other filtration systems that use filtration will be requirements is the credit that plants technologies like membranes, bag filters, classified in one of four receive for treatment currently provided and cartridge filters, due to variability Cryptosporidium concentration (i.e., treatment in place). For baseline among products. As a result, credit for categories (bins) based on the results of treatment requirements established by these devices must be determined by the source water monitoring. As shown in the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR State, based on product specific testing Table IV–2, bin classification is that apply uniformly to filtered systems, described in section IV.C or other determined by averaging the the Agency has awarded credit based on criteria approved by the State.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47668 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Table IV–3 presents the credit demonstrates through a State-approved information, that the system is not proposed for different types of plants protocol that it reliably achieves a achieving the degree of towards LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium higher level of Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium removal indicated in treatment requirements. As described in removal. Conversely, a State may award Table IV–3. section IV.C.18, a State may award less credit to a system where the State greater credit to a system that determines, based on site specific

TABLE IVÐ3.—Cryptosporidium TREATMENT CREDIT TOWARDS LT2ESWTR REQUIREMENTS 1

Conventional treatment (in- Slow sand or diatoma- Alternative filtration tech- Plant type cludes softening) Direct filtration ceous earth filtration nologies

Treatment credit ...... 3.0 log ...... 2.5 log ...... 3.0 log ...... Determined by State 2. 1 Applies to plants in full compliance with the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR as applicable 2 Credit must be determined through product or site specific assessment

iii. Treatment requirements associated compliance with current regulations, membranes or bag/cartridge filters, and with LT2ESWTR bins additional Cryptosporidium treatment of classified in Bins 2–4, the State must The treatment requirements 1.0 to 2.5 log is required when classified determine additional treatment associated with LT2ESWTR risk bins are in Bins 2–4. Direct filtration plants that requirements based on the credit shown in Table IV–4. The total receive 2.5 log credit for compliance awarded to a particular technology. The Cryptosporidium treatment required for with current regulations must achieve additional treatment must be such that Bins 2, 3, and 4 is 4.0 log, 5.0 log, and 1.5 to 3.0 log of additional plants classified in Bins 2, 3, and 4 5.5 log, respectively. For conventional Cryptosporidium treatment in Bins 2–4. achieve the total required (including softening), slow sand, and DE For systems using alternative Cryptosporidium reductions of 4.0, 5.0, plants that receive 3.0 log credit for filtration technologies, such as and 5.5 log, respectively.

TABLE IVÐ4.—TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS PER LT2ESWTR BIN CLASSIFICATION

And you use the following filtration treatment in full compliance with the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR (as applica- If your bin classi- ble), then your additional treatment requirements are . . . fication is . . . Conventional filtration treat- Slow sand or diatomaceous Alternative filtration tech- ment (includes softening) Direct filtration earth filtration nologies

Bin 1 ...... No additional treatment ...... No additional treatment ...... No additional treatment ...... No additional treatment. Bin 2 ...... 1 log treatment 1 ...... 1.5 log treatment 1 ...... 1 log treatment 1 ...... As determined by the State 1, 3. Bin 3 ...... 2 log treatment 2 ...... 2.5 log treatment 2 ...... 2 log treatment 2 ...... As determined by the State 2, 4. Bin 4 ...... 2.5 log treatment 2 ...... 3 log treatment 2 ...... 2.5 log treatment 2 ...... As determined by the State 2, 5. 1 Systems may use any technology or combination of technologies from the microbial toolbox. 2 Systems must achieve at least 1 log of the required treatment using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/cartridge filters, or bank fil- tration. 3 Total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation must be at least 4.0 log. 4 Total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation must be at least 5.0 log. 5 Total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation must be at least 5.5 log.

Plants can achieve additional Systems in Bin 2 can meet additional Specifically, EPA is proposing that Cryptosporidium treatment credit Cryptosporidium treatment Cryptosporidium sample analysis through implementing pretreatment requirements through using any option results collected prior to promulgation processes like presedimentation or bank or combination of options from the of the LT2ESWTR must meet the filtration, by developing a watershed microbial toolbox. In Bins 3 and 4, following criteria to be used for bin control program, and by applying systems must achieve at least 1 log of classification: • additional treatment steps like UV, the additional treatment requirement Samples were analyzed by ozone, chlorine dioxide, and through using ozone, chlorine dioxide, laboratories using validated versions of membranes. In addition, plants can UV, membranes, bag filtration, cartridge EPA Methods 1622 or 1623 and meeting the quality control criteria specified in receive additional credit for existing filtration, or bank filtration. these methods (USEPA 1999a, USEPA treatment through achieving very low d. Use of previously collected data. 1999b, USEPA 2001e, USEPA 2001f). filter effluent turbidity or through a Today’s proposal allows systems with • Samples were collected no less demonstration of performance. Section previously collected Cryptosporidium frequently than each calendar month on IV.C presents criteria for awarding data (i.e., data collected prior to the a regular schedule, beginning no earlier Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a required start of monitoring under the than January 1999 (when EPA Method host of treatment and control options, LT2ESWTR) that are equivalent in 1622 was first released as an including those listed here and others, sample number, frequency, and data interlaboratory-validated method). which are collectively termed the quality to data that will be collected • Samples were collected in equal ‘‘microbial toolbox’’. under the LT2ESWTR to use those data intervals of time over the entire in lieu of conducting new monitoring. collection period (e.g., weekly,

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47669

monthly). The allowances for deviations 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? consequent costs, than is needed by from a sampling schedule specified The monitoring and treatment many systems with low source water under IV.A.1.b for LT2ESWTR requirements for filtered systems Cryptosporidium levels. In addition, monitoring apply to grandfathered data. proposed under the LT2ESWTR stem there were concerns with the feasibility • Samples were collected at the from the data and analyses described in of requiring almost all surface water correct location as specified for this section and reflect treatment plants to install additional LT2ESWTR monitoring. Systems must recommendations made by the Stage 2 treatment processes for report the use of bank filtration, M–DBP Federal Advisory Committee Cryptosporidium. presedimentation, and raw water off- A second approach was to base (65 FR 83015) (USEPA 2000a). stream storage during sampling. additional treatment requirements on a a. Basis for targeted treatment • For each sample, the laboratory plant’s source water Cryptosporidium requirements. Under the IESWTR, EPA analyzed at least 10 L of sample or at level. Under this approach, systems established an MCLG of zero for least 2 mL of packet pellet volume or as monitor their source water for Cryptosporidium at the genus level much volume as two filters could Cryptosporidium, and additional based on the public health risk accommodate before clogging (applies treatment is required only from those associated with this pathogen. The only to filters that have been approved systems that exceed specified oocyst IESWTR included a 2 log treatment by EPA for use with Methods 1622 and concentrations. This has the advantage technique requirement for medium and 1623). of targeting additional public health • The system must certify that it is large filtered systems that controlled for protection to those systems with higher reporting all Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium as close to the MCLG vulnerability to Cryptosporidium, while monitoring results generated by the as was then deemed technologically avoiding the imposition of higher system during the time period covered feasible, taking costs into consideration. treatment costs on systems with the by the previously collected data. This The LT1ESWTR extended this least contaminated source water. In applies to samples that were (a) requirement to small systems. Given the consideration of these advantages, the collected from the sampling location advances that have occurred subsequent Advisory Committee recommended and used for LT2ESWTR monitoring, (b) not to the IESWTR in available technology EPA is proposing this second approach spiked, and (c) analyzed using the to measure and treat for for filtered systems under the laboratory’s routine process for Method Cryptosporidium, a key question for the LT2ESWTR. 1622 or 1623 analyses. LT2ESWTR was the extent to which b. Basis for bin concentration ranges • The system must also certify that Cryptosporidium should be further and treatment requirements. The the samples were representative of a controlled to approach the MCLG of proposed LT2ESWTR will classify plant’s source water(s) and the source zero, considering technical feasibility, plants into different risk bins based on water(s) have not changed. costs, and potential risks from DBPs. the source water Cryptosporidium level, If a system has at least two years of The data and analysis presented in and the bin classification will determine Cryptosporidium data collected before Section III of this preamble suggest wide the extent to which additional treatment promulgation of the LT2ESWTR and the variability in possible risk from beyond IESWTR and LT1ESWTR is system does not intend to conduct new Cryptosporidium among public water required. Two questions were central in monitoring under the rule, the system systems. This variability is largely due developing the proposed bin must submit the data and the required to three factors: (1) The broad concentration ranges and additional supporting documentation to EPA no distribution of Cryptosporidium treatment requirements: later than two months following occurrence levels among source waters, • What is the risk associated with a promulgation of the rule. EPA will (2) disparities in the efficacy of given level of Cryptosporidium in a notify the system within four months treatment provided by plants, and (3) drinking water source? following LT2ESWTR promulgation as differences in the infectivity among • What degree of additional treatment to whether the data are sufficient for bin Cryptosporidium isolates. EPA and the should be required for a given source determination. Unless EPA notifies the Advisory Committee considered this water Cryptosporidium level? system in writing that the previously wide range of possible risks and the This section addresses these two collected data are sufficient for bin desire to address systems where the 2 questions by first summarizing how determination, the system must conduct log removal requirement established by EPA assessed the risk associated with source water Cryptosporidium the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR may not Cryptosporidium in drinking water, monitoring as described in section provide adequate public health followed by a description of how EPA IV.A.1.b of this preamble. protection. and the Advisory Committee used this If a system intends to grandfather A number of approaches were type of information in identifying fewer than two years of evaluated for furthering control of LT2ESWTR bin concentration ranges Cryptosporidium data, or if a system Cryptosporidium. One approach was to and treatment requirements. For intends to grandfather 2 or more years require all systems to provide the same additional information on these topics, of previously collected data and also to degree of additional treatment for see Economic Analysis for the conduct new monitoring under the rule, Cryptosporidium (i.e., beyond that LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). the system must submit the data and the required by the IESWTR and i. What is the risk associated with a required supporting documentation to LT1ESWTR). This approach could given level of Cryptosporidium in a EPA no later than eight months ensure that most systems, including drinking water source? The risk of following promulgation of the rule. those with poor quality source water, infection from Cryptosporidium in Systems must conduct monitoring as would be adequately protective. The drinking water is a function of described in section IV.A.1.b until EPA uniformity of this approach has the infectivity (i.e., dose-response notifies the system in writing that it has advantage of minimizing transactional associated with ingestion) and exposure. at least 2 years of acceptable data. See costs for determining what must be Section III.B summarizes available data section IV.J for additional information done by a particular system to comply. on Cryptosporidium infectivity. EPA on reporting requirements associated However, a significant downside is that conducted a meta-analysis of reported with previously collected data. it may require more treatment, with infection rates from human feeding

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47670 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

studies with 3 Cryptosporidium isolates. reduction near 3 log. For drinking water infection of 0.09 for one oocyst ingested, This analysis produced an estimate for consumption, EPA uses a distribution, the daily risk of infection (DR) is as the mean probability of infection given derived from the United States follows: a dose of one oocyst near 0.09 (9%), Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) × with 10th and 90th percentile 1994–96 Continuing Survey of Food DR = (oocysts/L in source water) × confidence values of 0.011 and 0.22, Intakes by Individuals, with a mean (percent remaining after treatment) × respectively. value of 1.2 L/day. Average annual days (1.2 L/day) (0.09). Exposure to Cryptosporidium of exposure to drinking water in CWS, The annual risk (AR) of infection for depends on the concentration of oocysts non-transient non-community water a CWS is in the source water, the efficiency of systems (NTNCWS), and transient non- treatment plants in removing oocysts, community water systems (TNCWS) are AR = 1¥(1¥DR)350 and the volume of water ingested estimated at 350 days, 250 days, and 10 where 350 represents days of exposure (exposure can also occur through days, respectively. (The Economic in a CWS. interactions with infected individuals). Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA Based on data presented in section III.D, 2003a) provides details on all Table IV–5 presents estimates of the EPA has estimated that filtration plants parameters listed here, as well as mean annual risk of infection by in compliance with the IESWTR or morbidity, mortality, and other risk Cryptosporidium in CWSs for selected LT1ESWTR reduce source water factors.) source water infectious oocyst Cryptosporidium levels by 2 to 5 log Using an estimate of 1.2 L/day concentrations and filtration plant (99% to 99.999%), with an average consumption and a mean probability of removal efficiencies.

TABLE IVÐ5.—ANNUAL RISK OF Cryptosporidium INFECTION IN CWSS THAT FILTER, AS A FUNCTION OF SOURCE WATER INFECTIOUS OOCYST CONCENTRATION AND TREATMENT EFFICIENCY

1 Source water concentration Mean annual risk of infection for different levels of treatment efficiency (log removal) (infectious oocysts per liter) 2 log 3 log 4 log 5 log

0.0001 3.8EÐ05 3.8EÐ06 3.8EÐ07 3.8EÐ08 0.001 3.7EÐ04 3.8EÐ05 3.8EÐ06 3.8EÐ07 0.01 3.7EÐ03 3.7EÐ04 3.8EÐ05 3.8EÐ06 0.1 3.7EÐ02 3.7EÐ03 3.7EÐ04 3.8EÐ05 1 0.31 3.7EÐ02 3.7EÐ03 3.7EÐ04 10 0.89 0.31 3.7EÐ02 3.7EÐ03 1 Scientific notation (E¥x) designates 10¥x

For example, Table IV–5 shows that if analyze for Cryptosporidium is limited. in the next section, is a function of the a filtration plant had a mean Consequently, if the bin threshold number of samples collected and concentration of infectious concentration for additional treatment variability in method performance. Cryptosporidium in the source water of was set near 0.01 oocysts/L, systems In consideration of the available 0.01 oocysts/L, and the filtration plant could exceed this level due to a very information on Cryptosporidium risk, as averaged 3 log removal, the mean low number of oocysts being detected. well as the performance and feasibility annual risk of infection by For example, if systems took monthly 10 of analytical methods, EPA is proposing Cryptosporidium is estimated as 3.7 × L samples and bin classification was that the source water threshold 10¥4 (3.7 infections per 10,000 based on a maximum running annual concentration for requiring additional consumers). average, then a system would exceed a Cryptosporidium treatment by filtered ii. What degree of additional mean concentration of 0.01 oocysts/L by systems be established at a mean level of 0.075 oocysts/L. This is the level treatment should be required for a given counting only 2 oocysts in 12 samples. recommended by the Advisory source water Cryptosporidium level? In Given the variability associated with Committee, and it affords a high order to develop targeted treatment Cryptosporidium analytical methods, likelihood that systems with true mean requirements for the LT2ESWTR, it was the Advisory Committee did not support Cryptosporidium concentrations of 0.1 necessary to identify a source water requiring additional treatment for oocysts/L or higher will provide Cryptosporidium level above which filtered systems based on so few counts. additional treatment under the rule. additional treatment by filtered systems Another concern related to analytical Beyond identifying this first would be required. Based on the type of method limitations was systems being threshold, it was also necessary to risk information shown in Table IV–5, misclassified in a lower bin. For determine Cryptosporidium EPA and Advisory Committee example, if a system had a true mean concentrations that would demarcate deliberations focused on mean source concentration at or just above 0.1 higher risk bins. With respect to the water Cryptosporidium concentrations oocysts/L, the mean that the system concentration range that each bin in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 oocysts/L as would determine through monitoring should comprise, EPA and the Advisory appropriate threshold values for might be less than 0.1 oocyst/L. Thus, Committee dealt with two opposing prescribing additional treatment. if the bin threshold for additional factors: bin misclassification and Analytical method and sampling treatment was set at 0.1 oocysts/L, a equitable risk reduction. constraints were a significant factor in number of systems with true mean As described in the next section, a setting the specific Cryptosporidium concentrations above this level would monthly monitoring program involving level that triggers additional treatment be misclassified in the lower bin with EPA Methods 1622 or 1623 can by filtered systems. The number of no additional treatment required. This characterize a system’s mean samples that systems can be required to type of error, described in more detail Cryptosporidium concentration within a

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47671

0.5 log (factor of 3.2) margin with a high 3 and 4, respectively. The Agency propose a generally applicable credit for degree of accuracy. However, the closer concurs with these recommendations them. Rather, the criteria in section IV.C a system’s true mean concentration is to and has incorporated them in today’s focus on challenge testing to establish a bin boundary, the greater the proposal. treatment credit. Systems using these likelihood that the system will be An important aspect of the proposed technologies that are classified in Bins misclassified into the wrong bin due to additional treatment requirements is 2–4 must work with their States to limitations in sampling and analysis. that they are based, in part, on the assess appropriate credit for their Accordingly, by establishing bins that current level of treatment provided by existing treatment trains. This will cover a wide concentration range, the filtration plants. As noted earlier, the determine the level of additional likelihood of system misclassification is Advisory Committee assumed when treatment necessary to achieve the total reduced. developing its recommendations that treatment requirements for their However, a converse factor relates to conventional treatment plants in assigned bins. EPA has developed equitable protection from risk. Because compliance with the IESWTR achieve guidance on challenge testing of bag and identical treatment requirements will an average of 3 log removal of cartridge filters and membranes, which apply to all systems in the same bin, Cryptosporidium. EPA has determined is available in draft form in the docket systems at the higher concentration end that available data, discussed in section (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/). of a bin will achieve less risk reduction III.D, support this assumption and has In order to give systems flexibility in relative to their source water pathogen proposed a 3 log Cryptosporidium choosing strategies to meet additional levels than systems at the lower treatment credit for conventional plants Cryptosporidium treatment concentration end of a bin. Thus, bins under the LT2ESWTR. Thus, the requirements, the Advisory Committee with a narrow concentration range additional treatment requirements for identified a number of management and provide a more uniform level of public conventional plants in Bins 2, 3, and 4 treatment options, collectively called health protection. translate to total requirements of 4.0, the microbial toolbox. The toolbox, In balancing these factors and to 5.0, and 5.5 log, respectively. which is described in section IV.C, account for the wide range of possible The Advisory Committee did not contains components relating to source water concentrations among address additional treatment watershed control, intake management, different systems as indicated by requirements for plants with treatment pretreatment, additional filtration Information Collection Rule and ICRSS trains other than conventional, but processes, inactivation, and data, the Advisory Committee recommended that EPA address such demonstrations of enhanced recommended and EPA is proposing a plants in the proposed LT2ESWTR and performance. second bin threshold at a mean level of take comment. Based on treatment As recommended by the Advisory 1.0 oocysts/L and a third bin threshold studies summarized in section III.D, Committee, EPA is proposing that at a mean level of 3.0 oocysts/L. EPA has concluded that plants with systems in Bin 2 can meet additional Information Collection Rule and ICRSS slow sand or DE filtration are able to Cryptosporidium treatment data indicate that few, if any, systems achieve 3 log or greater removal of requirements under the LT2ESWTR would measure mean Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium when in compliance using any component or combination of concentrations greater than 3.0 oocysts/ with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR. components from the microbial toolbox. L, so there was not a need to establish Because these plants can achieve However, systems in Bins 3 and 4 must a bin threshold above this value. Thus, comparable levels of performance to achieve at least 1 log of the additional the LT2ESWTR proposal includes the conventional treatment plants, EPA is treatment requirement using following four bins for classifying proposing that slow sand and DE inactivation (UV, ozone, chlorine filtered systems: Bin 1: <0.075/L; Bin 2: filtration plants also apply 1 to 2.5 log dioxide), membranes, bag filters, ≥0.075 to <1.0/L; Bin 3: ≥1.0/L to <3.0/ of additional treatment when classified cartridge filters, or bank filtration. These L; and Bin 4: ≥3.0/L (oocysts/L). in Bins 2–4. specific control measures are proposed With respect to additional Direct filtration differs from due to their ability to serve as Cryptosporidium treatment for systems conventional treatment in that it does significant additional treatment barriers in Bins 2–4, values were considered not include sedimentation or an for systems with high levels of ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 log and greater. equivalent clarification process prior to pathogens. As recommended by the Advisory filtration. As described in section III.D, c. Basis for source water monitoring Committee, EPA is proposing 1.0 log EPA has concluded that a sedimentation requirements. The goal of monitoring additional treatment for conventional process can consistently achieve 0.5 log under the LT2ESWTR is to correctly plants in Bin 2. This level of treatment or greater removal of Cryptosporidium. classify filtration plants into the four will ensure that systems classified in The Agency is proposing that direct LT2ESWTR risk bins. The proposed Bin 2 will achieve treated water filtration plants in compliance with the sampling frequency, time frame, and Cryptosporidium levels comparable to IESWTR or LT1ESWTR receive a 2.5 log averaging procedure for bin systems in Bin 1, the lowest risk bin. In Cryptosporidium removal credit classification are intended to ensure that contrast, if systems in Bin 2 provided towards LT2ESWTR requirements. systems are accurately assigned to only 0.5 log additional treatment then Accordingly, proposed additional appropriate risk bins while limiting the those systems with mean source water treatment requirements for direct burden of monitoring costs. The basis concentrations in the upper part of Bin filtration plants in bins 2, 3, and 4 are for the proposed monitoring 2 would have higher levels of 1.5 log, 2.5 log, and 3 log, respectively. requirements for large and small Cryptosporidium in their finished water Section IV.C of this notice describes systems is presented in the following than systems in Bin 1. proposed criteria for determining discussion. In consideration of the much greater Cryptosporidium treatment credits for i. Systems serving at least 10,000 potential vulnerability of systems in the other filtration technologies like people. highest risk bins, the Advisory membranes, bag filters, and cartridge Committee recommended additional filters. Due to the proprietary and Sample Number and Frequency treatment requirements of 2.0 log and product specific nature of these Systems serving at least 10,000 people 2.5 log for conventional plants in Bins filtration devices, EPA is not able to have two options for sampling under the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47672 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

LT2ESWTR: (1) They can collect 24 Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA Monitoring strategies involving only monthly samples over a 2 year period 2003a) for details. 12 and 8 samples were evaluated to and calculate their bin classification determine if lower frequency using the highest 12 month running TABLE IVÐ6.—FALSE POSITIVE AND monitoring could provide satisfactory annual average, or (2) They can collect FALSE NEGATIVE RATES FOR MONI- bin classification. The results of this 2 or more samples per month over the TORING AND BINNING STRATEGIES analysis indicate that these lower 2 year period and use the mean of all CONSIDERED FOR THE LT2ESWTR sample numbers are not adequate and samples for bin classification. could unfairly bias excessive treatment [In percentages] These proposed requirements reflect requirements. For example, results in recommendations by the Advisory False False Table IV–6 show that if plants were Committee and are based on analyses of Strategy posi- nega- classified in bins based on the second misclassification rates associated with tive 1 tive 2 highest of 12 samples or the highest of different monitoring programs that were eight samples then low false negative considered. EPA is concerned about 48 sample arithmetic rates could be achieved. A system with systems with high concentrations of mean ...... 1.7 1.4 a mean Cryptosporidium level 0.5 log 24 sample Max-RAA ...... 5.3 1.7 Cryptosporidium being misclassified in 24 sample arithmetic above the Bin 1 boundary would have lower bins as well as systems with low mean ...... 2.8 6.2 a 99% chance of being appropriately concentrations being misclassified in 12 sample second highest 47 1.1 classified in a bin requiring additional higher bins. The first type of error could 8 sample maximum ...... 66 1.0 treatment under either strategy. lead to systems not providing an However, the false positive rates 1 False positive rates calculated for systems adequate level of treatment while the with Cryptosporidium concentrations 0.5 log associated with these low sample second type of error could lead to below the Bin 1 boundary of 0.075 oocysts/L. numbers are very high. A system with systems incurring additional costs for 2 False negative rates calculated for sys- a mean oocyst concentration 0.5 log unnecessary treatment. tems with Cryptosporidium concentrations 0.5 below the Bin 1 boundary would have log above the Bin 1 boundary of 0.075 A primary way that EPA analyzed oocysts/L. a 47% probability of being incorrectly misclassification rates was by classified in Bin 2 using the second considering the likelihood that a system The first two of these approaches, the highest result among 12 samples, or a with a true mean Cryptosporidium 48 sample arithmetic mean and 24 66% likelihood of being misclassified in concentration that is a factor of 3.2 (0.5 sample Max-RAA, were recommended Bin 2 using the maximum result among log) above or below a bin boundary by the Advisory Committee and are 8 samples. Due to high false positive would be assigned to the wrong bin. proposed for bin classification under the rates, these strategies are not proposed. Probabilities were assessed for two LT2ESWTR because they have low false EPA also evaluated lower frequency cases: positive and false negative rates. As monitoring strategies that had lower • False negative: a system with a shown in Table IV–6, these strategies false positive rates, such as bin mean concentration of 0.24 oocysts/L have false negative rates of 1 to 2%, classification based on the mean of 12 (i.e., factor of 3.2 above the Bin 1 meaning there is a 98 to 99% likelihood samples, the third highest result of 12 boundary of 0.075 oocysts/L) is that a plant with an oocyst samples, and the second highest of 8 misclassified low in Bin 1. concentration 0.5 log above the Bin 1 samples. Each of these strategies, • False positive: a system with a boundary would be correctly assigned to though, had an unacceptably high false mean concentration of 0.024 oocysts/L Bin 2. The false positive rate is near 2% negative rate, meaning that many (i.e., factor of 3.2 below the Bin 1 for the 48 sample arithmetic mean and systems with mean oocyst boundary of 0.075 oocysts/L) is 5% for the 24 sample Max-RAA. These concentrations greater than the Bin 1 misclassified high in Bin 2. rates indicate that a plant with an oocyst boundary would be misclassified low in Table IV–6 provides false negative concentration 0.5 log below the Bin 1 Bin 1. Consequently, these strategies are and false positive rates as defined boundary would have a 95 to 98% inconsistent with the public health goal previously for different approaches to probability of being correctly assigned of the LT2ESWTR for systems with monitoring and bin classification that to Bin 1. Bin misclassification rates mean levels above 0.075 oocysts/L to were evaluated. Results are shown for across a wide range of concentrations provide additional treatment. the following approaches: are shown in Economic Analysis for the Increasing the number of samples • 48 samples with bin assignment LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). used to compute the maximum running based on arithmetic mean (i.e., average The 24 sample arithmetic mean had a annual average above 24 also increased of all samples). slightly lower false positive rate than the number of annual averages • 24 samples with bin assignment the 24 sample Max-RAA (2.8% vs. computed, so it did not reduce the based on highest 12 sample average, 5.3%) but the false negative rate of the likelihood of false positives. Raising the equivalent to the maximum running arithmetic mean was almost 4 times number of samples used to compute an annual average (Max-RAA). higher. Consequently, a plant with a arithmetic mean above 48 did reduce • 24 samples with bin assignment mean Cryptosporidium level above the bin misclassification rates, but the rates based on arithmetic mean. Bin 1 boundary would be much more were already very small (1 to 2% for • 12 samples with bin assignment likely to be misclassified in Bin 1 using plants with levels 0.5 log above or based on the second highest sample a 24 sample arithmetic mean than with below bin boundaries). For sources with result. a 24 sample Max-RAA. In order to Cryptosporidium concentrations very • 8 samples with bin assignment increase the probability that systems near or at bin boundaries, increasing the based on the maximum sample result. with mean Cryptosporidium number of samples did not markedly These estimated misclassification concentrations above 0.075 oocysts/L improve the error rates, which remained rates were generated with a Monte Carlo will provide additional treatment, EPA near 50% at the bin boundaries. analysis that accounted for the volume is proposing that if only 24 samples are In summary, EPA believes that the assayed, variation in source water taken, the maximum 12 month running proposed sampling designs perform Cryptosporidium occurrence, and annual average must be used to well for the purpose of classifying variable method recovery. See Economic determine bin assignment. plants in LT2ESWTR risk bins and,

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47673

thereby, achieving the public health structures, (2) amorphous structures, or levels. Reflecting Advisory Committee protection intended for the rule. More (3) empty. Oocysts with internal recommendations, EPA is proposing costly designs, involving more frequent structures are considered to have the that large systems evaluate their source sampling and analysis, provide only highest likelihood of being infectious, water Cryptosporidium levels using 2 marginally improved performance. Less while empty oocysts are believed to be years of monitoring. This will account frequent sampling, though lower in cost, non-viable (LeChevallier et al. 1997). for some degree of yearly variability, creates unacceptably high During the ICRSS, 37% of the oocysts without significantly delaying misclassification rates and would not counted were characterized as having additional public health protection provide for the targeted risk reduction internal structures, 47% had amorphous where needed. goals of the rule. structures, and 16% were empty. If it is ii. Systems serving fewer than 10,000 assumed that empty oocysts could not people. No Adjustments for Method Recovery or be infectious, the mid-point value Percent of Oocysts That Are Infectious Indicator Monitoring within the percentage range of counted Two considerations in using oocysts that could have been infectious In recognition of the relatively high Cryptosporidium monitoring data to is 42%. cost of analyzing samples for project risk are (1) Fewer than 100% of After considering this type of Cryptosporidium, EPA and the Advisory oocysts in a sample are recovered and information, the Advisory Committee Committee explored the use of indicator counted by the analyst and (2) not all recommended that monitoring results criteria to identify drinking water the oocysts measured with Methods not be adjusted upward for percent sources that may have high levels of 1622/23 are viable and capable of recovery, nor adjusted downward to Cryptosporidium occurrence. The goal causing infection. These two factors are account for the fraction of oocysts that was to find one or more parameters that offsetting in sign, in that oocyst counts are not infectious. While it is not could be analyzed at low cost and not adjusted for recovery tend to possible to establish a precise value for identify those systems likely to exceed underestimate the true concentration, either factor in individual samples, the the Bin 1 boundary of 0.075 oocysts/L. while the total oocyst count may data suggest that they may be of similar Data from the Information Collection overestimate the infectious magnitude. EPA concurs with this Rule and ICRSS were evaluated for concentration that presents a health recommendation and is proposing that possible indicator parameters, including risk. Based on information described in systems be classified in bins under the fecal coliforms, total coliforms, E. coli, this section, EPA is proposing that LT2ESWTR using the total viruses (Information Collection Rule Cryptosporidium monitoring results be Cryptosporidium oocyst count, only), and turbidity. Based on available used directly to assign systems to uncorrected for recovery, as measured data, E. coli was found to provide the LT2ESWTR risk bins and not be using EPA Method 1622/23. The best performance as a Cryptosporidium adjusted for either factor. proposed LT2ESWTR risk bins are indicator, and the inclusion of other As described in section III.C, ICRSS constructed to reflect this approach. parameters like turbidity was not found matrix spike data indicate that average to improve accuracy. recovery of Cryptosporidium oocysts Data Collection To Support Use of a The next part of this section presents with Methods 1622/23 in a national Microbial Indicator by Small Systems data that support E. coli mean monitoring program will be about 40%. As described in the next section, concentrations of 10/100 mL and 50/100 There is no similar direct measure of the small systems will monitor for an mL as proposed screening levels that fraction of environmental oocysts that indicator, currently proposed to be E. will trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring are infectious, but information related to coli, to determine if they are required to in reservoir/lake and flowing stream this value can be derived from two sample for Cryptosporidium. The systems, respectively. It describes how sources: (1) A study where samples proposed E. coli levels that will trigger E. coli and Cryptosporidium data from were analyzed with both Method 1623 Cryptosporidium monitoring are based the Information Collection Rule and and a cell culture-polymerase chain on Information Collection Rule and ICRSS were analyzed and shows the reaction (CC–PCR) test for oocyst ICRSS data. However, to provide for a performance of different concentrations infectivity, and (2) the structure of more extensive evaluation of of E. coli as an indicator for systems that oocysts counted with Methods 1622 and Cryptosporidium indicator criteria, EPA will exceed the Bin 1 boundary of 0.075 1623. is proposing that large systems measure oocysts/L. LeChevallier et al. (2003) conducted a E. coli and turbidity in their source Information Collection Rule data were study in which six natural waters were water when they sample for evaluated as maximum running annual frequently tested for Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium. This was averages (Information Collection Rule using both Method 1623 and a CC–PCR recommended by the Advisory samples were collected once per month method to test for infectivity. Committee and will allow for possible for 18 months) while ICRSS data were Cryptosporidium oocysts were detected development of alternative indicator evaluated using an annual mean (ICRSS in 60 of 593 samples (10.1%) by Method levels or parameters (e.g., turbidity in samples were collected twice per month 1623 and infectious oocysts were combination with E. coli) to serve as for 12 months). In addition, as detected in 22 of 560 samples (3.9%) by triggers for small system indicators were being evaluated it the CC–PCR procedure. Recovery Cryptosporidium monitoring. became apparent that it was necessary efficiencies for the two methods were to analyze plants separately based on similar. According to the authors, these Time Frame for Monitoring source water type, due to a significantly results suggest that approximately 37% In recommending a time frame for different relationship between E. coli (22/60) of the Cryptosporidium oocysts LT2ESWTR monitoring, the Agency and Cryptosporidium in reservoir/lake detected by Method 1623 were viable considered the trade-off between systems compared to flowing stream and infectious. monitoring over a long period to better systems. In regard to oocyst structure, capture year-to-year fluctuations, and Analyzing the performance of an E. Cryptosporidium oocysts counted with the desire to prescribe additional coli level as a screen to trigger Methods 1622/23 are characterized in treatment quickly to systems identified Cryptosporidium monitoring under the one of three ways: (1) Internal as having high source water pathogen proposed LT2ESWTR involved

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47674 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

evaluating each water treatment plant in positives. Consequently, identifying an in the ICRSS data and from 24% to 39% the data set relative to two factors: (1) appropriate E. coli concentration to (44/114) in the Information Collection Did the plant E. coli level exceed the trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring Rule data. Based on these results, EPA trigger value being assessed? and (2) Did involves balancing false negatives and is proposing that a mean E. coli the plant mean Cryptosporidium false positives to minimize both. concentration of 10/100 mL trigger concentration exceed 0.075 oocysts/L? Results of the indicator analysis for small systems using lake/reservoir Accordingly, plants were sorted into plants with flowing stream sources are sources into monitoring for four categories, based on shown in Figure IV–2. An E. coli trigger Cryptosporidium. While the false Cryptosporidium and E. coli concentration of 50/100 mL produced negative rate associated with this trigger concentrations: zero false negatives for both data sets. value in the ICRSS data set is high, the • Plants with Cryptosporidium < This means that in these data sets, all ICRSS data set contains only 3 0.075 oocysts/L that did not exceed the plants that exceeded mean reservoir/lake plants that exceeded a E. coli trigger level (Figure IV–1, box A) Cryptosporidium concentrations of Cryptosporidium level of 0.075 oocysts/ • Plants with Cryptosporidium < 0.075 oocysts/L also exceeded the E. coli L. 0.075 oocysts/L that exceeded the E. coli trigger concentration and would, Due to limitations in the available trigger level (Figure IV.1, box B) therefore, be required to monitor. data, the Advisory Committee did not • Plants with Cryptosporidium ≥ However, this trigger concentration had recommend that large systems use the E. 0.075 oocysts/L that did not exceed the a significant false positive rate (i.e., it coli indicator screen, as E. coli trigger level (Figure IV.1, box C) was not highly specific in targeting only Cryptosporidium monitoring is less of • Plants with Cryptosporidium ≥ those plants with high Cryptosporidium an economic burden for large systems. 0.075 oocysts/L that exceeded the E. coli levels). False positive rates were 57% Rather, the Advisory Committee trigger level (Figure IV.1, box D) (24/42) and 53% (9/17) with recommended that large systems sample Summary data with E. coli trigger Information Collection Rule and ICRSS for E. coli and turbidity when they concentrations ranging from 5 to 100 per data, respectively. At a higher E. coli monitor for Cryptosporidium under the 100 mL are presented for Information trigger concentration, such as 100/100 LT2ESWTR. These data will then be Collection Rule and ICRSS data in mL, the false negative rate increased to used to verify or, if necessary, further Figures IV–2 and IV–3. 12.5% (3/24) with Information refine the proposed indicator trigger The performance of each E. coli level Collection Rule data and 50% (2/4) with values for small systems. EPA concurs as a trigger for Cryptosporidium ICRSS data, while the false positive rate with these recommendations and they monitoring was evaluated based on false decreased to 43% (18/42) and 35% (6/ are reflected in today’s proposal. negative and false positive rates. False 17), respectively. Consequently, EPA is The proposed monitoring schedule negatives occur when plants do not proposing a mean E. coli concentration under the LT2ESWTR is set up to allow exceed the E. coli trigger value, but of 50/100 mL as a trigger for EPA and stakeholders to evaluate large exceed a Cryptosporidium level of 0.075 Cryptosporidium monitoring by small system monitoring data for indicator oocysts/L. False positives occur when systems with flowing stream sources. relationships prior to the start of small plants exceed the E. coli trigger value Results of the indicator analysis for system E. coli monitoring. After one but do not exceed a Cryptosporidium plants with reservoir/lake sources are year of large system monitoring is level of 0.075 oocysts/L. The false shown in Figure IV–3. An E. coli trigger completed, EPA will begin analyzing negative rate is critical because it of 10/100 mL resulted in a false negative monitoring data to assess whether characterizes the ability of the indicator rate of 20% (2/10) with Information alternative indicator strategies would be to identify those plants with high Collection Rule data and 67% (2/3) with appropriate. Depending on the findings Cryptosporidium levels. In general, low ICRSS data (misclassified 2 out of 3 of this analysis, EPA may issue false negative rates can be achieved by plants over 0.075 oocysts/L). Going to a guidance to States on approving lowering the E. coli trigger lower concentration E. coli trigger, such alternative indicator trigger strategies for concentration. However, when the E. as 5 per 100 mL, decreased the false small systems. Therefore, the proposed coli trigger concentration is decreased, negative rate in both the Information rule is written with the allowance for more plants with low Cryptosporidium Collection Rule and ICRSS data sets by States to approve alternative indicator levels in their source water exceed it. As one plant, but increased the false strategies. a result, more plants incur false positive rate from 20% to 43% (13/30) BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47675

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.005 47676 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.006 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47677

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C classification, large and small systems requirements include the use of Cryptosporidium Monitoring conduct another round of monitoring to approved analytical methods and determine if source water conditions compliance with method quality control Small systems that exceed the E. coli have changed to a degree that may (QC) criteria, use of approved trigger must conduct Cryptosporidium warrant a revised bin classification. The laboratories, minimum sample volume, monitoring, beginning 6 months after Advisory Committee recommended that and a sampling schedule with minimum completion of E. coli monitoring. As EPA convene a stakeholder process frequency. For example, under the recommended by the Advisory within 4 years after the initial bin ICRSS, laboratories analyzed 10 L Committee, EPA is proposing that small classification to develop samples and (considered collectively) systems collect 24 Cryptosporidium recommendations on how best to achieved a mean Cryptosporidium samples over a period of one year. This proceed with implementing this second recovery of approximately 43% in number of samples is the same as round of monitoring. Unless EPA spiked source water with a relative required for large systems, but the modifies the LT2ESWTR to allow for an standard deviation (RSD) of 50%. EPA monitoring burden is targeted only on improved analytical method or a revised anticipates that laboratories conducting those plants that E. coli monitoring bin structure based on new risk Cryptosporidium analysis for the indicates to have elevated levels of fecal information, the second round of LT2ESWTR will collectively achieve matter in the source water. By monitoring will be conducted under the similar analytical method performance. completing Cryptosporidium monitoring same requirements that apply to the Consequently, EPA expects previously in one year, small systems will conduct initial round of monitoring. collected data sets used under the a total of 2 years of monitoring to In addition, EPA is proposing to use LT2ESWTR to meet these standards and determine LT2ESWTR bin classification the required assessment of the water has established criteria for accepting (including the one year of E. coli source during sanitary surveys as an previously collected data accordingly monitoring). This time frame is ongoing measure of whether significant (see section IV.A.1.d). equivalent to the requirement for large changes in watersheds have occurred Systems are requested, but not systems, which monitor for that may lead to increased required, to notify EPA prior to Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity contamination. Where the potential for promulgation of the LT2ESWTR of their for 2 years. increased contamination is identified, intent to submit previously collected The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in States must determine what follow-up data. This will help EPA allocate the Principle recommended that EPA actions by the system are necessary, resources that will be needed to explore the feasibility of alternative, including the possibility of the system evaluate these data in order to make a lower frequency, Cryptosporidium providing additional treatment from the decision on adequacy for bin monitoring criteria for providing a microbial toolbox. determination. Systems that have at conservative mean estimate in small d. Basis for accepting previously least 2 years of previously collected data systems. As described earlier, EPA has collected data. Members of the Advisory to grandfather when the LT2ESWTR is evaluated smaller sample sizes, such as Committee had multiple objectives in promulgated and do not intend to systems taking 12 or 8 samples instead recommending that EPA allow the use conduct new monitoring under the rule of 24 (see Table IV–6). However, EPA of previously collected (grandfathered) are required to submit the previously has concluded that these smaller sample Cryptosporidium data. These include (1) collected data to EPA within 2 months sizes result in unacceptably high giving credit for data collected by following promulgation. This will misclassification rates. For example, bin proactive utilities, (2) facilitating early enable EPA to evaluate the data and classification based on the second determination of LT2ESWTR report back to the utility in sufficient highest of 12 samples produces an compliance needs and, thereby, time to allow, if needed, the utility to estimated false positive rate of 47% for allowing for early planning of contract with a laboratory to conduct systems with a mean Cryptosporidium appropriate treatment selection, (3) monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. concentration 0.5 log below the Bin 1 increasing laboratory capacity to meet Systems that have fewer than 2 years boundary of 0.075/L. In comparison, bin demand for Cryptosporidium analysis of previously collected data to classification based on the mean of 24 under the LT2ESWTR, and (4) allowing grandfather when the LT2ESWTR is samples achieves a false positive rate of utilities to improve their data set for bin promulgated, or that intend to 2.8% for systems at this determination by considering more than grandfather 2 or more years of Cryptosporidium concentration. 2 years of data (i.e., include data previously collected data and also Consequently, EPA is proposing no collected prior to effective date of conduct new monitoring under the rule, alternatives to the requirement that LT2ESWTR). The latter objective are required to submit the previously small systems take at least 24 samples. incorporates the assumption that collected data to EPA within 8 months Small system bin classification will be occurrence can vary from year to year, following promulgation. This will allow determined by the arithmetic mean of so that if more years of data are used in these utilities to continue to collect the 24 samples collected over one year. the bin determination, the source water previously collected data in the 6 month Because the bin structure in the concentration estimate will be a more period between promulgation and the LT2ESWTR is based on annual mean accurate representation of the overall date when monitoring under the Cryptosporidium levels, it is necessary mean. LT2ESWTR must begin, plus a 2 month that bin classification involve averaging A significant issue with accepting period for systems to compile the data samples over at least one year. previously collected data for making bin and supporting documentation. Utilities Consequently, small systems will determinations is ensuring that the data may submit the data earlier than 8 determine their bin classification by are of equivalent quality to data that months after promulgation if they averaging results from all will be collected following LT2ESWTR acquire 2 years of previously collected Cryptosporidium samples collected promulgation. As noted previously, EPA data before this date. during their one year of monitoring. is establishing requirements so that data Submitted grandfathered data sets iii. Future monitoring and collected under the LT2ESWTR will be must include all routine source water reassessment. EPA is proposing that similar in quality to data that were monitoring results for samples collected beginning 6 years after the initial bin generated under the ICRSS. These during the time period covered by the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47678 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

grandfathered data set (i.e., the time per-month during the period when they on source water prior to the addition of period between collection of the first use surface water or 12 samples per filter backwash water. EPA requests and last samples in the data set). year, whichever is smaller. Samples comment on how the effect of recycling However, systems are not required would be collected during the two years filter backwash should be considered in under the LT2ESWTR to submit of the required monitoring period, and LT2ESWTR monitoring. previously collected data for samples bin classification would be based on the Bin Assignment for Systems That Fail outside of this time period. highest average of the two years. EPA requests comment on these and To Complete Required Monitoring 3. Request for Comment other approaches for both small and Today’s proposal classifies systems EPA requests comments on all aspects large systems. that fail to complete required of the monitoring and treatment monitoring in Bin 4, the highest requirements proposed in this section. Previously Collected Monitoring Data treatment bin. EPA requests comment In addition, EPA requests comment on That Do Not Meet QC Requirements on alternative approaches for systems the following issues: EPA is proposing requirements for that fail to complete required acceptance of previously collected monitoring, such as classifying the Requirements for Systems That Use monitoring data that are equivalent to system in a bin based on data the system Surface Water for Only Part of the Year requirements for data generated under has collected, or classifying the system Bin classification for the LT2ESWTR the LT2ESWTR. The Agency is aware in a bin one level higher than the bin is based on the mean annual that systems will have previously indicated by the data the system has sourcewater Cryptosporidium level. collected Cryptosporidium data that do collected. The shortcoming to these Consequently, today’s proposal requires not meet all sampling and analysis alternative approaches is that bin E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring requirements (e.g., quality control, classification becomes more uncertain, to be conducted over the full year. sample frequency, sample volume) and the likelihood of bin However, EPA recognizes that some proposed for data collected under the misclassification increases, as systems systems use surface water for only part LT2ESWTR. However, the Agency has collect fewer than the required 24 of the year. This occurs with systems been unable to develop an approach for Cryptosporidium samples. that use surface water for part of the allowing systems to use such data for Consequently, the proposed approach is year (e.g., during the summer) to LT2ESWTR bin classification. This is for systems to collect all required supplement ground water sources and due to uncertainty regarding the impact samples. with systems like campgrounds that are of deviations from proposed sampling Note that under today’s proposal, in operation for only part of the year. and analysis requirements on data systems may provide 5.5 log of Year round monitoring for these systems quality and reliability. For example, treatment for Cryptosporidium (i.e., may present both logistic and economic Methods 1622 and 1623 have been comply with Bin 4 requirements) as an difficulties. EPA is requesting comment validated within the limits of the QC alternative to monitoring. Where on how to apply LT2ESWTR monitoring criteria specified in these methods. systems notify the State that they will requirements to surface water systems While very minor deviations from provide treatment instead of monitoring, that operate or use surface water for required QA/QC criteria may have only they will not incur monitoring only part of the year. Possible a minor impact on data quality, the violations. approaches that may be considered for Agency has not identified a basis for comment include the following: establishing alternative standards for Monitoring Requirements for New Small public water systems that data acceptability. Plants and Sources operate or use surface water for only EPA requests comment on whether or The proposed LT2ESWTR would part of the year could be required to under what conditions previously establish calendar dates when the initial collect E. coli samples at least bi-weekly collected data that do not meet the and second round of source water during the period when they use surface proposed criteria for LT2ESWTR monitoring must be conducted to water. If the mean E. coli concentration monitoring data should be accepted for determine bin classification. EPA did not exceed the trigger level (e.g., 10/ use in bin determination. Specifically, recognizes that new plants will begin 100 mL for reservoirs/lakes or 50/100mL EPA requests comment on the sampling operation, and that existing plants will for flowing streams), systems could frequency requirement for previously access new sources, after these dates. apply to the State to waive any collected data, and whether EPA should EPA believes that new plants and plants additional E. coli monitoring. The State allow samples collected at lower or switching sources should conduct could grant the waiver, require varying frequencies to be used as long monitoring equivalent to that required additional E. coli monitoring, or require as the data are representative of seasonal of existing plants to determine the monitoring of an alternate indicator. If variation and include the required required level of Cryptosporidium the mean E. coli concentration exceeded number of samples. If so, how should treatment. The monitoring could be the trigger level, the State could require EPA determine whether such a data set conducted before a new plant or source the system to provide additional is unbiased and representative of is brought on-line, or initiated within treatment for Cryptosporidium seasonal variation? How should data some time period afterward. EPA consistent with Bin 4 requirements, or collected at varying frequency be requests comment on monitoring and require monitoring of Cryptosporidium averaged? treatment requirements for new plants or an indicator, with the results and sources. potentially leading to additional Monitoring for Systems That Recycle Cryptosporidium treatment Filter Backwash Determination of LT2ESWTR Bin requirements. Plants that recycle filter backwash Classification Large public water systems that water may, in effect, increase the In today’s proposal, EPA expects that operate or use surface water for only concentration of Cryptosporidium in the systems will be assigned to LT2ESWTR part of the year could be required to water that enters the filtration treatment risk bins based on their reported collect Cryptosporidium samples (along train. Under the LT2ESWTR proposal, Cryptosporidium monitoring results and with E. coli and turbidity) either twice- microbial sampling may be conducted the calculations proposed for bin

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47679

assignment described in this section. section IV.A.1. Unfiltered systems oocysts/L. Systems must notify the State EPA requests comment on whether bin serving at least 10,000 people must not later than the date the system is classifications should formally be made sample their source water for otherwise required to submit a sampling or reviewed by States. Cryptosporidium at least monthly for schedule for monitoring. Systems must two years, beginning no later than 6 install and operate technologies to Source Water Type Classification for months after promulgation of this rule. provide a total of at least 3 log Systems That Use Multiple Sources Samples may be collected more Cryptosporidium inactivation by the In today’s proposal, the E. coli frequently (e.g., semi-monthly, weekly) applicable date in Table IV–24. concentrations that trigger small system as long as a consistent frequency is c. Treatment requirements. All Cryptosporidium monitoring are maintained throughout the monitoring unfiltered systems must provide different for systems using lake/ period. treatment for Cryptosporidium, and the reservoir and flowing stream sources. Unfiltered systems serving fewer than degree of required treatment depends on However, EPA recognizes that some 10,000 people must conduct source the level of Cryptosporidium in the systems use multiple sources, water sampling for Cryptosporidium at source water as determined through potentially including both lake/reservoir least twice-per-month for one year, monitoring. Unfiltered systems must and flowing stream sources, and that the beginning no later than 4 years calculate their average source water use of different sources may vary during following promulgation of this rule (i.e., Cryptosporidium concentration using the year. Further, some systems use on the same schedule as small filtered the arithmetic mean of all samples sources that are ground water under the systems). However, unlike small filtered collected during the required two year direct influence (GWUDI) of surface systems, small unfiltered systems monitoring period (or one year water. EPA requests comment on how to cannot monitor for an indicator (e.g., E. monitoring period for small systems). apply the E. coli criteria for triggering coli) to determine if they are required to For unfiltered systems with mean Cryptosporidium monitoring to systems monitor for Cryptosporidium. EPA has source water Cryptosporidium levels of using multiple sources and GWUDI not identified indicator criteria that can less than or equal to 0.01 oocysts/L, 2 sources. effectively screen for plants with log Cryptosporidium inactivation is Cryptosporidium concentrations below required. Where the mean source water B. Unfiltered System Treatment 0.01 oocysts/L. Consequently, all small level is greater than 0.01 oocysts/L, 3 log Technique Requirements for unfiltered systems must conduct inactivation is required. Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium monitoring. In addition, unfiltered systems are 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? As described in section IV.K and IV.L, required to use at least two different Cryptosporidium analyses must be disinfectants to meet their overall a. Overview. EPA is proposing performed on at least 10 L per sample inactivation requirements for viruses (4 treatment technique requirements for with EPA Methods 1622 or 1623, and log), Giardia lamblia (3 log), and Cryptosporidium in unfiltered systems. must be conducted by laboratories Cryptosporidium (2 or 3 log). Further, Today’s proposal requires all unfiltered approved for these methods by EPA. each of the two disinfectants must systems using surface water or ground Analysis of larger sample volumes is achieve by itself the total inactivation water under the direct influence of allowed, provided the laboratory has required for one of these three pathogen surface water to achieve at least 2 log demonstrated comparable method types. For example, a system could use (99%) inactivation of Cryptosporidium performance to that achieved on a 10 L UV light to achieve 2 log inactivation of prior to the distribution of finished sample. Section IV.J describes Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia, water. Further, unfiltered systems must requirements for reporting sample and use chlorine to inactivate 1 log monitor for Cryptosporidium in their analysis results. All Cryptosporidium Giardia lamblia and 4 log viruses. In source water, and where monitoring samples must be collected in this case, chlorine would achieve the demonstrates a mean level above 0.01 accordance with a schedule that is total inactivation required for viruses oocysts/L, systems must provide at least developed by the system and submitted while UV light would achieve the total 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation. to EPA or the State at least 3 months inactivation required for Disinfectants that can be used to meet prior to initiation of sampling. Refer to Cryptosporidium, and the two this treatment requirement include section IV.A.1 for requirements disinfectants together would meet the ozone, ultraviolet (UV) light, and pertaining to any failure to report a overall treatment requirements for chlorine dioxide. valid sample analysis result for a viruses, Giardia lamblia, and All current requirements for scheduled sampling date and Cryptosporidium. In all cases unfiltered unfiltered systems under 40 CFR 141.71 procedures for collecting a replacement systems must continue to meet and 141.72(a) remain in effect, sample. disinfectant residual requirements for including requirements to inactivate at Unfiltered systems are required to the distribution system. least 3 log of Giardia lamblia and 4 log participate in future Cryptosporidium EPA has developed criteria, described of viruses. In addition, unfiltered monitoring on the same schedule as in sections IV.C.14–15, for systems to systems must meet their overall filtered systems of the same size. Future determine Cryptosporidium inactivation disinfection requirements using a monitoring requirements for filtered credits for chlorine dioxide, ozone, and minimum of two disinfectants. These systems are described in section IV.A.1. UV light. Unfiltered systems are allowed proposed requirements reflect Unfiltered systems are not required to to use any of these disinfectants to meet recommendations of the Stage 2 M–DBP conduct source water Cryptosporidium the 2 (or 3) log Cryptosporidium Federal Advisory Committee. Details of monitoring under the LT2ESWTR if the inactivation requirement. The following the proposed requirements are system currently provides or will paragraphs describe standards for described in the following sections. provide a total of at least 3 log demonstrating compliance with the b. Monitoring requirements. Cryptosporidium inactivation, proposed Cryptosporidium treatment Requirements for Cryptosporidium equivalent to meeting the treatment technique requirement. For systems monitoring by unfiltered systems are requirements for unfiltered systems using ozone and chlorine dioxide, these similar to requirements for filtered with a mean Cryptosporidium standards are similar to current systems of the same size, as given in concentration of greater than 0.01 standards for compliance with Giardia

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47680 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

lamblia and virus treatment Cryptosporidium equivalent to filtration source water Cryptosporidium requirements, as established by the systems. As described in section III.C, concentration above 0.01 oocyst/L SWTR in 40 CFR 141.72 and 141.74. an assessment of survey data indicates would need to provide more than 2 log However, for systems using UV light, that under current treatment inactivation in order to achieve an modified compliance standards are requirements, finished water equivalent finished water oocyst level. proposed, due to the different way in Cryptosporidium levels are higher in Therefore, EPA is proposing that which UV disinfection systems will be unfiltered systems than in filtered unfiltered systems provide at least 3 log monitored. systems. inactivation where mean concentrations Each day a system using ozone or Information Collection Rule data exceed 0.01 oocysts/L. chlorine dioxide serves water to the show an average plant-mean For unfiltered systems using UV public, the system must calculate the CT Cryptosporidium level of 0.59 oocysts/L disinfection to meet these proposed value(s) from the system’s treatment in the source water of filtered plants and Cryptosporidium treatment parameters, using the procedures 0.014 oocysts/L in unfiltered systems. requirements, EPA is proposing that specified in 40 CFR 141.74(b)(3). The Median plant-mean concentrations were compliance be based on a 95th system must determine whether this 0.052 and 0.0079 oocysts/L in filtered percentile standard (i.e., at least 95 value(s) is sufficient to achieve the and unfiltered system sources, percent of the water must be treated to required inactivation of respectively. Thus, these results suggest the required UV dose). This standard is Cryptosporidium based on the CT that typical Cryptosporidium occurrence intended to be comparable with the criteria specified in section IV.C.14. The in filtered system sources is ‘‘every day except any one day per disinfection treatment must ensure at approximately 10 times higher than in month’’ compliance standard least 99 percent (or 99.9 percent if unfiltered system sources. established by the SWTR for chemical required) inactivation of In translating these data to assess disinfection (see 40 CFR 141.72(a)(1)). Cryptosporidium every day the system finished water risk, EPA and the Because UV disinfection systems will serves water to the public, except any Advisory Committee estimated that typically consist of multiple parallel one day each month. Systems are conventional plants in compliance with reactors that will be monitored required to report daily CT values on a the IESWTR achieve an average continuously, the Agency has monthly basis, as described in section Cryptosporidium removal of 3 log (see determined that it is more appropriate IV.J. discussion in section III.D). Hence, if the to base a compliance determination on Each day a system using UV light median source water Cryptosporidium the percentage of water disinfected to serves water to the public, the system level at conventional plants is the required level, rather than a single must monitor for the parameters, approximately 10 times higher than at daily measurement. The UV including flow rate and UV intensity, unfiltered systems, and it is estimated Disinfection Guidance Manual (USEPA that demonstrate whether the system’s that conventional plants achieve an 2003d) will provide advice on meeting UV reactors are operating within the average reduction of 3 log (99.9%), then this proposed standard. A draft of this range of conditions that have been the median finished water guidance is available in the docket for validated to achieve the required UV Cryptosporidium concentration at today’s proposal (http://www.epa.gov/ dose, as specified in section IV.C.15. conventional plants is lower by a factor edocket/). Systems must monitor each UV reactor of 100 than at unfiltered systems. b. Basis for requiring the use of two while in use and must record periods Therefore, to ensure equivalent public disinfectants. EPA is proposing that when any reactor operates outside of health protection, unfiltered systems unfiltered systems use at least two validated conditions. The disinfection should reduce Cryptosporidium levels different disinfectants to meet the 2 (or treatment must ensure at least 99 by 2 log. 3), 3, and 4 log inactivation percent (or 99.9 percent if required) Due to the development of criteria for requirements for Cryptosporidium, inactivation of Cryptosporidium in at Cryptosporidium inactivation with Giardia lamblia, and viruses, least 95 percent of the water delivered ozone, chlorine dioxide, and UV light, respectively. The purpose of this to the public every month. Systems are EPA has determined that it is feasible requirement is to provide for multiple required to report periods when UV for unfiltered systems to comply with a barriers of protection against pathogens. reactors operate outside of validated Cryptosporidium treatment technique One benefit of this approach is that if conditions on a monthly basis, as requirement. Consequently, EPA is one barrier were to fail then there would described in section IV.J. proposing that all unfiltered systems still be one remaining barrier to provide Unfiltered systems currently must provide at least 2 log inactivation of protection against some of the comply with requirements for DBPs as Cryptosporidium. pathogens that might be present. For a condition of avoiding filtration under The proposed treatment requirements example, if a plant used UV to 40 CFR 141.71(b)(6). As described for unfiltered systems with higher inactivate Cryptosporidium and Giardia earlier, EPA is developing a Stage 2 source water Cryptosporidium levels are lamblia, along with chlorine to DBPR, which will further limit consistent with proposed treatment inactivate viruses, and the UV system allowable levels of certain DBPs, requirements for filtered systems. As were to malfunction, the chlorine would specifically trihalomethanes and discussed previously, EPA is proposing still meet the treatment requirement for haloacetic acids. EPA intends to that filtered plants with mean source viruses and would provide some degree incorporate new standards for DBPs water Cryptosporidium levels between of protection against Giardia lamblia. established under the Stage 2 DBPR into 0.075 and 1.0 oocysts/L, as measured by Another benefit of multiple barriers is the criteria for filtration avoidance. Methods 1622 and 1623, provide at least that they will typically provide more a 4 log reduction (with greater treatment effective protection against a broad 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? required for higher source water spectrum of pathogens than a single a. Basis for Cryptosporidium pathogen levels). These requirements disinfectant. Because the efficacy of treatment requirements. The intent of will achieve average treated water disinfectants against different pathogens the proposed treatment requirements for Cryptosporidium concentrations below varies widely, using multiple unfiltered systems is to achieve public 1 oocyst/10,000 L in filtered systems. disinfectants will generally provide health protection against An unfiltered system with a mean more efficient inactivation of a wide

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47681

range of pathogens than a single 3. Request for Comment C. Options for Systems To Meet disinfectant. Cryptosporidium Treatment EPA is aware, though, that this EPA solicits comment on the Requirements requirement would not result in a proposed monitoring and treatment redundant barrier for each type of technique requirements for unfiltered 1. Microbial Toolbox Overview pathogen. In the example of a plant systems. Specifically, the Agency seeks The LT2ESWTR proposal contains a using chlorine and UV, the chlorine comment on the following issues: list of treatment processes and would provide essentially no protection management practices for water systems against Cryptosporidium and might Use of Two Disinfectants to use in meeting additional achieve only a small amount of Giardia EPA requests comment on the Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR. lamblia inactivation if it was designed proposed requirement for unfiltered This list, termed the microbial toolbox, primarily to inactivate viruses. systems to use two disinfectants and for However, since the watersheds of was recommended by the Stage 2 M– each disinfectant to meet by itself the unfiltered systems are required to be DBP Advisory Committee in the inactivation requirement for at least one protected (40 CFR 141.71), the Agreement in Principle. Components of probability is low that high levels of regulated pathogen. The requirement for the microbial toolbox include watershed Cryptosporidium or Giardia lamblia unfiltered systems to use two control programs, alternative sources, would occur during the time frame disinfectants was recommended by the pretreatment processes, additional necessary to address a short period of Advisory Committee because (1) filtration barriers, inactivation treatment failure. disinfectants vary in their efficacy technologies, and enhanced plant Note the request for comment on this against different pathogens, so that the performance. The intent of the microbial topic at the end of this section. use of multiple disinfectants can toolbox is to provide water systems with c. Basis for source water monitoring provide more effective protection broad flexibility in selecting cost- requirements. Monitoring by unfiltered against a broad spectrum of pathogens, effective LT2ESWTR compliance systems is necessary to identify those and (2) multiple disinfectants provide strategies. Moreover, the toolbox allows with mean source water multiple barriers of protection, which systems that currently provide Cryptosporidium levels above 0.01 can be more reliable than a single additional pathogen barriers or that can oocysts/L. In order to allow for disinfectant. demonstrate enhanced performance to simultaneous compliance with other receive additional Cryptosporidium microbial and disinfection byproduct An alternate approach would be to treatment credit. regulatory requirements, EPA is allow systems to meet the inactivation A key feature of the microbial toolbox proposing that unfiltered systems requirements using any combination of is that many of the components carry monitor for Cryptosporidium on the one or more disinfectants that achieved presumptive credits towards same schedule as filtered systems of the the required inactivation level for all Cryptosporidium treatment same size. Because EPA was not able to pathogens. This would give systems requirements. Plants will receive these identify indicator criteria, such as E. greater flexibility and could spur the credits for toolbox components by coli, that can discriminate among development of new disinfection demonstrating compliance with systems above and below a mean techniques that would be applicable to required design and implementation Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.01 a wide range of pathogens. However, criteria, as described in the sections that oocysts/L, EPA is proposing that all this approach might be less protective follow. Treatment credit greater than the unfiltered systems monitor for against unregulated pathogens. A presumptive credit may be awarded for Cryptosporidium. related question is whether the a toolbox component based on a site- Consistent with requirements for proposed requirements for use of two specific or technology-specific filtered systems, unfiltered systems are disinfectants establish an adequate level demonstration of performance, as required to analyze at least 24 samples of multiple barriers in the treatment described in section IV.C.17. of at least 10 L over the two year While the Advisory Committee made provided by unfiltered systems. monitoring period (one year for small recommendations for the degree of systems). However, if an unfiltered Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered presumptive treatment credit to be system collected and analyzed only 24 Systems With Higher Cryptosporidium granted to different toolbox samples of 10 L then a total count of 3 Levels components, the Committee did not oocysts among all samples would result specify the design and implementation in a source water concentration Under the proposed LT2ESWTR, a conditions under which the credit exceeding 0.01 oocysts/L. To avoid a filtered system that measures a mean should be awarded. EPA has identified relatively small number of counts source water Cryptosporidium level of and is proposing such conditions in determining an additional treatment 0.075 oocysts/L or higher is required to today’s notice, based on an assessment implication, unfiltered systems may provide a total of 4 log or more of available data. For certain toolbox consider conducting more frequent reduction of Cryptosporidium. However, components, such as raw water storage sampling or analyzing larger sample if an unfiltered system, meeting the and roughing filters, the Agency volumes (e.g., 50 L). Since the water criteria for avoiding filtration were to concluded that available data do not sources of unfiltered systems tend to measure Cryptosporidium at this level, support the credit recommended by the have very low turbidity (compared to it would be required to provide only 3 Advisory Committee. Consequently, average sources in filtered systems), it is log treatment. Available occurrence data EPA is not proposing a presumptive typically more feasible to analyze larger indicate that very few, if any, unfiltered credit for these options. sample volumes in unfiltered systems. For each microbial toolbox systems will measure mean source Filters have been approved for component, EPA is requesting comment water Cryptosporidium concentrations Cryptosporidium analysis of 50 L on: (1) Whether available data support samples. Note that analysis of larger above 0.075 oocysts/L. However, EPA the proposed presumptive credits, sample volumes would not reduce the requests comment on whether or how including the design and required sampling frequency. this possibility should be addressed. implementation conditions under which

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47682 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

the credit would be awarded, (2) cartridge filters, and bank filtration, in Table IV–7 summarizes presumptive whether available data are consistent removing Cryptosporidium. The Agency credits and associated design and with the decision not to award requests both laboratory and field data implementation criteria for microbial presumptive credit for roughing filters that will support a determination of the toolbox components. Each component is and raw water off-stream storage, and appropriate level of Cryptosporidium then described in more detail in the (3) whether additional data are available removal credit to award to these sections that follow. EPA is also on treatment effectiveness of toolbox technologies. In addition, the Agency developing guidance to assist systems components for reducing requests information on the with implementing toolbox Cryptosporidium levels. EPA will applicability of these technologies to components. Pertinent guidance consider modifying today’s proposal for different source water types and documents include: UV Disinfection microbial toolbox components based on treatment scenarios. Data submitted in Guidance Manual (USEPA 2003d), new information that may be provided. EPA particularly solicits comment on response to this request for comment Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual the performance of alternative filtration should include, where available, (USEPA 2003e), and Toolbox Guidance technologies that are currently being associated quality assurance and cost Manual (USEPA 2003f). Each is used, as well as ones that systems are information. This preamble discusses available in draft form in the docket for considering for use in the future, bank filtration in section IV.C.6 and bag today’s proposal (http://www.epa.gov/ specifically including bag filters, and cartridge filters in section IV.C.12. edocket/).

TABLE IVÐ7.—MICROBIAL TOOLBOX: PROPOSED OPTIONS, LOG CREDITS, AND DESIGN/IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA 1

Toolbox option Proposed Cryptosporidium log credit with design and implementation criteria1

Watershed control program ...... 0.5 log credit for State-approved program comprising EPA specified elements. Does not apply to unfiltered systems. Alternative source/Intake management...... No presumptive credit. Systems may conduct simultaneous monitoring for LT2ESWTR bin classification at alternative intake locations or under alternative in- take management strategies. Off-stream raw water storage ...... No presumptive credit. Systems using off-stream storage must conduct LT2ESWTR sampling after raw water reservoir to determine bin classification. Pre-sedimentation basin with coagulation ...... 0.5 log credit with continuous operation and coagulant addition; basins must achieve 0.5 log turbidity reduction based on the monthly mean of daily measurements in 11 of the 12 previous months; all flow must pass through basins. Systems using exist- ing pre-sed basins must sample after basins to determine bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive credit. Lime softening ...... 0.5 log additional credit for two-stage softening (single-stage softening is credited as equivalent to conventional treatment). Coagulant must be present in both stages— includes metal salts, polymers, lime, or magnesium precipitation. Both stages must treat 100% of flow. Bank filtration (as pretreatment) ...... 0.5 log credit for 25 ft. setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 ft. setback; aquifer must be un- consolidated sand containing at least 10% fines; average turbidity in wells must be < 1 NTU. Systems using existing wells followed by filtration must monitor well efflu- ent to determine bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive credit. Combined filter performance ...... 0.5 log credit for combined filter effluent turbidity ≤ 0.15 NTU in 95% of samples each month. Roughing filters ...... No presumptive credit proposed. Slow sand filters ...... 2.5 log credit as a secondary filtration step; 3.0 log credit as a primary filtration proc- ess. No prior chlorination. Second stage filtration ...... 0.5 log credit for second separate filtration stage; treatment train must include coagu- lation prior to first filter. No presumptive credit for roughing filters. Membranes ...... Log credit equivalent to removal efficiency demonstrated in challenge test for device if supported by direct integrity testing. Bag filters ...... 1 log credit with demonstration of at least 2 log removal efficiency in challenge test. Cartridge filters ...... 2 log credit with demonstration of at least 3 log removal efficiency in challenge test. Chlorine dioxide ...... Log credit based on demonstration of log inactivation using CT table. Ozone ...... Log credit based on demonstration of log inactivation using CT table. UV ...... Log credit based on demonstration of inactivation with UV dose table; reactor testing required to establish validated operating conditions. Individual filter performance ...... 1.0 log credit for demonstration of filtered water turbidity < 0.1 NTU in 95 percent of daily max values from individual filters (excluding 15 min period following backwashes) and no individual filter > 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart. Demonstration of performance ...... Credit awarded to unit process or treatment train based on demonstration to the State, through use of a State-approved protocol. 1 Table provides summary information only; refer to following preamble and regulatory language for detailed requirements.

2. Watershed Control Program filtered systems that develop a State- the credit awarded for any other toolbox approved watershed control program component. However, this credit is not a. What is EPA proposing today? EPA designed to reduce the level of available to unfiltered systems, as they is proposing a 0.5 log credit towards Cryptosporidium. The watershed are currently required under 40 CFR Cryptosporidium treatment control program credit can be added to 141.171 to maintain a watershed control requirements under the LT2ESWTR for

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47683

program that minimizes the potential for watershed control plan and submit it for required steps, described as follows, to contamination by Cryptosporidium as a State approval. maintain State program approval and criterion for avoiding filtration. The application to the State for initial the 0.5 log credit during the approval There are many potential sources of program approval must include the period. Cryptosporidium in watersheds, following minimum elements: including sewage discharges and non- • An analysis of the vulnerability of Requirements for Maintaining State point sources associated with animal each source to Cryptosporidium. The Approval of Watershed Control feces. The feasibility, effectiveness, and vulnerability analysis must address the Programs sustainability of control measures to watershed upstream of the drinking Systems that have obtained State reduce Cryptosporidium contamination water intake, including: A approval of their watershed control of water sources will be site-specific. characterization of the watershed program are required to meet the Consequently, the proposed watershed hydrology, identification of an ‘‘area of following ongoing requirements within control program credit centers on influence’’ (the area to be considered in each approval period to continue their systems working with stakeholders in future watershed surveys) outside of eligibility for the 0.5 log the watershed to develop a site-specific which there is no significant probability Cryptosporidium treatment credit: program, and State review and approval of Cryptosporidium or fecal • Submit an annual watershed are required. In the Toolbox Guidance contamination affecting the drinking control program status report to the Manual (USEPA 2003f), available in water intake, identification of both State during each year of the approval draft in the docket for today’s proposal, potential and actual sources of period. EPA provides information on Cryptosporidium contamination, the • Conduct an annual State-approved management practices that systems may relative impact of the sources of watershed survey and submit the survey consider in developing their watershed Cryptosporidium contamination on the report to the State. • control programs. system’s source water quality, and an Submit to the State an application Initial State approval of a system’s estimate of the seasonal variability of for review and re-approval of the watershed control program will be such contamination. watershed control program and for a based on State review of the system’s • An analysis of control measures continuation of the 0.5 log treatment proposed watershed control plan and that could address the sources of credit for a subsequent approval period. supporting documentation. The initial Cryptosporidium contamination The annual watershed control approval can be valid until the system identified during the vulnerability program status report must describe the completes the second round of analysis. The analysis of control system’s implementation of the Cryptosporidium monitoring described measures must address their relative approved plan and assess the adequacy in section IV.A (systems begin a second effectiveness in reducing of the plan to meet its goals. It must round of monitoring six years after the Cryptosporidium loading to the source explain how the system is addressing initial bin assignment). During this water and their sustainability. any shortcomings in plan period, the system is responsible for • A plan that specifies goals and implementation, including those implementing the approved plan and defines and prioritizes specific actions previously identified by the State or as complying with other general to reduce source water Cryptosporidium the result of the watershed survey. If it requirements, such as an annual levels. The plan must explain how becomes necessary during watershed survey and program status actions are expected to contribute to implementation to make substantial report. These requirements are further specified goals, identify partners and changes in its approved watershed described later in this section. their role(s), present resource control program, the system must notify The period during which State requirements and commitments the State and provide a rationale prior approval of a watershed control program including personnel, and include a to making any such changes . If any is in effect is referred to as the approval schedule for plan implementation. change is likely to reduce the level of period. Systems that want to continue The proposed watershed control plan source water protection, the system their eligibility to receive the 0.5 log and a request for program approval and must also include the actions it will take Cryptosporidium treatment credit must 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment to mitigate the effects in its notification. reapply for State approval of the credit must be submitted by the system The watershed survey must be program for each subsequent approval to the State no later than 24 months conducted according to State guidelines period. In general, the re-approval will following initial bin assignment. and by persons approved by the State to be based on the State’s review of the The State will review the system’s conduct watershed surveys. The survey system’s reapplication package, as well initial proposed watershed control plan must encompass the area of the as the annual status reports and and either approve, reject, or watershed that was identified in the watershed surveys. Subsequent ‘‘conditionally approve’’ the plan. If the State-approved watershed control plan approval(s) by the State of the plan is approved, or if the system agrees as the area of influence and, as a watershed control program typically to implementing the State’s conditions minimum, assess the priority activities will be for a time equivalent to the first for approval, the system will be identified in the plan and identify any approval period, but States have the awarded 0.5 log credit towards significant new sources of discretion to renew approval for a LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium treatment Cryptosporidium. longer or shorter time period. requirements. A final decision on The application to the State for review approval must be made no later than and re-approval of the system’s Requirements for Initial State Approval three years following the system’s initial watershed control program must be of Watershed Control Programs bin assignment. provided to the State at least six months Systems that intend to pursue a 0.5 The initial State approval of the before the current approval period log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for system’s watershed control program can expires or by a date previously a watershed control program are be valid until the system completes the determined by the State. The request required to notify the State within one required second round of must include a summary of activities year following initial bin assignment Cryptosporidium monitoring. The and issues identified during the that the system proposes to develop a system is responsible for taking the previous approval period and a revised

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47684 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

plan that addresses activities for the 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment SDWA section 1453 requires States to next approval period, including any credit by developing targeted programs carry out a source water quality new actual or potential sources of that account for site-specific factors. As assessment program for the protection Cryptosporidium contamination and part of developing a watershed control and benefit of public water systems. details of any proposed or expected program, systems will be required to EPA issued program guidance in August changes from the existing State- assess a number of these factors, of 1997, and expects that most States approved program. The plan must including watershed hydrology, sources will complete their source water address goals, prioritize specific actions of Cryptosporidium in the watershed, assessments of surface water systems by to reduce source water human impacts, and fate and transport the end of 2003. These assessments will Cryptosporidium, explain how actions of Cryptosporidium. Furthermore, EPA establish a foundation for watershed are expected to contribute to achieving believes that the State is well positioned vulnerability analyses by providing the goals, identify partners and their role(s), to judge whether a system’s watershed preliminary analyses of watershed resource requirements and control program is likely to achieve a hydrology, a starting point for defining commitments, and the schedule for plan substantial reduction of the area of influence, and an inventory implementation. Cryptosporidium in source water. and hierarchy of actual and potential The annual program status reports, Consequently, EPA is proposing that contamination sources. In some cases, watershed control plan and annual approval of watershed control programs these portions of the source water watershed sanitary surveys must be and allowance for an associated 0.5 log assessment may fully satisfy those made available to the public upon treatment credit be made by the State on analytical needs. request. These documents must be in a a system specific basis. As noted earlier, EPA has published plain language format and include A watershed control program could and is continuing to develop guidance criteria by which to evaluate the success include measures such as (1) the material that addresses contamination of the program in achieving plan goals. elimination, reduction, or treatment of by Cryptosporidium and other If approved by the State, the system may wastewater or storm water discharges, pathogens from both non-point sources withhold portions of the annual status (2) treatment of Cryptosporidium (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff, report, watershed control plan, and contamination at the sites of waste septic tanks) and point sources (e.g., watershed sanitary survey based on generation or storage, (3) prevention of sewer overflows, POTWs, CAFOs). The security considerations. Cryptosporidium migration from Toolbox Guidance Manual, available in b. How was this proposal developed? sources, or (4) any other measures that draft with today’s proposal, includes a The M–DBP Advisory Committee are effective, sustainable, and likely to list of programmatic resources and recommended that systems be awarded reduce Cryptosporidium contamination guidance available to assist systems in 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment of source water. EPA recognizes that building partnerships and implementing credit for implementing a watershed many public water systems do not watershed protection activities. In control program. This recommendation directly control the watersheds of their addition, this guidance manual was based on the Committee’s sources of supply. EPA expects that incorporates available information on recognition that some systems will be systems will need to develop and the effectiveness of different control able to reduce the level of maintain partnerships with landowners measures to reduce Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium in their source water within watersheds, as well as with State levels and provides case studies of by implementing a well-designed and governments and regional agencies that watershed control programs. This focused watershed control program. have authority over activities in the guidance is intended to assist water Moreover, the control measures used in watershed that may contribute systems in developing their watershed the watershed to reduce levels of Cryptosporidium to the water supply. control programs and States in their Cryptosporidium are likely to reduce Stakeholders that have some level of assessment and approval of these concentrations of other pathogens as control over activities that could programs. well. contribute to Cryptosporidium In addition to guidance documents, EPA concurs that well designed contamination include municipal demonstration projects, and technical watershed control programs that focus government and private operators of resources, EPA provides funding for on reducing levels of Cryptosporidium wastewater treatment plants, livestock watershed and source water protection contamination of water sources should farmers and persons who spread through the Drinking Water State be encouraged, and that implementation manure, individuals with failing septic Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean of such programs will likely reduce systems, logging operations, and other Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). overall microbial risk. A broad government and commercial Under the DWSRF program, States may reduction in microbial risk will occur organizations. provide funding directly to public water through the application of control EPA has initiated a number of systems for source water protection, measures and best management programs that address watershed including watershed management and practices that are effective in reducing management and source water pathogen source reduction plans. fecal contamination in the watershed. In protection. In 2002, EPA launched the CWSRF funds have been used to addition, plant management practices Watershed Initiative (67 FR 36172, May develop and implement agricultural best may be enhanced by the knowledge 23, 2002) (USEPA 2002b), which will management practices for reducing systems acquire regarding the watershed provide grants to support innovative pathogen loading to receiving waters and factors that affect microbial risk, watershed based approaches to and to fund directly, or provide such as sources, fate, and transport of preventing, reducing, and eliminating incentives for, the replacement of failing pathogens. water pollution. In addition, EPA has septic systems. EPA encourages the use Given the highly site-specific nature recently promulgated new regulations of CWSRF for source protection and has of a watershed control program, for Concentrated Animal Feeding developed guidelines for the award of including the feasibility and Operations (CAFOs), which through the funds to address non-point sources of effectiveness of different control NPDES permit process will limit pollution (CWA section 319 Non Point measures, EPA believes that systems discharges that contribute microbial Source Pollution Program). Further, the should demonstrate their eligibility for pathogens to watersheds. Agency is promoting the broader use of

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47685

SRF funds to implement measures to may be classified in an LT2ESWTR bin which apply to the current intake prevent and control non-point source using the alternative intake location or monitoring also apply to any concurrent pollution. Detailed sanitary surveys, management monitoring results. monitoring used to characterize a new with a specific analysis of sources of Thus, systems that intend to be intake location or management strategy. Cryptosporidium in the watershed, will classified in an LT2ESWTR bin based EPA also recognizes that if plant’s bin facilitate the process of targeting on a different intake location or assignment is based on a new intake funding available under SRF programs management strategy must conduct operation strategy then it is important to eliminate or mitigate these sources. concurrent Cryptosporidium for the plant to continue to use this new c. Request for comment. EPA requests monitoring. The system is still required strategy in routine operation. Therefore, comment on the proposed watershed to monitor its current plant intake in EPA is proposing that the system control program credit and associated addition to any alternative intake document the new intake operation program components. location/management monitoring, and strategy when submitting additional • Should the State be allowed to must submit the results of all monitoring results to the State and that reduce the frequency of the annual monitoring to the State. In addition, the the State approve that new strategy. watershed survey requirement for system must provide the State with c. Request for comment. EPA requests certain systems if systems engage in supporting information documenting comment on the following issues: alternative activities like public the conditions under which the • What are intake management outreach? alternative intake location/management strategies by which systems could • The effectiveness of a watershed samples were collected. The concurrent reduce levels of Cryptosporidium in the control program may be difficult to monitoring must conform to the sample plant influent? assess because of uncertainty in the frequency, sample volume, analytical • Can representative Cryptosporidium efficacy of control measures under site- method, and other requirements that monitoring to demonstrate a reduction specific conditions. In order to provide apply to the system for Cryptosporidium in oocyst levels be accomplished prior constructive guidance, EPA welcomes monitoring as stated in Section IV.A.1. to implementation of a new intake reports on scientific case studies and If a plant’s LT2ESWTR bin strategy (e.g., monitoring a new source research that evaluated methods for classification is based on monitoring prior to constructing a new intake reducing Cryptosporidium results reflecting a different intake structure)? contamination of source waters. location or management strategy, the • How should this option be applied • Are there confidential business system must relocate the intake or to plants that use multiple sources information (CBI) concerns associated implement the intake management which enter a plant through a common with making information on the strategy within the compliance time conduit, or which use separate sources watershed control program available to frame for the LT2ESWTR, as specified which enter the plant at different the public? If so, what are these in section IV.F. points? concerns and how should they be b. How was this proposal developed? 4. Off-Stream Raw Water Storage addressed? In the Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in • How should the ‘‘area of influence’’ Principle, the Advisory Committee a. What is EPA proposing today? Off- (the area to be considered in future identified several actions related to the stream raw water storage reservoirs are watershed surveys) be delineated, intake which potentially could reduce basins located between a water source considering the persistence of the concentration of Cryptosporidium (typically a river) and the coagulation Cryptosporidium? entering a treatment plant. These and filtration processes in a treatment actions were included in the microbial plant. EPA is not proposing 3. Alternative Source toolbox under the heading Alternative presumptive treatment credit for a. What is EPA proposing today? Plant Source, and include: (1) Intake Cryptosporidium removal through off- intake refers to the works or structures relocation, (2) change to alternative stream raw water storage. Systems using at the head of a conduit through which source of supply, (3) management of off-stream raw water storage must water is diverted from a source (e.g., intake to reduce capture of oocysts in conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring river or lake) into the treatment plant. source water, (4) managing timing of after the reservoir for the purpose of Plants may be able to reduce influent withdrawal, and (5) managing level of determining LT2ESWTR bin placement. Cryptosporidium levels by changing the withdrawal in water column. This will allow reductions in intake placement (either within the It is difficult to predict in advance the Cryptosporidium levels that occur same source or to an alternate source) or efficacy of any of these activities in through settling during off-stream managing the timing or level of reducing levels of Cryptosporidium storage to be reflected in the monitoring withdrawal. entering the treatment plant. However, results and consequent LT2ESWTR bin Because the effect of changing the if a system relocates the plant intake or assignment. location or operation of a plant intake implements a different intake The use of off-stream raw water on influent Cryptosporidium levels will management strategy, it is appropriate storage reservoirs during LT2ESWTR be site specific, EPA is not proposing for the plant to be assigned to an monitoring must be consistent with any presumptive credit for this option. LT2ESWTR bin using monitoring results routine plant operation and must be Rather, if a system is concerned that reflecting the new intake strategy. recorded by the system. Guidance on Cryptosporidium levels associated with EPA believes that the requirements monitoring locations is provided in the current plant intake location and/or specified for monitoring to determine Public Water System Guidance Manual operation will result in a bin assignment bin placement are necessary to for Source Water Monitoring under the requiring additional treatment under the characterize a plant’s mean source water LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003g), which is LT2ESWTR, the system may conduct Cryptosporidium level. Consequently, available in draft in the docket for concurrent Cryptosporidium monitoring any concurrent monitoring carried out today’s proposal. reflecting a different intake location or to characterize a different intake b. How was this proposal developed? different intake management strategy. location or management strategy should The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in The State will then make a be equivalent. For this reason, the Principle recommends a 0.5 log credit determination as to whether the plant sampling and analysis requirements for off-stream raw water storage

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47686 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

reservoirs with detention times on the that evaluated Cryptosporidium and storage by sampling after the reservoir order of days and 1.0 log credit for Giardia removal in raw water storage for appropriate bin placement. EPA reservoirs with detention times on the reservoirs. concurs with this finding by the SAB order of weeks. After a review of the Subsequent to the November 2001 and today’s proposal is consistent with available literature, EPA is unable to pre-proposal draft, the Science Advisory their recommendation. determine criteria that provide Board (SAB) reviewed the data that EPA Off-stream raw water storage can reasonable assurance of achieving a 0.5 had acquired to support improve the microbial quality of water or 1 log removal of oocysts. Cryptosporidium treatment credits for in a number of ways. These include (1) Consequently, EPA is not proposing a off-stream raw water storage (see section reduced microbial and particulate presumptive treatment credit for this VII.K). In written comments from a loading to the plant due to settling in process. December 2001 meeting of the SAB the reservoir, (2) reduced viability of This proposal for off-stream raw water Drinking Water Committee, the panel pathogens due to die-off, and (3) storage represents a change from the concluded that the available data were dampening of water quality and November 2001 pre-proposal draft of the not adequate to demonstrate the hydraulic spikes. EPA has evaluated a LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2001g), which treatment credits for off-stream raw number of studies that investigated the described 0.5 log and 1 log presumptive water storage described in the pre- removal of Cryptosporidium and other credits for reservoirs with hydraulic proposal draft, and recommended that microorganisms and particles in raw detention times of 21 and 60 days, no presumptive credits be given for this water storage basins. These studies are respectively. These criteria were based toolbox option. The panel did agree, summarized in the following on a preliminary assessment of reported though, that a utility should be able to paragraphs, and selected results are studies, described later in this section, take advantage of off-stream raw water presented in Table IV–8.

TABLE IVÐ8.—STUDIES OF Cryptosporidium AND GIARDIA REMOVAL FROM OFF-STREAM RAW WATER STORAGE

Researcher Reservoir Residence time Log reductions

Ketelaars et al. 1995 ...... Biesbosch reservoir system: man- 24 weeks (average) ...... Cryptosporidium-1.4 Giardia-2.3. made pumped storage (Nether- lands). Van Breeman et al. 1998 ...... Biesbosch reservoir system: man- 24 weeks (average) ...... Cryptosporidium-2.0 Giardia-2.6. made pumped storage (Nether- lands). PWN (Netherlands) ...... 10 weeks (average) ...... Cryptosporidium-1.3 Giardia-0.8. Bertolucci et al. 1998 ...... Abandoned gravel quarry used for 18 days (theoretical) ...... Cryptosporidium-1.0 Giardia-0.8. storage (Italy). Ongerth, 1989 ...... Three impoundments on rivers with 40, 100 and 200 days (re- No Giardia removal observed. limited public access (Seattle, spectively). WA).

Ketelaars et al. (1995) evaluated average reduction was 2.6 log. In river are controlled by municipal water Cryptosporidium and Giardia removal addition, Van Breeman et al. (1998) departments for public water supply, across a series of three man-made evaluated removal of Cryptosporidium, and public access is limited. The Cedar, pumped reservoirs, named the Giardia, and other microorganisms in a Green, and Tolt rivers each have Biesbosch reservoirs, with reported reservoir designated PWN, which had a impoundments with reported residence hydraulic retention times of 11, 9, and hydraulic retention time of 10 weeks. times of 100, 30–50, and 200 days, 4 weeks (combined retention time of 24 Passage through this storage reservoir respectively, in the reach studied. weeks). To prevent algal growth and was reported to reduce the mean Ongerth found no statistically hypolimnetic deoxygenation, the concentration of Cryptosporidium by 1.3 significant difference in cyst reservoirs were destratified by air- log and of Giardia by 0.8 log. concentrations above and below any of injection. Based on weekly sampling Bertolucci et al. (1998) investigated the reservoirs. Median cyst over one year, mean influent and removal of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, concentrations above and below the effluent concentrations of and nematodes in a reservoir derived Cedar, Green, and Tolt reservoirs were Cryptosporidium were 0.10 and 0.004 from an abandoned gravel quarry with reported as 0.12 and 0.22, 0.27 and 0.32, oocysts/100 L, respectively, indicating a detention time reported as around 18 and 0.16 and 0.21 cysts/L, respectively. an average removal across the three days. Over a 2 year period, average It is unclear why no decrease in cyst reservoirs of 1.4 log. Mean removal of influent and effluent concentrations of levels was observed. It is possible that Cryptosporidium were 70 and 7 oocysts/ Giardia was 2.3 log. contamination of the water in the 100 L, respectively, demonstrating a impoundments by Giardia from animal Van Breemen et al. (1998) continued mean reduction of 1 log. Average sources, either directly or through run- the efforts of Ketelaars et al. (1995) in Giardia levels decreased from 137 cysts/ off, may have occurred. evaluating pathogen removal across the 100L in the inlet to 46 cysts/100L at the Biesbosch reservoir system. Using a outlet, resulting in a mean 0.5 log EPA has also considered results from more sensitive analytical method, Van removal. studies which evaluated the rate at Breeman et al. measured mean Ongerth (1989) studied concentrations which Cryptosporidium oocysts lose Cryptosporidium levels of 6.3 and 0.064 of Giardia cysts in the Tolt, Cedar, and viability and infectivity over time. Two oocysts/100 L at the inlet and outlet, Green rivers, which drain the western studies are summarized next, with respectively, indicating an average slope of the Cascade Mountains in selected results presented in Table IV– removal of 2.0 log. For Giardia, the Washington. The watersheds of each 9.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47687

TABLE IVÐ9.—STUDIES OF Cryptosporidium DIE-OFF DURING RAW WATER STORAGE

Researcher Type of experiment Log reduction

Medema et al. 1997 ...... River water was inoculated with Cryptosporidium and 0.5 log reduction over 50 days at 5 °C; 0.5 log reduc- bacteria and incubated. tion over 20Ð80 days at 15 °C. Sattar et al. 1999 ...... Synthetic hard water and natural water from several riv- In vitro conditions showed 0.7 to 2.0 log reduction over ers inoculated with Giardia and Cryptosporidium. 30 days at 20 °C. Little reduction at 4 °C. In situ con- ditions showed 0.4 to 1.5 log reduction at 21 days.

Medema et al. (1997) conducted Overall these studies indicate that off- sedimentation and filtration processes bench scale studies of the influence of stream storage of raw water has the in a treatment plant. EPA is proposing temperature and the presence of potential to effect significant reductions to award a presumptive 0.5 log biological activity on the die-off rate of in the concentration of viable Cryptosporidium treatment credit for Cryptosporidium oocysts. Die-off rates Cryptosporidium oocysts, both through presedimentation that is installed after were determined at 5°C and 15°C, and sedimentation and degradation of LT2ESWTR monitoring and meets the in both natural and sterilized oocysts (i.e., die-off). However, these following three criteria: (autoclaved) river water. Both data also illustrate the challenge in (1) The presedimentation basin must excystation and vital dye staining were reliably estimating the amount of be in continuous operation and must used to determine oocyst viability. At removal that will occur in any particular treat all of the flow reaching the 5°C, the die-off rate under all conditions storage reservoir. Removal and die-off treatment plant. was 0.010 log10/day, assuming first- rates reported in these studies varied (2) The system must continuously add order kinetics. This translates to 0.5 log widely, and were observed to be a coagulant to the presedimentation reduction at 50 days. At 15°C, the die- influenced by factors like temperature, basin. off rate in natural river water contamination, hydraulic short (3) The system must demonstrate on a monthly basis at least 0.5 log approximately doubled to 0.024 log10/ circuiting, and biological activity (Van reduction of influent turbidity through day (excystation) and 0.018 log10/day Breeman et al. 1998, Medema et al. (dye staining). However, in autoclaved 1997, Sattar et al. 1999). Because of this the presedimentation process in at least water at 15°C, the die-off rate was only variability and the relatively small 11 of the 12 previous consecutive 0.006 log /day (excystation) and 0.011 amount of available data, it is difficult months. This monthly demonstration of 10 turbidity reduction must be based on log10/day (dye staining). These results to extrapolate from these studies to suggest that oocyst die-off is more rapid develop nationally applicable criteria the arithmetic mean of at least daily at higher temperatures in natural water, for awarding removal credits to raw turbidity measurements in the and this behavior may be caused by water storage. presedimentation basin influent and effluent, and must be calculated as increased biological or biochemical c. Request for comment. EPA requests follows: activity. comment on the finding that the Monthly mean turbidity log reduction = Sattar et al. (1999) evaluated factors available data are not adequate to support a presumptive Cryptosporidium log10(monthly mean of daily impacting Cryptosporidium and Giardia ¥ treatment credit for off-stream raw water influent turbidity) log10(monthly survival. Microtubes containing mean of daily effluent turbidity). untreated water from the Grand and St. storage, and that systems using off- If the presedimentation process has not Lawrence rivers (Ontario) were stream storage should conduct been in operation for 12 months, the inoculated with purified oocysts and LT2ESWTR monitoring at the reservoir system must verify on a monthly basis cysts. Samples were incubated at outlet. This monitoring approach would at least 0.5 log reduction of influent temperatures ranging from 4°C to 30°C, account for reductions in oocyst turbidity through the presedimentation viability of oocysts and cysts was concentrations due to settling, but process, calculated as specified in this measured by excystation. At 20°C and would not provide credit for die-off, paragraph, for at least all but any one of 30°C, reductions in viable since non-viable oocysts could still be the months of operation. Cryptosporidium oocysts ranged from counted during monitoring. In addition, EPA would also appreciate comment on Systems with presedimentation in approximately 0.6 to 2.0 log after 30 place at the time they begin LT2ESWTR days. However, relatively little the following specific issues: • Is additional information available Cryptosporidium monitoring are not inactivation took place when oocysts that either supports or suggests eligible for the 0.5 log presumptive were incubated at 4°C (as low as 0.2 log modifications to this proposal credit and must sample after the basin at 100 days). concerning off-stream raw water when in use for the purpose of To evaluate oocyst survival under storage? determining their bin assignment. The dynamic environmental conditions, • How should a system address the use of presedimentation during Sattar et al. seeded dialysis cassettes concern that water in off-stream raw LT2ESWTR monitoring must be with Cryptosporidium oocysts and water storage reservoirs may become consistent with routine plant operation placed them in overflow tanks receiving contaminated through processes like and must be recorded by the system. water from different rivers in Canada algal growth, run-off, roosting birds, and Guidance on monitoring is provided in and the United States. Reductions in the activities on the watershed? Public Water System Guidance Manual concentration of viable oocysts ranged for Source Water Monitoring under the from approximately 0.4 to 1.5 log after 5. Pre-Sedimentation With Coagulant LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003g), which is 21 days. Survival of oocysts was a. What is EPA proposing today? available in draft in the docket for enhanced by pre-filtering the water, Presedimentation is a preliminary today’s proposal. suggesting that microbial antagonism treatment process used to remove b. How was this proposal developed? was involved in the natural inactivation particulate material from the source Presedimentation is used to remove of the parasites. water before the water enters primary gravel, sand, and other gritty material

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47688 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

from the raw water and dampen particle in the November 2001 pre-proposal and bin assignment. Systems that loading to the rest of the treatment draft (see section VII.K). In written monitor after presedimentation are not plant. Presedimentation is similar to comments from a December 2001 subject to the operational and conventional sedimentation, except that meeting of the SAB Drinking Water performance requirements associated presedimentation may be operated at Committee, the panel concluded that with the 0.5 log credit. The SAB agreed higher loading rates and may not available data were minimal to support that a system should be able to sample involve use of chemical coagulants. a 0.5 log presumptive credit and after the presedimentation treatment Also, some systems operate the recommended that no credit be given for process for appropriate bin placement. presedimentation process periodically presedimentation. Additionally, the In considering criteria for awarding and only in response to periods of high panel stated that performance criteria Cryptosporidium removal credit to particle loading. other than overflow rate need to be presedimentation, EPA has evaluated Because presedimentation reduces included if credit is to be given for both published studies and data particle concentrations, it is expected to presedimentation. submitted by water systems using reduce Cryptosporidium levels. In Due to this finding by the SAB, EPA presedimentation. There is relatively addition, by dampening variability in further reviewed data on removal of little published data on the removal of source water quality, presedimentation aerobic spores (as an indicator of Cryptosporidium by presedimentation. may improve the performance of Cryptosporidium removal) and turbidity Consequently, EPA has reviewed subsequent treatment processes. In in full-scale presedimentation basins. studies that investigated general, the efficacy of presedimentation As shown later in this section, these Cryptosporidium removal by in lowering particle levels is influenced data indicate that presedimentation conventional sedimentation basins. by a number of water quality and basins achieving a monthly mean These studies are informative regarding treatment parameters including surface reduction in turbidity of at least 0.5 log potential levels of performance, the loading rate, temperature, particle have a high likelihood of reducing mean influence of water quality parameters, concentration, coagulation, and Cryptosporidium levels by 0.5 log or and correlation of Cryptosporidium characteristics of the sedimentation more. Consequently, EPA has removal with removal of potential basin. The Stage 2–M–DBP Agreement in determined that it is appropriate to use surrogates. However, removal efficiency Principle recommends 0.5 log turbidity reduction as a performance in conventional sedimentation basins presumptive Cryptosporidium treatment criterion for awarding Cryptosporidium may be greater than in presedimentation credit for presedimentation with the use treatment credit to presedimentation due to lower surface loading rates, of coagulant. Today’s proposal is basins. The Agency believes this higher coagulant doses, and other consistent with this recommendation. performance criterion addresses the factors. To supplement these studies, However, the proposed requirement for concerns raised by the SAB. EPA has evaluated data provided by demonstrated turbidity reduction as a The Agency has concluded that it is utilities on removal of other types of condition for presedimentation credit appropriate to limit eligibility for the 0.5 particles, primarily aerobic spores, in represents a change from the November log presumptive Cryptosporidium the presedimentation processes of full 2001 pre-proposal draft of the treatment credit to systems that install scale plants. Data indicate that aerobic LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2001g). Rather than presedimentation after LT2ESWTR spores may serve as a surrogate for a requirement for turbidity removal, the monitoring. Systems with Cryptosporidium removal by 2001 pre-proposal draft included presedimentation in place prior to sedimentation (Dugan et al. 2001). criteria for maximum overflow rate and initiation of LT2ESWTR i. Published studies of minimum influent turbidity as Cryptosporidium monitoring may Cryptosporidium removal by conditions for the 0.5 log sample after the presedimentation basin conventional sedimentation basins. presedimentation credit. to determine their bin assignment. In Table IV–10 summarizes results from The Science Advisory Board (SAB) this case, the effect of presedimentation published studies of Cryptosporidium reviewed the criteria and supporting in reducing Cryptosporidium levels will removal by conventional sedimentation information for presedimentation credit be reflected in the monitoring results basins.

TABLE IVÐ10.—SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED STUDIES OF Cryptosporidium REMOVAL BY CONVENTIONAL SEDIMENTATION BASINS

Cryptosporidium removal by sedi- Author(s) Plant/process type mentation

Dugan et al. (2001) ...... Pilot scale conventional ...... 0.6 to 1.6 log (average 1.3 log). States et al. (1997) ...... Full scale conventional with primary and secondary 0.41 log. sedimentation. Edzwald and Kelly (1998) ...... Bench scale sedimentation ...... 0.8 to 1.2 log. Payment and Franco (1993) ...... Full scale conventional (2 plants) ...... 3.8 log and 0.7 log. Kelly et al. (1995) ...... Full scale conventional (two stage lime softening) ..... 0.8 log. Full scale conventional (two stage sedimentation) ..... 0.5 log. Patania et al. (1995) ...... Pilot scale conventional (3 plants) ...... 2.0 log (median).

Dugan et al. (2001) evaluated the been demonstrated to provide averaging 1.3 log. Suboptimal ability of conventional treatment to equivalent performance to a larger plant. coagulation conditions (underdosed control Cryptosporidium under different Under optimal coagulation conditions, relative to jar test predictions) water quality and treatment conditions oocyst removal across the sedimentation significantly reduced plant performance on a small pilot scale plant that had basin ranged from 0.6 to 1.6 log, with oocyst removal in the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47689

sedimentation basin averaging 0.20 log. effectiveness of sedimentation for generated by the primary clarifier of a Removal of aerobic spores, total particle organism removal varied widely under softening process was recycled to the counts, and turbidity all correlated well the conditions tested, the median head of the presedimentation basins with removal of Cryptosporidium by removal of Cryptosporidium by during the entire study period. In sedimentation. sedimentation was approximately 2.0 addition, coagulant (polymer and/or States et al. (1997) monitored log. ferric sulfate) was added prior to Cryptosporidium removal at the ii. Data supplied by utilities on the presedimentation when raw water Pittsburgh Drinking Water Treatment removal of spores by presedimentation. turbidity was higher. During periods Plant (65–70 million gallons per day Data on the removal of Cryptosporidium when coagulant was added, mean spore (MGD)). The clarification process and spores (Bacillus subtilis and total levels before and after presedimentation included ferric chloride coagulation, aerobic spores) during operation of full- were 102,292 and 13,154 cfu/100 mL, flocculation, and settling in both a small scale presedimentation basins were respectively, demonstrating a mean primary basin and a 120 MG secondary collected independently and reported removal of 0.9 log. When no ferric sedimentation basin. Geometric mean by three utilities: St. Louis, MO, Kansas sulfate or polymer was used, mean Cryptosporidium levels in the raw and City, MO, and Cincinnati, OH. presedimentation influent and effluent settled water were 31 and 12 oocysts/ Cryptosporidium oocysts were not spore levels were 13,296 and 4,609 cfu/ 100 L, respectively, indicating a mean detected in raw water at these locations 100 mL, respectively, for an average reduction of 0.41 log. at levels sufficient to calculate log reduction of 0.46 log. Edzwald and Kelly (1998) conducted removals of oocysts directly. However, The Cincinnati Water Works operates a bench-scale study to determine the aerobic spores were present in the raw a treatment plant using lamella plate optimal coagulation conditions with water of these utilities at high enough settlers for presedimentation. Lamella different coagulants for removing concentrations to measure log removals plate settlers are inclined plates added Cryptosporidium oocysts from spiked through presedimentation as a surrogate to a sedimentation basin to significantly raw waters. Under optimal coagulation for Cryptosporidium removal. As noted increase the surface area available for conditions, the authors observed oocysts earlier, data from Dugan et al. (2001) particle settling. Coagulant (alum and reductions through sedimentation demonstrate a correlation between polymer) is added to the raw water prior ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 log. removal of aerobic spores and to presedimentation. Total aerobic spore Payment and Franco (1993) measured Cryptosporidium through sedimentation samples were collected from January Cryptosporidium and other under optimal coagulation conditions. A 1998 through December 2000. The mean microorganisms in raw, settled, and summary of the spore removal data concentration of spores decreased from filtered water samples from drinking supplied by the these utilities is shown 20,494 cfu/100 mL in the raw water to water treatment plants in the Montreal in Table IV–11. 4,693 cfu/100 mL in the area. The geometric mean of raw and presedimentation effluent, indicating a settled water Cryptosporidium levels in TABLE IVÐ11.—MEAN SPORE RE- mean spore removal of 0.64 log. one plant were 742 and 0.12 oocysts/ In conclusion, literature studies 100 L, respectively, suggesting a mean MOVAL FOR FULL-SCALE clearly establish that sedimentation removal of 3.8 log. In a second plant, PRESEDIMENTATION BASINS RE- basins are capable of achieving greater mean removal by sedimentation was PORTED BY THREE UTILITIES than 0.5 log reduction in reported as 0.7 log, with raw and settled Cryptosporidium levels. Further, the water Cryptosporidium levels reported Reporting utility Mean spore removal data supplied by utilities on reduction as <2 and <0.2 oocysts/L, respectively. in aerobic spore counts across full scale Kelley et al. (1995) monitored St. Louis Water Divi- 1.1 log (B. subtilis). sion. presedimentation basins demonstrate Cryptosporidium levels in the raw, Kansas City Water 0.8 log (B. subtilis) that presedimentation can achieve mean settled, and filtered water of two water Services Depart- (with coagulant). reductions of greater than 0.5 log under treatment plants (designated site A and ment. routine operating conditions and over B). Both plants included two-stage 0.46 log (B. subtilis) an extended time period. Thus, these sedimentation. At site A, mean raw and (without coagulant). data suggest that a 0.5 log presumptive settled water Cryptosporidium levels Cincinnati Water 0.6 log (total aerobic credit for Cryptosporidium removal by were 60 and 9.5 oocysts/100 L, Works. spores). presedimentation is appropriate under respectively, suggesting a mean removal certain conditions. of 0.8 log by sedimentation. At site B, The St. Louis Water Division operates With respect to the conditions under mean raw and settled water four presedimentation basins at one which the 0.5 log presumptive credit for Cryptosporidium levels were 53 and 16 facility. Coagulant addition prior to presedimentation is appropriate, the oocysts/100 L, respectively, for an presedimentation includes polymer and data do not demonstrate that this level average removal by sedimentation of 0.5 occasional dosages of ferric sulfate. of removal can be achieved consistently log. Well water was intermittently Bacillus subtilis spore samples were without a coagulant. In addition, blended in the second stage of collected from June 1998 to September available data do not establish aerobic sedimentation at site B, which may have 2000. Reported mean spore spores as an effective indicator of reduced settled and filtered water concentrations in the raw water and Cryptosporidium removal in the absence pathogen levels. following presedimentation were of a coagulant. Thus, supporting data Patania et al. (1995) evaluated 108,326 and 8,132 cfu/100 mL, are consistent with a requirement that removal of Cryptosporidium in four respectively, showing an average systems apply a coagulant to be eligible pilot scale plants. Three of these were removal of 1.1 log by presedimentation. for the presumptive 0.5 log conventional and one used in-line The Kansas City Water Services presedimentation credit. Moreover, such filtration (rapid mix followed by Department collected Bacillus subtilis a requirement is consistent with the filtration). Cryptosporidium removal spore samples from January to Agreement in Principle, which was generally 1.4 to 1.8 log higher in the November 2000 from locations before recommends 0.5 log credit for process trains with sedimentation and after one of the facility’s six presedimentation basins with a compared to in-line filtration. While the presedimentation basins. Sludge coagulant.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47690 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

EPA also has concluded that proposing these conditions for the presedimentation, EPA analyzed the presedimentation basins need to be presumptive presedimentation credit, relationship between removal of spores operated continuously and treat 100% EPA is not recommending against and reduction in turbidity through of the plant flow in order to reasonably intermittent operation of presedimentation for the three utilities ensure that the process will reduce presedimentation basins. Rather, EPA is that supplied these data. Results of this influent Cryptosporidium levels by at attempting to identify the conditions analysis are summarized in Table IV–12, least 0.5 log over the course of a full under which a 0.5 log presumptive which shows the relationship between year. The Agency recognizes that, credit for presedimentation is monthly mean turbidity reduction and depending on influent water quality, warranted. the percent of months when mean spore some systems may determine it is more In response to the SAB panel removal was at least 0.5 log. prudent to operate presedimentation recommendation that performance basins intermittently in response to criteria other than overflow rate be BILLING CODE 6560–50–P fluctuating turbidity levels. By included if credit is to be given for

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C this information, EPA has concluded presedimentation. Further, EPA is Within the available data set, that it is appropriate to require 0.5 log proposing that systems must meet the achieving a mean turbidity reduction of turbidity reduction, determined as a 0.5 log turbidity reduction requirement at least 0.5 log appears to provide monthly mean of daily turbidity in at least 11 of the 12 previous months approximately a 90% assurance that average spore removal will be 0.5 log or readings, as an operating condition for on an ongoing basis to remain eligible greater. The underlying data are shown the 0.5 log presumptive for the presedimentation credit. graphically in Figure IV–4. Based on Cryptosporidium treatment credit for BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.007 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47691

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C comment on how this situation should • Wells are located at least 25 feet (in c. Request for comment. EPA requests be handled under the LT2ESWTR. any direction) from the surface water • comment on the proposed criteria for Whether and under what conditions source to be eligible for 0.5 log credit; awarding credit to presedimentation. factors like low turbidity raw water, wells located at least 50 feet from the EPA would particularly appreciate infrequent sludge removal, and wind source surface water are eligible for 1.0 comment on the following issues: would make compliance with the 0.5 log credit; • • Whether the information cited in log turbidity removal requirement The wellhead must be continuously this proposal supports the proposed infeasible. monitored for turbidity to ensure that no system failure is occurring. If the credit for presedimentation and the 6. Bank Filtration monthly average of daily maximum operating conditions under which the a. What is EPA proposing today? EPA turbidity values exceeds 1 NTU then the credit will be awarded; is proposing to award additional • system must report this finding to the Additional information that either Cryptosporidium treatment credit (0.5 or State. The system must also conduct an supports or suggest modifications to the 1.0 log) for systems that implement bank assessment to determine the cause of the proposed performance criteria and filtration as a pre-treatment technique if high turbidity levels in the well and presumptive credit; it meets the design criteria specified in consult with the State regarding • Today’s proposal requires systems this section. To be eligible for credit as whether previously allowed credit is using presedimentation to sample after a pre-treatment technique, bank still appropriate. the presedimentation basin, and these filtration collection devices must meet Systems using existing bank filtration systems are not eligible to receive the following criteria: as pretreatment to a filtration plant at additional presumptive • Wells are drilled in an the time the systems are required to Cryptosporidium removal credit for unconsolidated, predominantly sandy conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring, presedimentation. However, systems are aquifer, as determined by grain-size as described in section IV.A, must also required to collect samples prior to analysis of recovered core material—the sample the well effluent for the purpose chemical treatment, and EPA recognizes recovered core must contain greater of determining bin classification. Where that some plants provide chemical than 10% fine-grained material (grains bin classification is based on monitoring treatment to water prior to, or during, less than 1.0 mm diameter) in at least the well effluent, systems are not presedimentation. EPA requests 90% of its length; eligible to receive additional credit for

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.008 47692 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

bank filtration. In these cases, the rate so that organisms remain attached length with sufficient fine-grained performance of the bank filtration to a grain for long periods. When ground material so as to provide adequate process in reducing Cryptosporidium water travel times from source water to removal. An aquifer is eligible for levels will be reflected in the well are long or when little or no removal credit if at least 90% of the monitoring results and bin detachment occurs, most organisms will sampled core length contains sufficient classification. become inactivated before they can fine-grained material as defined in this Systems using bank filtered water enter a well. Thus, bank filtration relies section. without additional filtration typically on removal, but also, in some cases, on Cryptosporidium oocysts have a must collect source water samples in the inactivation to protect wells from natural affinity for attaching to fine- surface water (i.e., prior to bank pathogen contamination. grained material. A study of oocyst filtration) to determine bin removal in sand columns shows greater classification. This applies to systems Only Wells Located in Unconsolidated, oocyst removal in finer-grained sands using bank filtration to meet the Predominantly Sandy Aquifers Are than in coarser-grained sands (Harter et Cryptosporidium removal requirements Eligible al. 2000). The core sampling procedure of the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR under the Only granular aquifers are eligible for described in this section is designed to provisions for alternative filtration bank filtration credit. Granular aquifers measure the proportion of fine-grained demonstration in 40 CFR 141.173(b) or are those comprised of sand, clay, silt, sands (grains less than 1.0 mm in 141.552(a). Note that the proposed bank rock fragments, pebbles or larger diameter) so as to ensure that a potential filtration criteria for Cryptosporidium particles and minor cement. The aquifer bank filtration site is capable of removal credit under the LT2ESWTR do material is required to be retarding transport (or removing) not apply to existing State actions to unconsolidated, with subsurface oocysts during ground water flow from provide alternative filtration samples friable upon touch. the source surface water to the water Cryptosporidium removal credit for Uncemented granular aquifers are supply well. The value of 1.0 mm for IESWTR or LT1ESWTR compliance. typically formed by alluvial or glacial the bounding size of the sand grains was In the case of systems that use GWUDI processes. Such aquifers are usually determined based on calculations sources without additional filtration and identified on a detailed geologic map performed by Harter using data from that meet all the criteria for avoiding (e.g., labeled as Quaternary alluvium). Harter et al. (2000). Harter showed that, filtration in 40 CFR 141.71, samples Under today’s proposal, a system for ground water velocities typical of a must be collected from the ground water seeking Cryptosporidium removal credit bank filtration site (1.5 to 15 m/day), a (e.g., the well). Further, such systems must characterize the aquifer at the well typical bank filtration site composed of must comply with the requirements of site to determine aquifer properties. At grains with a diameter of 1.0 mm would the LT2ESWTR that apply to unfiltered a minimum, the aquifer characterization achieve at least 1.0 log removal over a systems, as described in section IV.B. must include the collection of relatively 50 foot transport distance. Larger-sized b. How was this proposal developed? undisturbed, continuous, core samples grains would achieve less removal, all This section describes the bank from the surface to a depth equal to the other factors being equal. filtration treatment process, provides bottom of the well screen. The proposed Alluvial and glacial aquifers are more detail on the aquifer types and site must have substantial core recovery complex mixtures of sand, gravel and ground water collection devices that are during drilling operations; specifically, other sized particles. Particles of similar eligible for bank filtration credit, and the recovered core length must be at size are often grouped together in the describes the data supporting the least 90% of the total projected depth to subsurface, due to sorting by flowing proposed requirements. the well screen. water that carries and then deposits the Bank filtration is a water treatment Samples of the recovered core must be particles. Where there exists significant process that makes use of surface water submitted to a laboratory for sieve thickness of coarse-grained particles, that has naturally infiltrated into ground analysis to determine grain size such as gravels, with few finer water via the river bed or bank(s) and distribution over the entire recovered materials, there is limited opportunity is recovered via a pumping well. core length. Each sieve sample must be for oocyst removal. When the total Stream-bed infiltration is typically acquired at regular intervals over the gravel thickness, as measured in a core, enhanced by the pumping action of length of the recovered core, with one exceeds 10%, it is more likely (based on near-stream wells (e.g., water supply, sample representing a composite of each analysis of ground water flow within irrigation). Bank filtrate is water drawn two feet of recovered core. A two-foot mixtures containing differing-sized into a pumping well from a nearby sampling interval reflects the necessity grains) that the gravel-rich intervals are surface water source which has traveled to sample the core frequently without interconnected. Interconnected gravel through the subsurface, either vertically, imposing an undue burden. Because it can form a continuous, preferential flow horizontally or both, mixing to some is anticipated that wells will range from path from the source surface water to degree with other ground water. 50 to 100 foot in depth, a two-foot the water supply well. Where such Through bank filtration, microorganisms sampling interval will result in about 25 preferential flow paths exist, a and other particles are removed by to 50 samples for analysis. Each preponderance of the total ground water contact with the aquifer materials. sampled interval must be examined to flow occurs within the preferential flow The bank filtration removal process determine if more than ten percent of path, ground water velocity is higher, performs most efficiently when the the grains in that interval are less than and natural filtration is minimal. A aquifer is comprised of granular 1.0 mm in diameter (#18 sieve size). In proposed bank filtration site is materials with open pore-space for the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil acceptable if at least 90% of the core water flow around the grains. In these classification system, the #18 sieve length contains grains with sufficient granular porous aquifers, the flow path separates very coarse sands from coarse fine-grained material (diameter less than is meandering, thereby providing ample sands. The length of core (based on the 1.0 mm); that is, it is acceptable if the opportunity for the organism to come samples from two-foot intervals) with core contains less than 10% gravel-rich into contact with and attach to a grain more than ten percent of the grains less intervals. surface. Although detachment can than 1.0 mm in diameter must be Aquifer materials with significant occur, it typically occurs at a very slow summed to determine the overall core fracturing are capable of transmitting

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47693

ground water at high velocity in a direct currently available to suggest that properties of the material overlying an flow path with little time or opportunity horizontal well distances from surface infiltration gallery may be designed or for die-off or removal of microbial water should be greater than distances purposefully altered to optimize oocyst pathogens. Consolidated aquifers, established for vertical wells. Two removal or for other reasons, this fractured bedrock, and karst limestone ongoing studies in Wyoming (Clancy engineered system is not bank filtration, are aquifers in which surface water may Environmental Consultants 2002) and which relies solely on the natural enter into a pumping well by flow along Nebraska (Rice 2002) are collecting data properties of the system. a fracture, a solution-enhanced fracture at horizontal well sites. A 1992 cryptosporidiosis outbreak in conduit, or other preferential pathway. A spring box is located at the ground Talent, Oregon was associated with poor Microbial pathogens found in surface surface and is designed to contain performance of an infiltration gallery water are more likely to be transported spring outflow and protect it from underneath Bear Creek (Leland et al. to a well via these direct or preferential surface contamination until the water is 1993). In this case, the ground water- pathways. Cryptosporidium outbreaks utilized. Spring boxes are typically surface water interface and the have been associated with consolidated located where natural processes have engineered materials beneath did not aquifers, such as a fractured chalk enhanced and focused ground water sufficiently reduce the high oocyst aquifer (Willocks et al. 1998) or a karst discharge into a smaller area and at a concentration present in the source limestone (solution-enhanced fractured) faster volumetric flow rate than water. The association of an infiltration aquifer (Bergmire-Sweat et al. 1999). elsewhere (i.e., a spring). Often, gallery with an outbreak, the design that These outbreaks show that the oocyst localized fracturing or solution relies on engineered materials rather removal performance of consolidated enhanced channels are the cause of the than the filtration properties of natural aquifers is undermined by preferential focused discharge to the spring orifice. filtration media, and the shallow depth water flow and oocyst transport through Fractures and solution channels have of constructed infiltration galleries, such rock fractures or through rock significant potential to transport that they typically are not located dissolution zones. Wells located in microbial contaminants so that natural greater than 25 feet from the surface and these aquifers are not eligible for bank filtration may be poor. Thus, spring surface water recharge, all indicate that filtration credit because the flow paths boxes are not proposed to be eligible for infiltration galleries must not be eligible are direct and the average ground water bank filtration credit. for bank filtration credit. velocity is high, so that little Cryptosporidium monitoring results EPA notes that under the inactivation or removal would be (Hancock et al. 1998) and outbreaks are demonstration of performance credit expected. Therefore, only used to evaluate ground water collection described in section IV.C.17, States may unconsolidated aquifer are eligible for devices. Hancock et al. sampled thirty consider awarding Cryptosporidium bank filtration oocyst removal credit. five springs for Cryptosporidium oocysts removal credit to infiltration galleries A number of devices are used for the and Giardia cysts. Most springs were where the State determines, based on collection of ground water including used as drinking water sources and site-specific testing with a State- horizontal and vertical wells, spring sampling was conducted to determine if approved protocol, that such credit is boxes, and infiltration galleries. Among the spring should be considered as a appropriate (i.e., that the process these, only horizontal and vertical wells GWUDI source. Cryptosporidium reliably achieves a specified level of are eligible for log removal credit. The oocysts were found in seven springs; Cryptosporidium removal on a following discussion presents Giardia cysts were found in five springs; continuing basis). and either oocysts or cysts were found characteristics of ground water Wells Located 25 Feet From the Surface in nine springs (26%). A waterborne collection devices and the basis for this Water Source Are Eligible for 0.5 Log cryptosporidiosis outbreak in Medford, proposed requirement. Credit; Wells Located 50 Feet From the Horizontal wells are designed to Oregon (Craun et al. 1998) is associated Surface Water Source Are Eligible for capture large volumes of surface water with a spring water supply collection 1.0 Log Credit recharge. They typically are constructed device. Also, a more recent, smaller by the excavation of a central vertical outbreak of giardiasis in an Oregon A vertical or horizontal well located caisson with laterals that extend campground is associated with a PWS adjacent to a surface water body is horizontally from the caisson bottom in using a spring. The high percentage of eligible for bank filtration credit if there all directions or only under the springs contaminated with pathogenic is sufficient ground water flow path riverbed. Horizontal wells are usually protozoan, the association with recent length to effectively remove oocysts. For shallower than vertical wells because of outbreaks, and an apparent lack of bank vertical wells, the wellhead must be the construction expense. Ground water filtration capability indicate that spring located at least 25 horizontal feet from flow to a horizontal well that extends boxes must not be eligible for bank the surface water body for 0.5 log under surface water is predominantly filtration credit. Cryptosporidium removal credit and at downward. In contrast, ground water An infiltration gallery (or filter crib) is least 50 horizontal feet from the surface flow to a vertical well adjacent to typically a slotted pipe installed water body for 1.0 log Cryptosporidium surface water may be predominantly in horizontally into a trench and backfilled removal credit. For horizontal wells, the the horizontal direction. Surface water with granular material. The gallery is laterals must be located at least 25 feet may have a short ground water flow designed to collect water infiltrating distant from the normal-flow surface path to a horizontal well if the well from the surface or to intercept ground water riverbed for 0.5 log extends out beyond the bank. water flowing naturally toward the Cryptosporidium removal credit and at Hancock et al. (1998) analyzed surface water (Symons et al. 2000). In least 50 feet distant from the normal- samples from eleven horizontal wells some treatment plants, surface water is flow surface water riverbed for 1.0 log and found Cryptosporidium, Giardia or transported to a point above an Cryptosporidium removal credit. both in samples from five of those wells. infiltration gallery and then allowed to The ground water flow path to a These data suggest that some horizontal infiltrate. The infiltration rate may be vertical well is the measured distance wells may not be capable of achieving manipulated by varying the properties from the edge of the surface water body, effective Cryptosporidium removal by of the backfill or the nature of the soil- under high flow conditions (determined bank filtration. Insufficient data are water interface. Because the filtration by the mapped extent of the 100 year

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47694 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

floodplain elevation boundary or following discussion, available data At distances relatively far from an floodway, as defined in Federal indicate similar removal of both aerobic injection well in a deep, anaerobic Emergency Management Agency and anaerobic spores, either during aquifer, thereby minimizing the effects (FEMA) flood hazard maps), to the passage across the surface water— of injection, Schijven et al. measured wellhead. The ground water flow path ground water interface or during ground negligible removal of anaerobic spores to a horizontal well is the measured water flow. These data suggest that over a 30 m distance. However, few distance from the bed of the river under anaerobic spores, like aerobic spores, bank filtration systems occur in deeper, normal flow conditions to the closest may be suitable surrogate measures of anaerobic ground water so these data horizontal well lateral. Cryptosporidium removal by bank may not apply to a typical bank The floodway is defined by FEMA as filtration. filtration system in the United States. the area of the flood plain where the Available data establish that during These data demonstrate that during water is likely to be deepest and fastest. bank filtration, significant removal of normal and low surface water The floodway is shown on FEMA digital anaerobic and aerobic spores can occur elevations, the surface water-ground maps (known as Q3 flood data maps), during passage across the surface water- water interface performs effectively to which are available for 11,990 ground water interface, with lesser remove microbial contamination. communities representing 1,293 removal occurring during ground water However, there will typically be high counties in the United States. Systems transport within the aquifer away from water elevation periods during the year, may identify the distance to surface that interface. The ground water-surface especially on uncontrolled rivers, that water using either the 100 year return water interface is typically comprised of alter the nature and performance of the period flood elevation boundary or by finer grained material that lines the interface due to flood scour, typically determining the floodway boundary bottom of the riverbed. Typically, the for short periods. During these periods, using methods similar to those used in thickness of the interface is small, lower removals would be expected to preparing FEMA flood hazard maps. typically a few inches to a foot. The occur. The 100 year return period flood proposed design criteria of 25 and 50 Averaging Cryptosporidium oocyst removal over the period of a year elevation boundary is expected to be feet for 0.5 and 1.0 log Cryptosporidium requires consideration of both high and wider than the floodway but that removal credit, respectively, are based low removal periods. During most of the difference may vary depending on local on EPA’s analysis of pathogen and year, high log removal rates would be conditions. Approximately 19,200 surrogate monitoring data from bank expected to predominate (e.g., 3.3 log communities in the United States have filtration sites. Most of these data are removal over 42 feet) due to the removal flood hazard maps that show the 100 from studies of aquifers developed in achieved during passage across the year return period flood elevation Dutch North Sea margin sand dune surface water-ground water interface. boundary. If local FEMA floodway fields and, therefore, represent optimal hazard maps are unavailable or do not During short periods of flooding, removal conditions consistent with a show the 100 year flood elevation substantially lower removal rates may homogenous, well sorted (by wind), boundary, then the utility must occur (e.g., 0.5 log removal over 39 feet) uniform sand filter. determine either the floodway or 100 due to scouring of the riverbed and year flood elevation boundary. Medema et al. (2000) measured 3.3 removal of the protective, fine-grained The separation distance proposed for log removal of anaerobic spores during material. By considering all time Cryptosporidium removal credit is transport over a 13 m distance from the intervals with differing removal rates based, in part, on measured data for the Meuse River into adjacent ground water. over the period of a year, EPA is removal of oocyst surrogate biota in full- Arora et al. (2000) measured greater proposing that 0.5 log removal over 25 scale field studies. A variety of surrogate than 2.0 log removal of anaerobic spores feet (8 m) and 1.0 log removal over 50 and indicator organisms were analyzed during transport from the Wabash River feet (16 m) are reasonable estimates of in each study evaluated for today’s to a horizontal collector well. Havelaar the average performance of a bank proposal. However, only two non- et al. (1995) measured 3.1 log removal filtration system over a year. This pathogenic organisms, anaerobic of anaerobic spores during transport proposal is generally supported by clostridia spores and aerobic over a 30 m distance from the Rhine colloidal filtration theory modeling endospores, are resistant to inactivation River to a well and 3.6 log removal over results using data characteristic of the in the subsurface, approximately similar a 25 m distance from the Meuse River aquifers in Louisville and Cincinnati in size and shape to oocysts, and to a well. Schijven et al. (1998) and column studies of oocyst transport sufficiently ubiquitous in both surface measured 1.9 log removal of anaerobic in sand (Harter et al. 2000). water and ground water so that log spores over a 2 m distance from a canal Wells must be continuously monitored removal can be calculated during to a monitoring well. Using aerobic for turbidity passage across the surface water— spores, Wang et al. (2001) measured 1.8 ground water interface and during log removal over a 2 foot distance from Under the Surface Water Treatment transport within the aquifer. the Ohio river to a monitoring well Rule (40 CFR 141.73(b)(1)) the turbidity Anaerobic spores are typically beneath the river. level of slow sand filtered water must be estimated at about 0.3–0.4 µm in During transport solely within 1 NTU or less in 95% of the diameter as compared with 4–6 µm for shallow ground water (i.e., not measurements taken each month. oocysts. Aerobic spores, such as including removal across the surface Turbidity sampling is required once endospores of the bacterium Bacillus water-ground water interface), Medema every four hours, but may be reduced to subtilis, are slightly larger than et al. (2000) measured approximately once per day under certain conditions. anaerobic spores, typically 0.5 × 1.0 × 0.6 log removal of anaerobic spores over Although slow sand filtration is not 2.0 µm in diameter (Rice et al. 1996). a distance of 39 feet. Using aerobic bank filtration, similar pathogen Experiments conducted by injecting spores, Wang et al. (2001) measured 1.0 removal mechanisms are expected to Bacillus subtilis spores into a gravel log removal of aerobic spores over a 48 occur in both processes. Just as turbidity aquifer show that they can be very foot distance from a monitoring well monitoring is used to provide assurance mobile in the subsurface environment beneath a river to a horizontal well that the removal credit assigned to a (Pang et al. 1998). As presented in the lateral. slow sand filter is being realized, EPA

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47695

is proposing continuous turbidity present an assessment of whether turbidity performance requirement for monitoring for all bank filtration wells microbial removal has been bank filtration is less strict than that for that receive credit. compromised. If the State determines slow sand filtration because, unlike If monthly average turbidity levels that microbial removal has been slow sand filtration, bank filtration is a (based on daily maximum values in the compromised, the system must not pre-treatment technique followed by well) exceed 1 NTU, the system is receive credit for bank filtration until conventional or direct filtration. required to report to the State and the problem has been remediated. The BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C c. Request for comment. The Agency supplant core drilling to determine site In summary, EPA believes that the requests comment on the following suitability for bank filtration credit. measured full-scale field data from issues concerning bank filtration: • operating bank filtration systems, the The number of GWUDI systems in • turbidity monitoring provision, and the The performance of bank filtration each State (i.e., the number of systems design criteria for aquifer material, in removing Cryptosporidium or having at least one GWUDI source) collection device type, and setback surrogates to date at sites currently where bank filtration has been utilized distance, together provide assurance using this technology (e.g. sites with as the primary filtration barrier (e.g., no that the presumptive log removal credit horizontal wells). other physical removal technologies will be achieved by bank filtration • The use of other methods (e.g., follow); also, the method that was used systems that conform to the geophysical methods such as ground by the State to determine that each requirements in today’s proposal. penetrating radar) to complement or

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.009 47696 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

system was achieving 2 log removal of to conventional treatment plants (i.e., stage plants. Cryptosporidium was Cryptosporidium. average of 3 log). Consequently, lime found in two filtered water samples of • For GWUDI systems where natural softening plants that are placed in Bins the single stage plant, leading to or alternative filtration (e.g. bank 2–4 as a result of Cryptosporidium calculated removals from raw to filtered filtration or artificial recharge) is used in monitoring incur the same additional water of 0.6 and 2.2 log. None of the combination with a subsequent treatment requirements as conventional two-stage plants had Cryptosporidium filtration barrier (e.g., bag or cartridge plants. However, EPA is proposing that detected in the filtered water. Based on filters) to meet the 2 log two-stage softening plants be eligible for detection limits, calculated Cryptosporidium removal requirement an additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium removals from raw to of the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR, how treatment credit. To receive the 0.5 log filtered water in the two-stage plants much Cryptosporidium removal credit credit, the plant must have a second ranged from >2.67 to >3.85 log. has the State awarded (or is the State clarification stage between the primary Giardia removal across sedimentation willing to grant if the bags/cartridges clarifier and filter that is operated was >0.9 log for a single-stage plant and were found to be achieving < 2.0 logs) continuously, and both clarification ranged from 0.8 to 3.2 log for two-stage for the natural or alternative filtration stages must treat 100% of the plant plants, based on measured cyst levels. process and how did the State flow. In addition, a coagulant must be Removal of Giardia from raw water determine this value? present in both clarifiers (may include • The proposed Cryptosporidium through filtration was calculated using metal salts, polymers, lime, or detection limits as >1.5 log in a single- removal credit and associated design magnesium precipitation). criteria, including any additional stage plant and ranged from >0.9 to >3.3 b. How was this proposal developed? log in two-stage plants. information related to this topic. The lime softening process is used to • While results from the Logsdon et al. Suitable separation distance(s) to be remove hardness, primarily calcium and study are constrained by sample number required between vertical or horizontal magnesium, through chemical and method detection limits, they wells and adjacent surface water. precipitation followed by sedimentation • Testing protocols and procedures suggest that two-stage softening plants and filtration. The addition of lime for making site specific determinations may achieve greater removal of increases pH, causing the metal ions to of the appropriate level of Cryptosporidium than single-stage precipitate. Other contaminants can Cryptosporidium removal credit to plants. The authors concluded that two coalesce with the precipitates and be award to bank filtration processes. stages of sedimentation, each preceded removed in the subsequent settling and • Information on the data and by effective flocculation of particulate filtration processes. While elevated pH methods suitable for predicting matter, may increase removal of has been shown to inactivate some Cryptosporidium removal based on the protozoa. Additionally, the authors microorganisms like viruses (Battigelli available data from surrogate and stated that consistent achievement of and Sobsey, 1993, Logsdon et al. 1994), indicator measurements in water flocculation that results in effective current research indicates that collection devices. settling in each sedimentation basin is • Cryptosporidium and Giardia are not The applicability of turbidity the key factor in this treatment process. monitoring or other process monitoring inactivated by high pH (Logsdon et al. procedures to indicate the ongoing 1994, Li et al. 2001). A two-stage lime Removal of Aerobic Spores by Softening performance of bank filtration softening plant has the potential for Plants processes. additional Cryptosporidium removal because of the additional sedimentation Additional information on the 7. Lime Softening process. microbial removal efficiency of the lime a. What is EPA proposing today? Lime Limited data are available on the softening process comes from data softening is a drinking water treatment removal of Cryptosporidium by the lime provided by softening plants on removal process that uses precipitation with softening treatment process. EPA has of aerobic spores. While few treatment lime and other chemicals to reduce evaluated data from a study by Logsdon plants have sufficient concentrations of hardness and enhance clarification prior et al. (1994), which investigated oocysts to directly calculate a to filtration. Lime softening can be removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium removal efficiency, categorized into two general types: (1) in full scale lime softening plants. In some plants have high concentrations of Single-stage softening, which is used to addition, the Agency has considered aerobic spores in the raw water. Spores remove calcium hardness and (2) two- data provided by utilities on the may serve as an indicator of stage softening, which is used to remove removal of aerobic spores in softening Cryptosporidium removal by magnesium hardness and greater levels plants. These data are summarized in sedimentation and filtration (Dugan et of calcium hardness. A single-stage the following paragraphs. al. 2001). softening plant includes a primary Logsdon et al. (1994) measured levels The following two-stage softening clarifier and filtration components. A of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the plants provided data on removal of two-stage softening plant also includes raw, settled, and filtered water of 13 aerobic spores: St. Louis, MO, Kansas a secondary clarifier located between surface water plants using lime City, MO, and Columbus, OH (2 plants). the primary clarifier and filter. In some softening. Cryptosporidium was Cryptosporidium data were also two-stage softening plants, a portion of detected in the raw water at 5 utilities: collected at these utilities, but it was not the flow bypasses the first clarifier. one single-stage plant and four two- possible to calculate oocyst removal due EPA has determined that lime stage plants. Using measured oocyst to low raw water detection rates. Data softening plants in compliance with levels, Cryptosporidium removal by on removal of aerobic spores by these IESWTR or LT1ESWTR achieve a level sedimentation was 1.0 log in the single- softening plants is summarized in Table of Cryptosporidium removal equivalent stage plant and 1.1 to 2.3 log in the two- IV–14.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47697

TABLE IVÐ14.—SUMMARY OF AEROBIC SPORE REMOVAL DATA FROM SOFTENING PLANTS

Mean log removal of aerobic spores Plant Primary clari- Secondary fier clarifier Across plant *

St. Louis ...... 1.7 1.1 3.8 Kansas City ...... 2.4 0 3.4 Columbus Plant 1 ...... 1.2 1.6 3.1 Columbus Plant 2 ...... 1.3 2.4 4.2 * Excludes removal in pre-sedimentation basins; calculated spore removal may underestimate actual removal due to filter effluent levels below quantitation limits.

The City of St. Louis Water Division added prior to the first clarification two Columbus plants added lime to the operates a two-stage lime softening stage but lime is not added until the second clarifier. Consequently, a process preceded by presedimentation. second clarifier (i.e., first clarifier is not requirement that plants add a coagulant, Ferric sulfate and polymer coagulants a softening stage). Between 1997 and which may be lime, in the secondary are added at various points in the 2000, samples for total aerobic spores clarifier is consistent with the data used process. St. Louis collected Bacillus were collected approximately monthly to support the 0.5 log additional credit. subtilis spore samples between June at each plant from raw water, following The Science Advisory Board (SAB) 1998 and September 2000. During this each clarification basin, and after reviewed the proposed Cryptosporidium time period, the mean spore filtration. Mean spore concentrations in treatment credit for lime softening and concentration entering the softening the raw water sources for the two plants supporting information, as presented in process (i.e., after presedimentation) were 10,619 cfu/100 mL (Plant 1) and the November 2001 pre-proposal draft of was 8,132 cfu/100 mL. The log removal 22,595 cfu/100 mL (Plant 2). Mean log the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2001g). In values shown in Table IV–14 are based removals occurring in the two written comments from a December on average spore concentrations clarification stages and across the plant 2001 meeting of the Drinking Water following primary clarification, are shown for each plant in Table IV– Committee, the SAB panel concluded secondary clarification, and filtration. 14. that both single- and two-stage softening However, spore levels in some filtered These data indicate that two-stage generally outperform conventional water samples were below the method softening plants can remove high levels treatment due to the heavy precipitation detection limit, so that the true mean of Cryptosporidium, and, in particular, that occurs. Further, the panel found spore removal across the plant may have that a second clarification stage can that 0.5 log of additional been higher than indicated by the achieve 0.5 log or greater removal. Three Cryptosporidium removal is an average calculated value. of the four plants that provided data on value for a two-stage lime softening The Kansas City Water Services removal of aerobic spores achieved plant. However, the SAB stated that the Department plant includes two-stage greater than 1 log reduction in the additional credit for two-stage softening lime softening with pre-sedimentation second clarifier. Kansas City, the one should be given only if all the water and sludge recycle. Bacillus subtilis plant which achieved little removal in passes through both stages. Today’s spore data were collected from this the second clarifier, achieved a mean proposal is consistent with these plant during January through November 2.4 log removal in the primary clarifier. recommendations by the SAB. 2000. The mean spore concentration This was approximately 1 log more EPA notes that by including a entering the lime softening process reduction than achieved in the primary presumptive credit for softening plants, (after presedimentation) was 5,965 cfu/ clarifiers of the other three plants, so today’s proposal differs from the Stage 100 mL. Mean spore levels following that the spore concentration entering the 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle, which primary clarification, secondary second clarifier in Kansas City may have recommends up to 1 log additional clarification, and filtration were 21.1, been too low to serve as an indicator of Cryptosporidium treatment credit for 25.7, and 2.6 cfu/100 mL, respectively. removal efficiency. Consequently, EPA softening plants based on demonstration Corresponding log removal values are has concluded that these data support of performance, but no additional shown in Table IV–14. Note that the an additional Cryptosporidium presumptive credit. average spore concentration in the treatment credit of 0.5 log for a two- c. Request for comment. EPA requests effluent of the secondary clarifier was stage softening plant. comment on the proposed criteria for essentially equivalent to the effluent of EPA is proposing as a condition of the awarding credit to lime softening plants. the primary clarifier, indicating that 0.5 log additional credit that a EPA would particularly appreciate little removal occurred in the secondary coagulant, which could include excess comment on the following issues: clarifier. This result may have been due lime and soda ash or precipitation of • Whether the information and to the high removal achieved in the magnesium hydroxide, be present in analyses presented in this proposal primary clarifier and, consequently, the both clarifiers. This requirement is supports an additional 0.5 log credit for relatively low concentration of spores necessary to ensure that significant two-stage softening, and the associated entering the second clarifier. As with particulate removal occurs in both criteria necessary for credit. the St. Louis plant, many of the filtered clarification stages. Logsdon et al. • Additional information that either water observations were below method (1994) identified effective flocculation support or suggest modifications to the detection limits, so actual log removal as being a key factor for removal of proposed criteria and credit. across the plant may have been higher protozoa in softening plants. Among the than the calculated value. softening plants that provided data on 8. Combined Filter Performance The City of Columbus operates two aerobic spore removal, St. Louis added a. What is EPA proposing today? This lime softening plants, each of which has ferric and polymer coagulants at toolbox component will grant additional two clarification stages. Coagulant is different points in the process, and the credit towards Cryptosporidium

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47698 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

treatment requirements to certain plants and inorganic matter, and which is one half of the current required that maintain finished water turbidity at microorganisms), but it cannot provide level of 0.3 NTU. In considering the levels significantly lower than currently specific information on particle type, technical basis to support this required. EPA is proposing to award an number, or size. Turbidity is used as an recommendation, EPA has reviewed additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium indicator of raw and finished water studies that evaluated the efficiency of treatment credit to conventional and quality and treatment performance. granular media filtration in removing direct filtration plants that demonstrate Turbidity spikes in filtered water Cryptosporidium when operating at a turbidity level in the combined filter indicate a potential for breakthrough of different effluent turbidity levels. effluent (CFE) less than or equal to 0.15 pathogens. For the IESWTR, EPA estimated that NTU in at least 95 percent of the Under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, plants would target filter effluent measurements taken each month. combined filter effluent turbidity in turbidity in the range of 0.2 NTU in Compliance with this criterion must be conventional and direct filtration plants order to ensure compliance with a based on measurements of the CFE must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU turbidity standard of 0.3 NTU. every four hours (or more frequently) in 95% of samples taken each month Similarly, EPA has estimated that plants that the system serves water to the and must never exceed 1 NTU. These relying on meeting a turbidity standard public. This credit is not available to plants are also required to conduct of 0.15 NTU in 95% of samples will membrane, bag/cartridge, slow sand, or continuous monitoring of turbidity for consistently operate below 0.1 NTU in DE plants, due to the lack of each individual filter, and provide an order to ensure compliance. documented correlation between exceptions report to the State when Consequently, to assess the impact of effluent turbidity and Cryptosporidium certain criteria for individual filter compliance with the lower finished removal in these processes. effluent turbidity are exceeded water turbidity standard, EPA compared b. How was this proposal developed? (described in 63 FR 69487, December Cryptosporidium removal efficiency Turbidity is an optical property 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a). when effluent turbidity is below 0.1 measured from the amount of light The Stage 2 M–DBP Advisory NTU with removal efficiency when scattered by suspended particles in a Committee recommended that systems effluent turbidity is in the range of 0.1 solution. It is a method defined receive an additional 0.5 log to 0.2 NTU. Results from applicable parameter that can detect the presence Cryptosporidium removal credit for studies are summarized in Table IV–15 of a wide variety of particles in water maintaining 95th percentile combined and are discussed in the following (e.g., clay, silt, mineral particles, organic filter effluent turbidity below 0.15 NTU, paragraphs.

TABLE IVÐ15.—STUDIES OF Cryptosporidium REMOVAL AT DIFFERENT EFFLUENT TURBIDITY LEVELS

Average of log Microorganism removals Filtered effluent turbidity Experiment design Researcher

Cryptosporidium ...... 4.39 ≤0.1 NTU ...... Pilot-scale ...... Patania et al. (1995). 3.55 >0.1 and ≤0.2 NTU Giardia ...... 4.23 ≤0.1 NTU 3.22 >0.1 and ≤0.2 NTU Cryptosporidium ...... 4.09 ≤0.1 NTU ...... Bench-scale ...... Emelko et al. (1999). 3.58 >0.1 and ≤0.2 NTU Cryptosporidium ...... 3.76 ≤0.1 NTU Pilot-scale ...... Dugan et al. (2001). 2.56 >0.1 and ≤0.2 NTU

Patania et al. (1995) conducted pilot- with alum, and filtered. Oocyst removal NTU, and five runs had effluent scale studies at four locations to was evaluated during stable operation turbidity between 0.1 and 0.2 NTU. For evaluate the removal of seeded when effluent turbidity was below 0.1 runs where the calculated Cryptosporidium and Giardia, turbidity, NTU. Removal was also measured after Cryptosporidium removal was and particles. Treatment processes, a hydraulic surge that caused process concentration limited (i.e., effluent coagulants, and coagulant doses differed upset, and with coagulant addition values were non-detect), the method among the four locations. Samples of terminated. These later two conditions detection limit was used to calculate the filter effluent were taken at times of resulted in effluent turbidities greater values shown in Table IV–15. Using this stable operation and filter maturation. than 0.1 NTU and decreased removal of conservative estimate, average Analysis of summary data from the Cryptosporidium. As shown in Table Cryptosporidium removal with effluent seeded runs at all locations shows that IV–15, average removal of turbidity below 0.1 NTU exceeded by average Cryptosporidium removal was Cryptosporidium during periods with more than 1 log the average removal greater by more than 0.5 log when effluent turbidity below 0.1 NTU was observed with effluent turbidity effluent turbidity was less than 0.1 approximately 0.5 log greater than when between 0.1 to 0.2 NTU. NTU, in comparison to removal with effluent turbidity was between 0.1 to 0.2 In summary, these three studies all effluent turbidity in the range 0.1 to 0.2 NTU. support today’s proposal in showing NTU (see Table IV–15). Dugan et al. (2001) evaluated that plants consistently operating below Emelko et al. (1999) used a bench Cryptosporidium removal in a pilot 0.1 NTU can achieve an additional 0.5 scale dual media filter to study scale conventional treatment plant. log or greater removal of Cryptosporidium removal during both Sixteen filtration runs seeded with Cryptosporidium than when operating optimal and challenged operating Cryptosporidium were conducted at between 0.1 and 0.2 NTU. Because EPA conditions. Water containing a different raw water turbidities and expects plants relying on compliance suspension of kaolinite (clay) was coagulation conditions. Eleven of the with a 0.15 NTU standard will spiked with oocysts, coagulated in-line runs had an effluent turbidity below 0.1 consistently operate below 0.1 NTU, the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47699

Agency has determined it is appropriate turbidity of 0.15 NTU or less. The SAB is based on 4-hour readings, either on- to propose an additional 0.5 log recommended that 0.5 log credit be line or bench top turbidimeters may be treatment credit for plants meeting this given to plants achieving IFE turbidity used. EPA believes that results from standard. in each filter less than 0.15 NTU in 95% these studies indicate that currently The SAB reviewed the proposed of samples each month. available turbidity monitoring additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium In responding to this recommendation equipment is capable of reliably removal credit for systems maintaining from the SAB, EPA acknowledges the assessing turbidity at levels below 0.1 very low CFE turbidity, as presented in difficulty in precisely quantifying NTU, provided instruments are well the November 2001 pre-proposal draft of Cryptosporidium removal through calibrated and maintained. the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2001g). The filtration based on effluent turbidity The 1997 NODA for the IESWTR (67 SAB also reviewed a potential levels. Nevertheless, EPA finds that FR 59502, Nov. 3, 1997) (USEPA 1997a) additional 1.0 log Cryptosporidium available data consistently show that discusses issues relating to the accuracy removal credit for systems achieving removal of Cryptosporidium is and precision of low level turbidity very low individual filter effluent (IFE) increased by 0.5 log or greater when measurements. This document cites turbidity, which is addressed in section filter effluent turbidity is reduced to studies (Hart et al. 1992, Sethi et al. IV.C.16 of today’s proposal. levels reflecting compliance with a 0.15 1997) suggesting that large tolerances in In written comments from a December NTU standard, in comparison to instrument design criteria have led to 2001 meeting of the Drinking Water compliance with a 0.3 NTU standard. turbidimeters that provide different Committee, the SAB panel stated that Consequently, EPA has concluded that turbidity readings for a given additional credit for lower finished it is appropriate to propose this 0.5 log suspension. water turbidity is consistent with what presumptive treatment credit for At the time of IESWTR NODA, EPA is known in both pilot and full-scale systems achieving very low CFE had conducted performance evaluation operational experiences for turbidity. (PE) studies of turbidity samples above Cryptosporidium removal. Recognizing 0.3 NTU. A subsequent PE study Measurement of Low Level Turbidity that IESWTR requirements for lowering (USEPA 1998e), labeled WS041, was turbidity in the treated water will result Another important aspect of carried out to address concern among in lower concentrations of proposing to award additional removal the Stage 1 M–DBP Federal Advisory Cryptosporidium, the panel affirmed credit for lower finished water turbidity Committee regarding the ability to that even further lowering of turbidity is the performance of turbidimeters in reliably measure lower turbidity levels. will result in further reductions in measuring turbidity below 0.3 NTU. The The study involved distribution of Cryptosporidium in the filter effluent. following paragraphs summarize results different types of laboratory prepared However, the SAB concluded that from several studies that evaluated low standard solutions with reported limited data were presented to show the level measurement of turbidity by turbidity values of 0.150 NTU or 0.160 exact removal that can be achieved, and different on-line and bench top NTU. The results of this study are recommended that no additional credit instruments. Note that because summarized in Table IV–16. be given to plants that demonstrate CFE compliance with the CFE turbidity limit BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C instruments in this study had a larger with previous PE studies (USEPA The data summarized in Table IV–16 positive bias and higher standard 1998e) and suggests that error in indicate a positive bias for all deviation (RSD approximately 50 turbidimeter readings may be generally instruments when compared against a percent). The positive bias is consistent conservative (i.e., systems will operate reported ‘‘true value.’’ On-line

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.010 47700 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

at lower than required effluent turbidity measure turbidity at levels of 0.1 NTU vertical settling distance of particles to levels). and lower. However, this requires a distance of a few millimeters. As Letterman et al. (2001) evaluated the rigorous calibration and verification sediment builds on the media, it effect of turbidimeter design and procedures, as well as diligent eventually sloughs off and begins to calibration methods on inter-instrument maintenance of turbidity monitoring accumulate in the lower section of the performance, comparing bench top to equipment (Burlingame 1998, Sadar filter, while simultaneously regenerating on-line instruments and instruments 1999). Systems that pursue additional the upper portions of the filter. The within each of those categories from treatment credit for lower finished water filters require periodic cleaning to different manufacturers. The study used turbidity must develop the procedures remove the collected silt. treated water collected from the filter necessary to ensure accurate and Review of the scientific and technical effluent of water treatment plants. reliable measurement of turbidity at literature pertaining to roughing filters Reported sample turbidity values ranged levels of 0.1 NTU and less. EPA has identified no information on from 0.05 to 1 NTU. Samples were guidance for the microbial toolbox will removal of Cryptosporidium. analyzed in a laboratory environment. provide direction to water systems on Information is available on removal of The results are consistent with those of developing these procedures. suspended solids, turbidity, particles, the WS041 study, specifically the c. Request for comment. EPA invites fecal coliforms and some algae, but none positive bias of on-line instruments. comment on the following issues of these has been demonstrated to be an However, Letterman et al. found regarding the proposed indicator of Cryptosporidium removal generally poor agreement among Cryptosporidium treatment credit for by roughing filters. Moreover, roughing different on-line instruments and combined filter performance: filters are not preceded by a coagulation between bench-top and on-line • Do the studies cited here support step, and studies have found that some instruments. The authors also observed awarding 0.5 log credit for CFE ≤ 0.15 potential surrogates, such as aerobic that results were independent of the NTU 95% of the time? spores, are not conservative indicators calibration method, though certain • Does currently available turbidity of Cryptosporidium removal by experiments suggested that analyst monitoring technology accurately filtration when a coagulant is not experience may have some effect on distinguish differences between values present (Yates et al. 1998, Dugan et al. turbidity readings from bench-top measured near 0.15 NTU? 2001). Thus, it is unclear how to relate instruments. 9. Roughing Filter results from studies of the removal of Sadar (1999) conducted an intra- other particles by roughing filters to instrument study of low level turbidity a. What is EPA proposing today? The potential removal of Cryptosporidium. measurements among instruments from Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in Principle In addition, some studies have the same manufacturer. This study was recommends a 0.5 log presumptive observed very poor removal of performed under well-controlled credit towards additional Cryptosporidium by rapid sand filters laboratory conditions. Intra-instrument Cryptosporidium treatment when a coagulant is not used (Patania et variation among different models and requirements for roughing filters. al. 1995, Huck et al. 2000). Based on between bench top and on-line However, the Agreement further these findings, it is expected that there instruments occurred but at specifies that EPA is to determine the would be situations where a roughing significantly lower levels than the design and implementation criteria filter would not achieve 0.5 log Letterman et al. inter-instrument study. under which the credit would be Cryptosporidium removal. Because Newer instruments also tended to read awarded. Upon subsequent review of available data are insufficient to lower than older instruments, which the available literature, EPA is unable to determine the conditions that would be author attributed to a reduction in stray identify design and implementation necessary for a roughing filter to achieve light and lower sensitivities in the conditions for roughing filters that 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal, EPA newer instruments. Sadar also found a would provide reasonable assurance of is unable to propose this credit. The generally positive bias when comparing achieving a 0.5 log removal of oocysts. following discussion describes four on-line to bench-top and when Consequently, EPA is not proposing studies that analyzed the effectiveness comparing all instruments to a prepared presumptive credit for Cryptosporidium of roughing filters for removing solids, standard. removal by roughing filters. Today’s turbidity, particles, fecal coliforms, and The American Society for Testing and proposal does, though, include a 0.5 log algae. Materials (ASTM) has issued standard credit for a second granular media filter Wegelin et al. (1987) conducted pilot- test methods for measurement of following coagulation and primary scale studies on the use of horizontal turbidity below 5 NTU by on-line filtration (see section IV.C.13). roughing filters to reduce solids, (ASTM 2001) and static (ASTM 2003) b. How was this proposal developed? turbidity, and particles. Testing was instrument modes. The methods specify Roughing filtration is a technique used performed to determine the influence of that the instrument should permit primarily in developing countries to different design parameters on filter detection of turbidity differences of 0.01 remove solids from high turbidity performance. Data from the parameter NTU or less in waters having turbidities source waters prior to treatment with testing was used to establish an of less than 1.00 NTU (ASTM 2001) and slow sand filters. Typically, roughing empirical model to simulate filtrate 5.0 NTU (ASTM 2003), respectively. filters consist of a series of quality as a function of filter length and Inter-laboratory study data included sedimentation tanks filled with time for a given filter configuration. with the method for a known turbidity progressively smaller diameter media in Using the mathematical model, the standard of 0.122 NTU show an analyst the direction of flow. The media can be researchers found that long filters (10 m) relative deviation of 7.5% and a gravel, plastic, crushed coconut, rice at low filtration rates (0.5 m/h) were laboratory relative deviation of 16% husks, or a similar locally available capable of reducing high suspended (ASTM 2003). material. The flow direction in roughing solids concentrations (1000 mg/L TSS) In summary, the data collected in filters can be either horizontal or down to less than 3 mg/L. these studies of turbidity measurement vertical, and vertical roughing filters can Further work by Wegelin (1988) indicate that currently available be either upflow or downflow. The evaluated roughing filters as monitoring equipment can reliably media in the tanks effectively reduce the pretreatment for slow sand filters for

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47701

waters with variable and seasonably reduced fecal coliforms by 77 and 89 to Cryptosporidium oocysts, were high suspended solids concentrations. percent, respectively. The Sudanese completely removed from the water in This study collected data on roughing filter may have removed around 90 mature filters, and that some removal of filters in Peru, Colombia, Sudan, and percent of the fecal coliforms, but Chlorophyta, but not Merismopedia, Ghana. Table IV–17 summarizes data for specific values were not given. Data occurred in filters after three days of three of the roughing filters. These collected from roughing filters in Ghana operation. However, the removal of filters were capable of reducing peak on algae removal indicate that the these organisms has not been correlated µ turbidities by 80 to 90 percent. Further, Merismopedia (0.5 m) and Chlorophyta with Cryptosporidium oocyst removal. the Peruvian and Colombian filters (2–10 µm), which are comparable in size

TABLE IVÐ17.—ROUGHING FILTER DATA FROM WEGELIN, 1988

Blue Nile Health Project, Location Azpita, Peru El Retiro, Colombia Sudan

Roughing Filter Type ...... Downflow ...... Upflow (multi-layer filter) ...... Horizontal-flow. Filtration Rate ...... 0.30 m/h (0.98 ft/hr) ...... 0.74 m/h (2.43 f/hr) ...... 0.3 m/h (0.98 ft/hr). Design Capacity ...... 35 m3/d ...... 790 m3/d ...... 5 m3/d.

Turbidity (NTU)

Raw Water ...... 50Ð200 ...... 10Ð150 ...... 40Ð500 Roughing Filter Effluent ...... 15Ð40 ...... 5Ð15 ...... 5Ð50

Fecal Coliforms (/100 mL)

Raw Water ...... 700 ...... 16,000 ...... >300 Roughing Filter Effluent ...... 160 ...... 1,680 ...... <25

oller (1993) details the mechanisms of filters, and specifically the question of et al. 1995, Hall et al. 1994). particle removal that occur in roughing whether and under what conditions Consequently, as described in section filters. The conclusions are similar to roughing filters should be awarded a 0.5 IV.A, EPA is proposing that plants using those drawn by Wegelin et al. (1987). log credit for removal of slow sand filtration as a primary Particle analysis reviewed by Boller Cryptosporidium. EPA also requests filtration process receive a 3 log credit indicates that after seven days of information on specific studies of towards Cryptosporidium treatment operation, the four stage pilot filter Cryptosporidium oocyst removal by requirements associated with Bins 2–4 utilized by Wegelin et al. (1987) roughing filters, or from studies of the under the LT2ESWTR (i.e., credit removed more than 98 percent of removal of surrogate parameters that equivalent to a conventional treatment particles sized 1.1 µm, and greater than have been shown to correlate with plant). 99 percent of particles sized 3.6 µm. oocyst removal in roughing filters. The proposed 2.5 log credit for slow After 62 days, only 80 percent of 10. Slow Sand Filtration sand filtration as part of the microbial particles sized 1.1 µm were removed, toolbox applies only when it is used as while 90 percent of particles sized 3.6 a. What is EPA proposing today? Slow a secondary filtration step, following a µm were removed. Boller did not give sand filtration is defined in 40 CFR primary filtration process like the solids loading on the tested filter, 141.2 as a process involving passage of conventional treatment. While the and particle removal was not correlated raw water through a bed of sand at low removal mechanisms that make slow to Cryptosporidium oocyst removal. velocity (generally less than 0.4 m/h) sand filtration effective as a primary Collins et al. (1994) investigated resulting in substantial particulate filtration process would also be solids and algae removal with pilot removal by physical and biological operative when used as a secondary scale vertical downflow roughing filters. mechanisms. Today’s proposal allows filtration step, EPA has little data on Gravel media size, filter depth, and flow systems using slow sand filtration as a this specific application. The Agency is rate were varied to determine which secondary filtration step following a proposing 2.5 log credit for slow sand design variables had the greatest effect primary filtration process (e.g., filtration as a secondary filtration step, on filter performance. Results indicated conventional treatment) to receive an in comparison to 3 log credit as a that the most influential design additional 2.5 log Cryptosporidium primary filtration process, as a parameters for removing solids from treatment credit. There must be no conservative measure reflecting greater water, in order of importance, were disinfectant residual in the influent uncertainty. In addition, the proposed filter length, gravel size, and hydraulic water to the slow sand filtration process 2.5 log credit for slow sand filtration as flow rate. For algae removal, the most to be eligible for credit. part of the microbial toolbox is influential design parameters were Note that this proposed credit differs consistent with the recommendation in hydraulic flow rate, filter length, and from the credit proposed for slow sand the Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in gravel size. Solids removal was better in filtration as a primary filtration process. Principle. filters that had been ripened with algae EPA has concluded, based on treatment b. How was this proposal developed? for 5–7 days. However, extrapolation of studies described in section III.D, that The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in these results to Cryptosporidium plants using well designed and well Principle recommends that slow sand removal could not be made. operated slow sand filtration as a filtration receive 2.5 log or greater c. Request for comment. The Agency primary filtration process can achieve Cryptosporidium treatment credit when requests comment on the information an average Cryptosporidium removal of used in addition to existing treatment that has been presented about roughing 3 log (Schuler and Ghosh, 1991, Timms that achieves compliance with the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47702 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

IESWTR or LT1ESWTR. Slow sand removal of Cryptosporidium. To receive on this distinction, EPA is proposing filtration is not typically used as a removal credit, the membrane filtration that membrane material configured into secondary filtration step following process must: (1) Meet the basic a cartridge filtration device that meets conventional treatment or other primary definition of a membrane filtration the definition of membrane filtration filtration processes of similar efficacy. process, (2) have removal efficiency and that can be direct integrity tested However, EPA expects that slow sand established through challenge testing according to the criteria specified in this filtration would achieve significant and verified by direct integrity testing, section is eligible for the same removal removal of Cryptosporidium in such a and (3) undergo periodic direct integrity credit as a membrane filtration process. treatment train. testing and continuous indirect integrity Membrane devices can be designed in While there is a significant body of monitoring during use. The maximum a variety of configurations including data demonstrating the effectiveness of removal credit that a membrane hollow-fiber modules, hollow-fiber slow sand filtration for Cryptosporidium filtration process is eligible to receive is cassettes, spiral-wound elements, removal as a primary filtration process, equal to the lower value of either: cartridge filter elements, plate and frame as described in section III.D, EPA has —The removal efficiency demonstrated modules, and tubular modules among limited data on the effectiveness of slow during challenge testing OR others. In today’s proposal, the generic sand filtration when used as a —The maximum log removal value that term module is used to refer to all of secondary filtration step. Hall et al. can be verified through the direct these various configurations and is (1994) evaluated oocyst removal for a integrity test (i.e., integrity test defined as the smallest component of a pilot scale slow sand filter following a sensitivity) used to monitor the membrane unit in which a specific primary filtration process identified as a membrane filtration process. membrane surface area is housed in a rapid gravity filter. The combined device with a filtrate outlet structure. A treatment train of a primary filtration By the criteria in today’s proposal, a membrane unit is defined as a group of process followed by slow sand filtration membrane filtration process could membrane modules that share common achieved greater than 3 log potentially meet the Bin 4 valving that allows the unit to be Cryptosporidium removal in three of Cryptosporidium treatment isolated from the rest of the system for five experimental runs, while requirements of this proposal. These the purpose of integrity testing or other approximately 2.5 log reduction was criteria are described in more detail maintenance. observed in the other two runs. In below. EPA is developing a Membrane Challenge Testing comparison, Hall et al. (1994) reported Filtration Guidance Manual that slow sand filtration alone to achieve at provides additional information and A challenge test is defined as a study least a 3 log removal of oocysts in each procedures for meeting these criteria conducted to determine the removal of four experimental runs when not (USEPA 2003e). A draft of this guidance efficiency (i.e., log removal value) of the preceded by a primary filtration process. is available in the docket for today’s membrane filtration media. The removal The authors offered no explanation for proposal (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/). efficiency demonstrated during these results, but measured oocyst Definition of a Membrane Filtration challenge testing establishes the removals may have been impacted by Process maximum removal credit that a limitations with the analytical method. membrane filtration process is eligible Removal of microbial pathogens in For the purpose of this proposed rule, to receive, provided this value is less slow sand filters is complex and is membrane filtration is defined as a than or equal to the maximum log believed to occur through a combination pressure or vacuum driven separation removal value that can be verified by of physical, chemical, and biological process in which particulate matter the direct integrity test (as described in µ mechanisms, both on the surface larger than 1 m is rejected by a the following subsection). Challenge (schmutzdecke) and in the interior of nonfibrous, engineered barrier, testing is a product specific rather than the filter bed. It is unknown if the primarily through a size exclusion a site specific requirement. At the higher quality of the water that would mechanism, and which has a discretion of the State, data from be influent to a slow sand filter when measurable removal efficiency of a challenge studies conducted prior to used as a secondary filtration step target organism that can be verified promulgation of this regulation may be would impact the efficiency of the filter through the application of a direct considered in lieu of additional testing. in removing Cryptosporidium. Based on integrity test. This definition is intended However, the prior testing must have the limited data on the performance of to include the common membrane been conducted in a manner that slow sand filtration as a secondary technology classifications: demonstrates a removal efficiency for filtration step, and in consideration of microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), Cryptosporidium commensurate with the recommendation of the Advisory nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis the treatment credit awarded to the Committee, EPA is proposing only a 2.5 (RO). MF and UF are low-pressure process. Guidance for conducting log additional Cryptosporidium membrane filtration processes that are challenge testing to meet the treatment credit for this application. primarily used to remove particulate requirements of the rule is provided in c. Request for comment. The Agency matter and microbial contaminants. NF the Membrane Filtration Guidance requests comment on whether the and RO are membrane separation Manual (USEPA 2003e). Challenge available data are adequate to support processes that are primarily used to testing must be conducted according to awarding a 2.5 log Cryptosporidium remove dissolved contaminants through the following criteria: removal credit for slow sand filtration a variety of mechanisms, but which also • Challenge testing must be applied as a secondary filtration step, remove particulate matter via a size conducted on a full-scale membrane along with any additional information exclusion mechanism. module identical in material and related to this application. In today’s proposal, the critical construction to the membrane modules distinction between membrane filtration proposed for use in full-scale treatment 11. Membrane Filtration processes and bag and cartridge filters, facilities. Alternatively, challenge a. What is EPA proposing today? EPA described in section IV.C.12, is that the testing may be conducted on a smaller is proposing criteria for awarding credit integrity of membrane filtration membrane module, identical in material to membrane filtration processes for processes can be directly tested. Based and similar in construction to the full-

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47703

scale module, if testing meets the other • The removal efficiency of a spiked particle monitoring). Today’s requirements listed in this section. membrane filtration process proposal does not stipulate the use of a • Challenge testing must be demonstrated during challenge testing is particular direct integrity test. Instead, conducted using Cryptosporidium expressed as a log removal value the direct integrity test must meet oocysts or a surrogate that has been (LRVC–Test). If fewer than twenty performance criteria for resolution, determined to be removed no more modules are tested, then LRVC–Test is sensitivity, and frequency. efficiently than Cryptosporidium assigned a value equal to the lowest of Resolution is defined as the smallest oocysts. The organism or surrogate used the representative LRVs among the leak that contributes to the response during challenge testing is referred to as various modules tested. If twenty or from a direct integrity test. Any direct the challenge particulate. The more modules are tested, then LRVC–Test integrity test applied to meet the concentration of the challenge is assigned a value equal to the 10th requirements of this proposed rule must particulate must be determined using a percentile of the representative LRVs have a resolution of 3 µm or less. The method capable of discretely among the various modules tested. The manner in which the resolution quantifying the specific challenge percentile is defined by [i/(n+1)] where criterion is met will depend on the type particulate used in the test. Thus, gross i is the rank of n individual data points of direct integrity test used. For water quality measurements such as ordered lowest to highest. It may be example, a pressure decay test can meet turbidity or conductivity cannot be necessary to calculate the 10th the resolution criterion by applying a used. percentile using linear interpolation. net test pressure great enough to • • The maximum allowable feed water A quality control release value overcome the bubble point of a 3 µm concentration used during a challenge (QCRV) must be established for a non- hole. A direct integrity test that uses a test is based on the detection limit of the destructive performance test (e.g., particulate or molecular marker can challenge particulate in the filtrate, and bubble point test, diffusive airflow test, meet the resolution criterion by is determined according to the following pressure/vacuum decay test) that applying a marker of 3 µm or smaller. equation: demonstrates the Cryptosporidium Sensitivity is defined as the maximum × removal capability of the membrane log removal value that can be reliably Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 module. The performance test must be verified by the direct integrity test 106 × (Filtrate Detection Limit) applied to each production membrane (LRVDIT). The sensitivity of the direct This will allow the demonstration of up module that did not undergo a challenge integrity test applied to meet the to 6.5 log removal during challenge test in order to verify Cryptosporidium requirements of this proposed rule must testing if the challenge particulate is removal capability. Production be equal to or greater than the removal removed to the detection limit. membrane modules that do not meet the credit awarded to the membrane • Challenge testing must be established QCRV are not eligible for the filtration process. The manner in which conducted under representative removal credit demonstrated during LRVDIT is determined will depend on hydraulic conditions at the maximum challenge testing. the type of direct integrity test used. • design flux and maximum design Any significant modification to the Direct integrity tests that use an applied system recovery as specified by the membrane filtration device (e.g., change pressure or vacuum typically measure manufacturer. Flux is defined as the in the polymer chemistry of the the rate of pressure/vacuum decay or flow per unit of membrane area. membrane) requires additional the flow of air through an integrity Recovery is defined as the ratio of challenge testing to demonstrate breach. The response from this type of filtrate volume produced by a removal efficiency of the modified integrity test can be related to the flow membrane to feed water volume applied module and to define a new QCRV for of water through an integrity breach the nondestructive performance test. to a membrane over the course of an (Qbreach) during normal operation, using uninterrupted operating cycle. An Direct Integrity Testing procedures such as those described in operating cycle is bounded by two the Membrane Filtration Guidance In order to receive removal credit for consecutive backwash or cleaning Manual (USEPA 2003e). Once Q Cryptosporidium, the removal efficiency breach events. In the context of this rule, has been determined, a simple dilution of a membrane filtration process must recovery does not consider losses that model is used to calculate LRV for be routinely verified through direct DIT occur due to the use of filtrate in the specific integrity test application, as integrity testing. A direct integrity test is backwashing or cleaning operations. shown by the following equation: • defined as a physical test applied to a Removal efficiency of a membrane LRVDIT = LOG10(Qp/(VCF × Qbreach)) filtration process is determined from the membrane unit in order to identify and isolate integrity breaches. An integrity where LRVDIT = maximum log removal results of the challenge test, and value that can be verified by a direct expressed in terms of log removal values breach is defined as one or more leaks integrity test; Qp = total design filtrate as defined by the following equation: that could result in contamination of the flow from the membrane unit; Qbreach = ¥ filtrate. The direct integrity test method LRV = LOG10(Cf) LOG10(Cp) must be applied to the physical flow of water from an integrity breach where LRV = log removal value elements of the entire membrane unit associated with the smallest integrity demonstrated during challenge testing; including membranes, seals, potting test response that can be reliably Cf = the feed concentration used during material, associated valving and piping, measured; and VCF = volumetric the challenge test; and Cp = the filtrate and all other components which under concentration factor. concentration observed during the compromised conditions could result in The volumetric concentration factor is challenge test. For this equation to be contamination of the filtrate. the ratio of the suspended solids valid, equivalent units must be used for The direct integrity tests commonly concentration on the high pressure side the feed and filtrate concentrations. If used at the time of this proposal include of the membrane relative to the feed the challenge particulate is not detected those that use an applied pressure or water, and is defined by the following in the filtrate, then the term Cp is set vacuum (such as the pressure decay test equation: equal to the detection limit. A single and diffusive airflow test), and those VCF = Cm/Cf LRV is calculated for each membrane that measure the rejection of a where Cm is the concentration of module evaluated during the test. particulate or molecular marker (such as particulate matter on the high pressure

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47704 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

side of the membrane that remains in continuous direct integrity test methods integrity testing and the corrective suspension; and Cf is the concentration become available that also meet the action that was taken in each case. of suspended particulate matter in the sensitivity and resolution criteria b. How was this proposal developed? feed water. The magnitude of the described earlier, they may be used in The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in concentration factor depends on the lieu of periodic testing. Principle recommends that EPA develop mode of system operation and typically EPA is proposing that at a minimum, criteria to award Cryptosporidium ranges from 1 to 20. The Membrane a monthly report must be submitted to removal credit to membrane filtration Filtration Guidance Manual presents the State summarizing all direct processes. Today’s proposal and the approaches for determining the integrity test results above the control supporting guidance are consistent with volumetric concentration factor for limit associated with the the Agreement. different operating modes (USEPA Cryptosporidium removal credit A number of studies have been 2003e). awarded to the process and the conducted which have demonstrated Sensitivity of direct integrity tests that corrective action that was taken in each the ability of membrane filtration use a particulate or molecular marker is case. processes to remove pathogens, determined from the feed and filtrate including Cryptosporidium, to below Continuous Indirect Integrity detection levels. A literature review concentrations of the marker. The Monitoring LRVDIT for this type of direct integrity summarizing the results of several test is calculated according to the The majority of currently available comprehensive studies was conducted following equation: direct integrity test methods are applied by EPA and is presented in Low- Pressure Membrane Filtration for LRV = LOG (C ) ¥ LOG (C ) periodically since the membrane unit DIT 10 f 10 p must be taken out of service to conduct Pathogen Removal: Application, where LRVDIT = maximum log removal the test. In order to provide some Implementation, and Regulatory Issues value that can be verified by a direct measure of process performance (USEPA 2001h). Many of these studies integrity test; Cf = the typical feed between direct integrity testing events, used Cryptosporidium seeding to concentration of the marker used in the continuous indirect integrity monitoring demonstrate removal efficiencies as test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration is required. Indirect integrity monitoring high as 7 log. The collective results from of the marker from an integral is defined as monitoring some aspect of these studies demonstrate that an membrane unit. For this equation to be filtrate water quality that is indicative of integral membrane module, i.e., a valid, equivalent units must be used for the removal of particulate matter. If a membrane module without any leaks or the feed and filtrate concentrations. An continuous direct integrity test is defects, with an exclusion characteristic ideal particulate or molecular marker implemented that meets the resolution smaller than Cryptosporidium, is would be completely removed by an and sensitivity criteria described capable of removing this pathogen to integral membrane unit. previously, continuous indirect integrity below detection in the filtrate, If the sensitivity of the direct integrity monitoring is not required. Continuous independent of the feed concentration. test is such that LRVDIT is less than indirect integrity monitoring must be Some filtration devices have used LRVC-Test, LRVDIT establishes the conducted according to the following membrane media in a cartridge filter maximum removal credit that a criteria: configuration; however, few data are membrane filtration process is eligible • Unless the State approves an available documenting their ability to to receive. Conversely, if LRVDIT for a alternative parameter, continuous meet the requirements for membrane direct integrity test is greater than indirect integrity monitoring must filtration described in section IV.C.11.a LRVC-Test, LRVC-Test establishes the include continuous filtrate turbidity of this preamble. However, in one study maximum removal credit. monitoring. reported by Dwyer et al. (2001), a A control limit is defined as an • Continuous monitoring is defined membrane cartridge filter demonstrated integrity test response which, if as monitoring conducted at a frequency Cryptosporidium removal efficiencies in exceeded, indicates a potential problem of no less than once every 15 minutes. excess of 6 log. This study illustrates the with the system and triggers a response. • Continuous monitoring must be potentially high removal capabilities of Under this proposal, a control limit for separately conducted on each membrane filtration media configured a direct integrity test must be membrane unit. into a cartridge filtration device, thus established that is indicative of an • If indirect integrity monitoring providing a basis for awarding removal integral membrane unit capable of includes turbidity and if the filtrate credits to these devices under the meeting the Cryptosporidium removal turbidity readings are above 0.15 NTU membrane filtration provision of the credit awarded by the State. If the for a period greater than 15 minutes (i.e., rule, assuming that the device meets the control limit for the direct integrity test two consecutive 15-minute readings definition of a membrane filtration is exceeded, the membrane unit must be above 0.15 NTU), direct integrity testing process as well as the direct integrity taken off-line for diagnostic testing and must be performed on the associated test requirements. repair. The membrane unit could only membrane units. Today’s proposal requires challenge be returned to service after the repair • If indirect integrity monitoring testing of membrane filtration processes has been completed and confirmed includes a State-approved alternative used to remove Cryptosporidium. As through the application of a direct parameter and if the alternative noted in section III.D, EPA believes this integrity test. parameter exceeds a State-approved is necessary due to the proprietary The frequency of direct integrity control limit for a period greater than 15 nature of these systems and the lack of testing specifies how often the test is minutes, direct integrity testing must be any uniform criteria for establishing the performed over an established time performed on the associated membrane exclusion characteristic of a membrane. interval. Most direct integrity tests units. Challenge testing addresses the lack of available at the time of this proposal are • EPA is proposing that at a a standard approach for characterizing applied periodically and must be minimum, a monthly report must be membranes by requiring direct conducted on each membrane unit at a submitted to the primacy agency verification of removal efficiency. The frequency of not less than once every 24 summarizing all indirect integrity proposed challenge testing is product- hours while the unit is in operation. If monitoring results triggering direct specific and not site-specific since the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47705

intent of this testing is to demonstrate for physical removal of microbiological the physical membrane module and, the removal capabilities of the and particulate contaminants specifies thus, a direct evaluation of integrity. membrane product rather than evaluate the use of polymeric microspheres of a Furthermore, direct integrity methods the feasibility of implementing known size distribution (NSF 2002b). are the most sensitive integrity membrane treatment at a specific plant. Guidance on selection of an appropriate monitoring methods commonly used at Testing can be conducted using a full- surrogate for establishing a removal the time of this proposal (Adham et al. scale module or a smaller module if the efficiency for Cryptosporidium during 1995). results from the small-scale module test challenge testing is presented in the The most common direct integrity can be related to full-scale module Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual tests apply a pressure or a vacuum to performance. Most challenge studies (USEPA 2003e). one side of a fully wetted membrane presented in the literature have used The design of the proposed challenge and monitor either the pressure decay or full-scale modules, which provide studies is similar to the design of the the volume of displaced fluid over time. results that can be directly related to seeding studies described in the However, the proprietary nature of these full-scale performance. However, use of literature cited earlier. Seeding studies systems makes it impractical to define a smaller modules is considered feasible are used to challenge the membrane single direct integrity test methodology in the evaluation of removal efficiency, module with pathogen levels orders of that is applicable to all existing and and a protocol for challenge testing magnitude higher than those future membrane products. Therefore, using small-scale modules has been encountered in natural waters. performance criteria have been proposed (NSF, 2002a). Since the However, elevated feed concentrations established for any direct integrity test removal efficiency of an integral can lead to artificially high estimates of methodology used to verify the removal membrane is a direct function of the removal efficiency. To address this efficiency of a membrane system. These membrane material, it may be possible issue, the feed concentration applied to performance criteria are resolution, to use a small-scale module containing the membrane during challenge studies sensitivity, and frequency. the same membrane fibers or sheets is capped at a level that will allow the As stated previously, the resolution of used in full-scale modules for this demonstration of up to 6.5 log removal an integrity test refers to the smallest evaluation. However, it will be efficiency if the challenge particulate is leak that contributes to the response necessary to relate the results of the removed to the detection level. from an integrity test. For example, in small-scale module test to the Because challenge testing with a pressure decay integrity test, nondestructive performance test quality Cryptosporidium or a surrogate is not resolution is the smallest leak that control release value that will be used conducted on every membrane module, contributes to pressure loss during the to validate full-scale production it is necessary to establish criteria for a test. Today’s proposal specifies a modules. non-destructive performance test that resolution of 3 µm or less, which is Challenge testing with either can be applied to all production based on the size of Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium oocysts or a surrogate membrane modules. Results from a non- oocysts. This requirement ensures that a is permitted. Challenge testing with destructive test, such as a bubble point leak that could pass a Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium clearly provides direct test, that are correlated with the results oocyst would contribute to the response verification of removal efficiency for of challenge testing can be used to from an integrity test. this pathogen; however, several studies establish a quality control release value The sensitivity of an integrity test have demonstrated that surrogates can (QCRV) that is indicative of the ability refers to the maximum log removal that provide an accurate or conservative of a membrane filtration process to can be reliably verified by the test. measure of Cryptosporidium removal remove Cryptosporidium. The non- Again using the pressure decay integrity efficiency. Since removal of particulate destructive test and QCRV can be used test as an example, the method matter larger than 1 µm by a membrane to verify the Cryptosporidium removal sensitivity is a function of the smallest filtration process occurs primarily via a capability of modules that are not pressure loss that can be detected over size exclusion mechanism, the shape challenge tested. Most membrane a membrane unit. Today’s proposal and size distribution of the surrogate manufacturers have already adapted limits the log removal credit that a must be selected such that the surrogate some form of non-destructive testing for membrane filtration process is eligible is not removed to a greater extent than product quality control purposes and to receive to the maximum log removal the target organism. Surrogates that have have established a quality control value that can be verified by a direct been successfully used in challenge release value that is indicative of an integrity test. studies include polystyrene acceptable product. It may be possible In order to serve as a useful process microspheres and bacterial endospores. to apply these existing practices for the monitoring tool for assuring system The bacterial endospore, Bacillus purpose of verifying the capability of a integrity, it is necessary to establish a subtilis, has been used as a surrogate for membrane filtration process to remove site-specific control limit for the Cryptosporidium oocysts during Cryptosporidium. integrity test that corresponds to the log challenge studies evaluating pathogen Challenge testing provides a means of removal awarded to the process. A removal by physical treatment demonstrating the removal efficiency of general approach for establishing this processes, including membrane an integral membrane module; however, control limit for some integrity test filtration (Rice et al. 1996, Fox et al. defects or leaks in the membrane or methods is presented in guidance; 1998, Trimboli et al. 1999, Owen et al, other system components can result in however, the utility will need to work 1999). Studies evaluating cartridge contamination of the filtrate unless they with the membrane manufacturer and filters have demonstrated that are identified, isolated, and repaired. In State to establish a site-specific control polystyrene microspheres can provide order to verify continued performance limit appropriate for the integrity test an accurate or conservative measure of of a membrane system, today’s proposal used and level of credit awarded. removal efficiency (Long, 1983, Li et al. requires direct integrity testing of Excursions above this limit indicate a 1997). Furthermore, the National membrane filtration processes used to potential integrity breach and would Sanitation Foundation (NSF) meet Cryptosporidium treatment trigger removal of the suspect unit from Environmental Technology Verification requirements. Direct integrity testing is service followed by diagnostic testing (ETV) protocol for verification testing required because it is a test applied to and subsequent repair, as necessary.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47706 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Most direct integrity tests available at context of this regulation, is the respect to their construction, there are the time of this proposal must be applicability of direct integrity test significant differences among the applied periodically since it is methods to the filtration process. EPA various commercial cartridge filtration necessary to take the membrane unit out requests comment on the inclusion of devices. From a public health of service to conduct the test. Today’s membrane cartridge filters that can be perspective, an important distinction proposal establishes the minimum direct integrity tested under the among these filters is the ability to frequency for performing a direct definition of a membrane filtration directly test the integrity of the filtration integrity test at once per 24 hours. process in this rule. system in order to verify that there are Currently, there is no standard • The applicability of the proposed no leaks that could result in frequency for direct integrity testing that Cryptosporidium removal credits and contamination of the filtrate. Any has been adopted by all States and performance criteria to Giardia lamblia. membrane cartridge filtration device membrane treatment facilities. In a • Appropriate surrogates, or the that can be direct integrity tested recent survey, the required frequency of characteristics of appropriate surrogates, according to the criteria specified in integrity testing was found to vary from for use in challenge testing. EPA section IV.C.11.a is eligible for removal once every four hours to once per week; requests data or information credit as a membrane, subject to the however, the most common frequency demonstrating the correlation between criteria specified in that section. Section for conducting a direct integrity test was removal of a proposed surrogate and IV.C.12 applies to all bag filters, as well once every 24 hours (USEPA 2001h). removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. as to cartridge filters which cannot be Specifically, 10 out of 14 States that • The use of a non-destructive direct integrity tested. require periodic direct integrity testing performance test and associated quality Challenge Testing specify a frequency of once every 24 control release values for demonstrating hours. Furthermore, many membrane the Cryptosporidium removal capability In order to receive 1 log removal manufacturers of systems with of membrane modules that are not credit, a bag filter must have a automated integrity test systems set up directly challenge tested. demonstrated removal efficiency of 2 the membrane units to automatically • The appropriateness of the log or greater for Cryptosporidium. perform a direct integrity test once per minimum direct integrity test frequency Similarly, to receive 2 log removal 24 hours. EPA has concluded that the 24 of once per 24 hours. credit, a cartridge filter must have a hour direct integrity test frequency • The proposed minimum reporting demonstrated removal efficiency of 3 ensures that removal efficiency is frequency for direct integrity testing log or greater for Cryptosporidium. The verified on a routine basis without results above the control limit and 1 log factor of safety is applied to the resulting in excessive system downtime. indirect integrity monitoring results that removal credit awarded to these Since most direct integrity tests are trigger direct integrity monitoring. filtration devices based on two primary applied periodically, it is necessary to considerations. First, the removal 12. Bag and Cartridge Filtration implement some level of continuous efficiency of some bag and cartridge monitoring to assess process a. What is EPA proposing today? EPA filters has been observed to vary by performance between direct integrity is proposing criteria for awarding more than 1 log over the course of test events. In the absence of a Cryptosporidium removal credit of 1 log operation (Li et al. 1997, NSF 2001a, continuous direct integrity test, for bag filtration processes and 2 log for NSF 2001b). Second, bag and cartridge continuous indirect integrity monitoring cartridge filtration processes. To receive filters are not routinely direct integrity is required. Although it has been shown removal credit the process must: (1) tested during operation in the field; that commonly used indirect integrity Meet the basic definition of a bag or hence, there is no means of verifying the monitoring methods lack the sensitivity cartridge filter and (2) have removal removal efficiency of filtration units to detect small integrity breaches that efficiency established through challenge during routine use. Based on these are of concern (Adham et al. 1995), they testing. considerations, a conservative approach can detect large breaches and provide to awarding removal credit based on Definition of a Bag or Cartridge Filter some assurance that a major failure has challenge test results is warranted. not occurred between direct integrity For the purpose of this rule, bag and Removal efficiency must be test events. Turbidity monitoring is cartridge filters are defined as pressure demonstrated through a challenge test proposed as the method of indirect driven separation processes that remove conducted on the bag or cartridge filter integrity monitoring unless the State particulate matter larger than 1 µm proposed for use in full-scale drinking approves an alternate approach. using an engineered porous filtration water treatment facilities for removal of Available data indicate that an integral media through either surface or depth Cryptosporidium. Challenge testing is membrane filtration process can filtration. required for specific products and is not consistently produce water with a The distinction between bag filters intended to be site specific. At the turbidity less than 0.10 NTU, regardless and cartridge filters is based on the type discretion of the State, data from of the feedwater quality. Consequently, of filtration media used and the manner challenge studies conducted prior to EPA is proposing that exceedance of a in which the devices are constructed. promulgation of this regulation may be filtrate turbidity value of 0.15 NTU Bag filters are typically constructed of a considered in lieu of additional testing. triggers direct integrity testing to verify non-rigid, fabric filtration media housed However, the prior testing must have and isolate the integrity breach. in a pressure vessel in which the been conducted in a manner that c. Request for comment. EPA requests direction of flow is from the inside of demonstrates a removal efficiency for comment on the following issues: the bag to outside. Cartridge filters are Cryptosporidium commensurate with • EPA is proposing to include typically constructed as rigid or semi- the treatment credit awarded to the membrane cartridge filters that can be rigid, self-supporting filter elements process. Guidance on conducting direct integrity tested under the housed in pressure vessels in which challenge studies to demonstrate the definition of a membrane filtration flow is from the outside of the cartridge Cryptosporidium removal efficiency of process since one of the key differences to the inside. filtration units is presented in the between membrane filtration processes Although all filters classified as Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual and bag and cartridge filters, within the cartridge filters share similarities with (USEPA 2003e). Challenge testing must

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47707

be conducted according to the following • Each filter must be tested for a proposed rule, challenge testing must criteria: duration sufficient to reach 100% of the demonstrate a removal efficiency of 2 • Challenge testing must be terminal pressure drop, a parameter log or greater for bag filtration and 3 log conducted on a full-scale filter element specified by the manufacturer which or greater for cartridge filtration. If fewer identical in material and construction to establishes the end of the useful life of than twenty filters are tested, then the filter elements proposed for use in the filter. In order to achieve terminal removal efficiency of the process is set full-scale treatment facilities. pressure drop during the test, it will be equal to the lowest of the representative • Challenge testing must be necessary to add particulate matter to LRVs among the various filters tested. If conducted using Cryptosporidium the test solution, such as fine carbon test twenty or more filters are tested, then oocysts or a surrogate which is removed dust or bentonite clay particles. removal efficiency of the process is set no more efficiently than • Each filter must be challenged with equal to the 10th percentile of the Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism the challenge particulate during three representative LRVs among the various or surrogate used during challenge periods over the filtration cycle: within filters tested. The percentile is defined testing is referred to as the challenge 2 hours of start-up after a new bag or by [i/(n+1)] where i is the rank of n particulate. The concentration of the cartridge filter has been installed, when individual data points ordered lowest to challenge particulate must be the pressure drop is between 45 and highest. It may be necessary to calculate determined using a method capable of 55% of the terminal pressure drop, and the 10th percentile using linear discretely quantifying the specific at the end of the run after the pressure interpolation. organism or surrogate used in the test, drop has reached 100% of the terminal • Any significant modification to the i.e., gross water quality measurements pressure drop. filtration unit (e.g., changes to the such as turbidity cannot be used. • Removal efficiency of a bag or filtration media, changes to the • The maximum allowable feed water cartridge filtration process is configuration of the filtration media, concentration used during a challenge determined from the results of the significant modifications to the sealing test is based on the detection limit of the challenge test, and expressed in terms of system) would require additional challenge particulate in the filtrate and log removal values as defined by the challenge testing to demonstrate calculated using one of the following following equation: removal efficiency of the modified unit. equations. LRV = LOG10(Cf)¥LOG10(Cp) For bag filters: where LRV = log removal value b. How was this proposal developed? Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 × demonstrated during challenge testing; The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in 103 × (Filtrate Detection Limit) C = the feed concentration used during Principle recommended that EPA f develop criteria for awarding For cartridge filters: the challenge test; and Cp = the filtrate Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 × concentration observed during the Cryptosporidium removal credits of 1 104 × (Filtrate Detection Limit) challenge test. For this equation to be log for bag filters and 2 log for cartridge This will allow the demonstration of valid, equivalent units must be used for filters. Today’s proposal is consistent up to 3.5 log removal for bag filters and the feed and filtrate concentrations. If with the Agreement. 4.5 log removal for cartridge filters the challenge particulate is not detected A limited amount of published data during challenge testing if the challenge in the filtrate, then the term Cp is set are available regarding the removal particulate is removed to the detection equal to the detection limit. An LRV is efficiency of bag and cartridge filters limit. calculated for each filter evaluated with respect to Cryptosporidium oocysts • Challenge testing must be during the test. or suitable surrogates. The relevant conducted at the maximum design flow • In order to receive treatment credit studies identified in the literature are rate specified by the manufacturer. for Cryptosporidium under this summarized in Table IV–18.

TABLE IVÐ18.—RESULTS FROM STUDIES OF Cryptosporidium OR SURROGATE REMOVAL BY BAG AND CARTRIDGE FILTERS

Process Log removal Organism/surrogate Reference

Bag and cartridge filtration in se- 1.1 to 2.1 ...... 3 to 6 µm spheres ...... NSF 2001a. ries. Cartridge filtration ...... 3.5 (average) ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Enriquez et al. 1999. Cartridge filtration ...... 3.3 (average) ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Roessler, 1998. Cartridge filtration ...... 1.1 to 3.3 ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Schaub et al. 1993. Cartridge filtration ...... 0.5 to 3.6 ...... 5.7 µm spheres ...... Long, 1983. Cartridge filtration ...... 2.3 to 2.8 ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Ciardelli, 1996a. Cartridge filtration ...... 2.7 to 3.7 ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Ciardelli, 1996b. Prefilter and bag filter in series ...... 1.9 to 3.2 ...... 3.7 µm spheres ...... NSF 2001b. Bag filtration ...... ∼3.0 ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Cornwell and LeChevallier, 2002. Bag filtration ...... 0.5 to 3.6 ...... Cryptosporidium ...... Li et al. 1997. Bag filtration ...... 0.5 to 2.0 ...... 4.5 µm spheres ...... Goodrich et al. 1995.

These data demonstrate highly removal efficiency of a filtration device. evaluated seventeen cartridge filters variable removal performance for these In a study evaluating two cartridge with a range of pore size ratings from 1 processes, ranging from 0.5 log to 3.6 log filters, both with a pore size rating of 3 µm to 10 µm and found no correlation for both bag and cartridge filtration. µm, a 2 log difference in with removal efficiency (Long, 1983). Li Results of these studies also show no Cryptosporidium oocyst removal was et al. (1997) evaluated three bag filters correlation between the pore size rating observed between the two filters with similar pore size ratings and established by the manufacturer and the (Schaub et al. 1993). Another study observed a 3 log difference in

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47708 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Cryptosporidium oocyst removal among In order to demonstrate a removal destructive test that can be used with them. These results indicate that bag efficiency of at least 2 or 3 log for bag these devices. and cartridge filters may be capable of or cartridge filters, respectively, it will Typical process monitoring for bag achieving removal of oocysts in excess likely be necessary to seed the challenge and cartridge filtration systems includes of 3 log; however, performance can vary particulate into the test solution. A turbidity and pressure drop to significantly among products and there criticism of published studies that use determine when filters must be appears to be no correlation between this approach is that the seeded levels replaced. However, the applicability of pore size rating and removal efficiency. are orders of magnitude higher than either of these process monitoring Based on available data, specific those encountered in natural waters and parameters as tools for verifying design criteria that correlate to removal this could potentially lead to artificially removal of Cryptosporidium has not efficiency cannot be derived for bag and high estimates of removal efficiency. To been demonstrated. Only a few bag or cartridge filters. Furthermore, the address this issue, the feed cartridge filtration studies have removal efficiency of these proprietary concentration applied to the filter attempted to correlate turbidity removal devices can be impacted by product during challenge studies is capped at a with removal of Cryptosporidium variability, increasing pressure drop level that will allow the demonstration oocysts or surrogates. Li et al. (1997) over the filtration cycle, flow rate, and of a removal efficiency up to 4.5 log for found that the removal efficiency for other operating conditions. The data in cartridge filters and 3.5 log for bag filters turbidity was consistently lower than Table IV–18 were generated from if the challenge particulate is removed removal efficiency for oocysts or studies performed under a variety of to the detection level. microspheres for the three bag filters operating conditions, many of which The removal efficiency of some bag evaluated. Furthermore, none of the could not be considered conservative (or and cartridge filtration devices has been filters was capable of consistently worst-case) operation. These shown to decrease over the course of a producing a filtered water turbidity considerations lead to the proposed filtration cycle due to the accumulation below 0.3 NTU for the waters evaluated. challenge testing requirements which of solids and resulting increase in The contribution to turbidity from are intended to establish a product- pressure drop. As an example, Li et al. particles much smaller than specific removal efficiency. (1997) observed that the removal of 4.5 Cryptosporidium oocysts, and much The proposed challenge testing is µm microspheres by a bag filter smaller than the mesh size of the filter, product-specific and not site-specific decreased from 3.4 log to 1.3 log over make it difficult to correlate removal of since the intent of this testing is to the course of a filtration cycle. Studies turbidity with removal of demonstrate the removal capabilities of evaluating bag and cartridge filtration Cryptosporidium. Consequently, EPA is the filtration device rather than evaluate under the NSF ETV program have also proposing a 1 log factor of safety to be the feasibility of implementing the shown a degradation in removal applied to challenge test results in technology at a specific plant. Challenge efficiency over the course of the awarding treatment credit to bag and testing must be conducted using full- filtration cycle (NSF 2001a and 2001b). cartridge filters, and is not proposing scale filter elements in order to evaluate In order to evaluate this potential integrity monitoring requirements for the performance of the entire unit, variability, the challenge studies are these devices. including the filtration media, seals, designed to assess removal efficiency c. Request for comment. EPA requests filter housing and other components during three periods of a filtration cycle: comment on the following issues integral to the filtration system. This within two hours of startup following concerning bag and cartridge filters: will improve the applicability of installation of a new filter, between 45% • The performance of bag and challenge test results to full-scale and 55% of terminal pressure drop, and cartridge filters in removing performance. Multiple filters of the at the end of the run after 100% of Cryptosporidium through all differential same type can be tested to provide a terminal pressure drop is realized. pressure ranges in a filter run—EPA better statistical basis for estimating Although challenge testing can requests laboratory and field data, along removal efficiency. provide an estimate of removal with associated quality assurance and Either Cryptosporidium oocysts or a efficiency for a bag or cartridge filtration quality control information, that will suitable surrogate could be used as the process, it is not feasible to conduct a support a determination of the challenge particulate during the test. challenge test on every production filter. appropriate level of Cryptosporidium Challenge testing with Cryptosporidium This, coupled with variability within a removal credit to award to these provides direct verification of removal product line, could result in some technologies. efficiency; however, some studies have production filters that do not meet the • The performance of bag and demonstrated that surrogates, such as removal efficiency demonstrated during cartridge filters in removing polystyrene microspheres, can provide challenge testing. For membrane Cryptosporidium when used in series an accurate or conservative measure of filtration processes, this problem is with other bag or cartridge filters—EPA removal efficiency (Long 1983, Li et al. addressed through the use of a quality requests laboratory and field data, along 1997). Furthermore, the National control release value established for a with associated quality assurance and Sanitation Foundation (NSF) non-destructive test, such as a bubble quality control information, that will Environmental Technology Verification point test or pressure hold test, that is support a determination of the (ETV) protocol for verification testing correlated to removal efficiency. Since appropriate level of Cryptosporidium for physical removal of microbiological the non-destructive test can be applied removal credit to award to these and particulate contaminants specifies to all production membrane modules, technologies when used in series. the use of polymeric microspheres of a this provides a feasible means of • Appropriate surrogates, or the known size distribution (NSF 2002b). verifying the performance of every characteristics of appropriate surrogates, Guidance on selection of an appropriate membrane module used by a PWS. for use in challenge testing bag and surrogate for establishing a removal However, the non-destructive tests cartridge filters—EPA requests data or efficiency for Cryptosporidium during applied to membrane filtration information demonstrating the challenge testing is presented in the processes cannot be applied to most bag correlation between removal of a Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual and cartridge filtration devices, and EPA proposed surrogate and removal of (USEPA 2003e). is not aware of an alternative non- Cryptosporidium oocysts.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47709

• The availability of non-destructive may be appropriate. As reported in treatment credit for systems using tests that can be applied to bag and section III.D, many studies have shown secondary filtration which meets the cartridge filters to verify the removal that rapid sand filtration preceded by criteria of this section. efficiency of production filters that are coagulation can achieve significant c. Request for comment. The Agency not directly challenge tested—EPA removal of Cryptosporidium (Patania et requests comment on awarding a 0.5 log requests data or information al. 1995, Nieminski and Ongerth 1995, Cryptosporidium removal credit for demonstrating the correlation between a Ongerth and Pecoraro 1995, systems using secondary filtration, proposed non-destructive test and the LeChevallier and Norton 1992, including the design and operational removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. LeChevallier et al. 1991, Dugan et al. criteria required to receive the log • The applicability of pressure drop 2001, Nieminski and Bellamy 2000, removal credit. EPA specifically monitoring, filtrate turbidity McTigue et al. 1998, Patania et al. 1999, requests comment on the following monitoring, or other process monitoring Huck et al. 2000, Emelko et al. 2000). issues: and process control procedures to verify While these studies evaluated only a • Should there be a minimum the integrity of bag and cartridge single stage of filtration, the same required depth for the secondary filter filters—EPA requests data or mechanisms of removal are expected to (e.g., 24 inches) in order for the system information demonstrating the occur in a second stage of granular to receive credit? correlation between a proposed process media filtration. • Should systems be eligible to monitoring tool and the removal of EPA received data from the City of receive additional Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium oocysts. Cincinnati, OH, on the removal of treatment credit within the microbial • The applicability of bag and aerobic spores through a conventional toolbox for both a second clarification cartridge filters to different source water treatment facility that employs GAC stage (e.g., secondary filtration, second types and treatment scenarios. contactors for DBP, taste, and odor stage sedimentation) and lower finished • The applicability of the proposed control after rapid sand filtration. As water turbidity, given that additional Cryptosporidium removal credits and described previously, a number of particle removal achieved by the second testing criteria to Giardia lamblia. studies (Dugan et al. 2001, Emelko et al. clarification stage will reduce finished • The use of a 1 log factor of safety 1999 and 2000, Yates et al. 1998, water turbidity? for awarding credit to bag and cartridge Mazounie et al. 2000) have 14. Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide filters—EPA requests comment on demonstrated that aerobic spores are a whether this is an appropriate factor of conservative indicator of a. What is EPA proposing today? safety to account for the inability to Cryptosporidium removal by granular Similar to the methodology used for conduct integrity monitoring of these media filtration when preceded by estimating log inactivation of Giardia devices, as well as the variability in coagulation. lamblia by various chemical removal efficiency observed over the During the period of 1999 and 2000, disinfectants in 40 CFR 141.74, EPA is course of a filtration cycle for some the mean values of reported spore proposing the CT concept for estimating filtration devices. This inability creates concentrations in the influent and log inactivation of Cryptosporidium by uncertainty regarding both changes in effluent of the Cincinnati GAC chlorine dioxide or ozone. In today’s the performance of a given filter during contactors were 35.7 and 6.4 cfu/100 proposal, systems must determine the use and variability in performance mL, respectively, indicating an average total inactivation of Cryptosporidium among filters in a given product line. If removal of 0.75 log across the each day the system is in operation, the 1 log factor of safety is higher than contactors. Approximately 16% of the based on the CT values in Table IV–19 necessary to account for these factors, GAC filtered water results were below for ozone and Table IV–20 for chlorine should the Agency establish a lower detection limit (1 cfu/100 mL) so the dioxide. The parameters necessary to value, such as a 0.5 log factor of safety? actual log spore removal may have been determine the total inactivation of greater than indicated by these results. 13. Secondary Filtration Cryptosporidium must be monitored as In summary, studies in the cited stated in 40 CFR 141.74(b)(3)(i), (iii), a. What is EPA proposing today? literature demonstrate that a fine and (iv), which is as follows: Today’s proposal allows systems using granular media filter preceded by • The temperature of the disinfected a second filtration stage to receive an coagulation can achieve high levels of water must be measured at least once additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium removal. Data on per day at each residual disinfectant removal credit. To be eligible for this increased removal resulting from a concentration sampling point. credit, the secondary filtration must second stage of filtration are limited, • The disinfectant contact time(s) consist of rapid sand, dual media, and there is uncertainty regarding how (‘‘T’’) must be determined for each day granular activated carbon (GAC), or effective a second stage of filtration will during peak hourly flow. other fine grain media in a separate be in reducing levels of microbial • The residual disinfectant stage following rapid sand or dual pathogens that are not removed by the concentration(s) (‘‘C’’) of the water media filtration. A cap, such as GAC, on first stage of filtration. However, EPA before or at the first customer must be a single stage of filtration will not has concluded that a secondary measured each day during peak hourly qualify for this credit. In addition, the filtration process can achieve 0.5 log or flow. first stage of filtration must be preceded greater removal of Cryptosporidium Systems may have several by a coagulation step, and both stages based on (1) the theoretical disinfection segments (the segment is must treat 100% of the flow. consideration that the same mechanisms defined as a treatment unit process with b. How was this proposal developed? of pathogen removal will be operative in a measurable disinfectant residual level Although not addressed in the both a primary and secondary filtration and a liquid volume) in sequence along Agreement in Principle, EPA has stage, and (2) data from the City of the treatment train. In determining the determined that secondary filtration Cincinnati showing aerobic spore total log inactivation, the system may meeting the criteria described in this removal in GAC contactors following calculate the log inactivation for each section will achieve additional removal rapid sand filtration. Therefore, EPA disinfection segment and use the sum of of Cryptosporidium oocysts. believes it is appropriate to propose 0.5 the log inactivation estimates of Consequently, additional removal credit log additional Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium achieved through the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47710 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

plant. The Toolbox Guidance Manual, determining CT values and estimating disinfection reactor designs and available in draft with today’s proposal, log inactivation for different operations. provides guidance on methodologies for

TABLE IVÐ19.—CT VALUES FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY OZONE

Water Temperature, °C 1 Log credit <=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25

0.5 ...... 12 12 10 9.5 7.9 6.5 4.9 3.1 2.0 1.2 1.0 ...... 24 23 21 19 16 13 9.9 6.2 3.9 2.5 1.5 ...... 36 35 31 29 24 20 15 9.3 5.9 3.7 2.0 ...... 48 46 42 38 32 26 20 12 7.8 4.9 2.5 ...... 60 58 52 48 40 33 25 16 9.8 6.2 3.0 ...... 72 69 63 57 47 39 30 19 12 7.4 1 CT values between the indicated temperatures may be determined by interpolation.

TABLE IVÐ20.—CT VALUES FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY CHLORINE DIOXIDE

Water Temperature, °C 1 Log credit <=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25

0.5 ...... 319 305 279 256 214 180 138 89 58 38 1.0 ...... 637 610 558 511 429 360 277 179 116 75 1.5 ...... 956 915 838 767 643 539 415 268 174 113 2.0 ...... 1275 1220 1117 1023 858 719 553 357 232 150 2.5 ...... 1594 1525 1396 1278 1072 899 691 447 289 188 3.0 ...... 1912 1830 1675 1534 1286 1079 830 536 347 226 1 CT values between the indicated temperatures may be determined by interpolation.

The system may demonstrate to the confidence bound to apply when In developing earlier CT tables, EPA State, through the use of a State- analyzing the inactivation data. A has used bounds for confidence in the approved protocol for on-site confidence bound represents a safety prediction. This was a conservative disinfection challenge studies or other margin that accounts for variability and approach that was taken with information satisfactory to the State, uncertainty in the data that underlie the consideration of the limited inactivation that CT values other than those analysis. Confidence bounds are data that were available and that specified in Tables IV–19 or IV–20 are intended to provide a high likelihood reasonably ensured systems would adequate to demonstrate that the system that systems operating at a given CT achieve the required inactivation level. is achieving the required log value will achieve at least the The November 2001 draft of the inactivation of Cryptosporidium. corresponding log inactivation level in LT2ESWTR included CT tables for Protocols for making such the CT table. Cryptosporidium inactivation by ozone demonstrations are available in the Two types of confidence bounds that and chlorine dioxide that were derived Toolbox Guidance Manual. are used when assessing relationships using confidence in prediction (USEPA b. How was this proposal developed? between variables, such as disinfectant 2001g). However, based on comments EPA relied in part on analyses by Clark dose (CT) and log inactivation, are received on those draft tables, along et al. (2002a and 2002b) to develop the confidence in the regression and with further analyses described next, CT values for ozone and chlorine confidence in the prediction. EPA has revised this approach in dioxide inactivation of Cryptosporidium Confidence in the regression accounts today’s proposal. in today’s proposal. Clark et al. (2002a) for uncertainty in the regression line used data from studies of ozone (e.g., a linear relationship between The underlying Cryptosporidium inactivation of Cryptosporidium in temperature and the log of the ratio of inactivation data used to develop the CT laboratory water to develop predictive CT to log inactivation). Confidence in tables exhibit significant variability. equations for estimating inactivation the prediction accounts for both This variability is due to both (Rennecker et al. 1999, Li et al. 2001) uncertainty in the regression line and experimental error and potential true and data from studies in natural water variability in experimental variability in the inactivation rate. to validate the equations (Owens et al. observations—it describes the Experimental error is associated with 2000, Oppenheimer et al. 2000). For likelihood of a single future data point the assays used to measure loss of chlorine dioxide, Clark et al. (2002b) falling within a range. Bounds for infectivity, measurement of the employed data from Li et al. (2001) to confidence in prediction are wider (i.e., disinfectant concentration, differences develop equations for predicting more conservative) than those for in technique among researchers, and inactivation, and used data from Owens confidence in the regression. Depending other factors. True variability in the et al. (1999) and Ruffell et al. (2000) to on the degree of confidence applied, inactivation rate would be associated validate the equations. most points in a data set typically will with variability in resistance to the Another step in developing the CT fall within the bounds for confidence in disinfectant between different values for Cryptosporidium inactivation the prediction, while a significant populations of oocysts and variability in in today’s proposal involved fraction will fall outside the bounds for the effect of water matrix on the consideration of the appropriate confidence in the regression. inactivation process.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47711

In considering the appropriate (Sivaganesan 2003). A similar analysis values in today’s proposal are higher. confidence bounds to use for developing done by Najm et al. (2002) on the However, the current CT values are the CT tables in today’s proposal, EPA Oppenheimer et al. (2000) data set for based on larger data sets and more was primarily concerned with ozone produced an estimate of 89% of comprehensive analyses. Consequently, accounting for uncertainty in the the total variance due to experimental they provide more confidence in regression and for true variability in the error. For chlorine dioxide inactivation estimates of Cryptosporidium log inactivation rate. Variability associated of Cryptosporidium, EPA estimated that inactivation than the preliminary with experimental error was a lessor 62% of the total variance in the Li et al. estimates used in earlier SWAT concern, as the purpose of the CT tables (2001) and Ruffle et al. (1999) data sets modeling. EPA has subsequently re-run is to ensure a given level of inactivation could be attributed to experimental analyses for LT2ESWTR impact and not predict the measured result of error (Messner 2003). The different assessments with the updated CT values an individual experiment. fractions attributed to experimental (USEPA 2003a). Because confidence in the prediction error between the chlorine dioxide and c. Request for comments. EPA accounts for all variability in the data ozone data sets presumably relates to requests comment on the proposed sets (both true variability and the use of different experimental approach to awarding credit for experimental error), it may provide a techniques (e.g., infectivity assays). inactivation of Cryptosporidium by higher margin of safety than is EPA employed estimates of the chlorine dioxide and ozone, including necessary. Nevertheless, in other fraction of variance not attributable to the following specific issues: disinfection applications, the use of experimental error (12.5% for ozone and • Determination of CT and the confidence in the prediction may be 38% for chlorine dioxide) in a modified confidence bounds used for estimating appropriate, given limited data sets and form of the equation used to calculate a log inactivation of Cryptosporidium; uncertainty in the source of the bound for confidence in prediction • The ability of systems to apply variability. However, the high doses of (Messner 2003). These were applied to these CT tables in consideration of the ozone and chlorine dioxide that are the regression equations developed by MCLs for bromate and chlorite; and needed to inactivate Cryptosporidium Clark et al. (2002a and 2002b) in order • Any additional data that may be create an offsetting concern with the to estimate CT values for an upper 90% used to confirm or refine the proposed formation of DBPs (e.g., bromate and confidence bound (Sivaganesan 2003, CT tables. chlorite). In consideration of these Messner 2003). These are the CT values factors and the statutory provision for shown in Tables IV–19 and IV–20 for 15. Ultraviolet Light balancing risks among contaminants, ozone and chlorine dioxide, a. What is EPA proposing today? EPA EPA attempted to exclude experimental respectively. is proposing criteria for awarding credit error from the confidence bound when Since the available data are not to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection developing the CT tables in today’s sufficient to support the CT calculation processes for inactivation of proposal (i.e., used a less conservative for an inactivation level greater than 3 Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and approach than confidence in the log, the use of Tables IV–19 and IV–20 viruses. The inactivation credit a system prediction). is limited to inactivation less than or In order to select confidence bounds equal to 3 log. In addition, the can receive for each target pathogen is reflecting potential true variability temperature limitation for these tables is based on the UV dose applied by the between different oocyst populations 1 to 25 °C. If the water temperature is system in relation to the UV dose (lots) but not variability due to higher than 25 °C, temperature should requirements in this section (see Table measurement and experimental be set to 25 °C for the log inactivation IV–21). imprecision, it was necessary to calculation. To receive UV disinfection credit, a estimate the relative contributions of EPA recognizes that inactivation rates system must demonstrate a UV dose these variance components. This was may be sensitive to water quality and using the results of a UV reactor done by first separating inactivation operational conditions in the plant. To validation test and ongoing monitoring. data points into groups having the same reflect this potential, systems are given The reactor validation test establishes Cryptosporidium oocyst lot and the option to perform a site specific the operating conditions under which a experimental conditions (e.g., water inactivation study to determine CT reactor can deliver a required UV dose. matrix, pH, temperature). Next, the requirements. The State must approve Monitoring is used to demonstrate that variance within each group was the protocols or other information used the system maintains these validated determined. It was assumed that this to derive alternative CT values. operating conditions during routine use. within-group variance could be However, EPA has provided guidance UV dose (fluence) is defined as the attributed entirely to experimental error, for systems in making such product of the UV intensity over a as neither of the factors expected to demonstrations in the Toolbox surface area (fluence rate) and the account for true variability in the Guidance Manual. exposure time. In practice, UV reactors inactivation rate (i.e., oocyst lot or water During meetings of the Stage 2 M-DBP deliver a distribution of doses due to matrix) changed within a group. Finally, Advisory Committee, CT values were variation in light intensity and flow comparing the average within-group used in the model for impact analysis of path as particles pass through the variance to the total variance in a data different regulatory options (the model reactor. However, for the purpose of set provided an indication of the Surface Water Analytical Tool (SWAT), determining compliance with the dose fraction of total variance that was due to as described in Economic Analysis for requirements in Table IV–21, UV dose experimental error (see Sivaganesan the LT2ESWTR, USEPA 2003a). Those must be assigned to a reactor based on 2003 and Messner 2003 for details). preliminary CT values were based on a the degree of inactivation of a In carrying out this analysis on the Li subset of the data from the Li et al. microorganism achieved during a et al. (2001) and Rennecker et al. (1999) (2001) study with laboratory waters and reactor validation test. This assigned UV data sets for ozone inactivation of were adjusted with a factor to match the dose is determined through comparing Cryptosporidium, EPA estimated that mean CT values derived from the the reactor validation test results with a 87.5% of the total variance could be Oppenheimer et al. (2000) study with known dose-response relationship for attributed to experimental error natural waters. In comparison, the CT the test microorganism. The State may

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47712 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

designate an alternative basis for UV Dose Tables applied to other UV lamp types (e.g., awarding UV disinfection credit. medium pressure mercury vapor lamps) Table IV–21 shows the UV doses that EPA is developing the UV through reactor validation testing, such systems must apply to receive credit for as is described in the draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (USEPA up to 3 log inactivation of 2003d) to assist systems and States with Disinfection Guidance Manual (USEPA Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia 2003d). In addition, the dose values in implementing UV disinfection, and up to 4 log inactivation of viruses. Table IV–21 are intended for post-filter including validation testing of UV These dose values are for UV light at a application of UV in filtration plants reactors. This guidance is available in wavelength of 254 nm as delivered by and for systems that meet the filtration draft in the docket for today’s proposal a low pressure mercury vapor lamp. avoidance criteria in 40 CFR 141.71. (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/). However, the dose values can be BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C a UV sensor, and UV lamp status. The in accordance with a protocol approved Reactor Validation Testing validated operating conditions by the State. determined by testing must account for b. How was this proposal developed? For a system to receive UV the following factors: (1) UV absorbance UV disinfection is a physical process disinfection credit, the UV reactor type of the water, (2) lamp fouling and aging, relying on the transference of used by the system must undergo (3) measurement uncertainty of on-line electromagnetic energy from a source validation testing to demonstrate the sensors, (4) dose distributions arising (lamp) to an organism’s cellular material operating conditions under which the from the velocity profiles through the (USEPA 1986). In the Stage 2 M–DBP reactor can deliver the required UV reactor, (5) failure of UV lamps or other Agreement in Principle, the Advisory dose. Unless the State approves an critical system components, and (6) Committee recommended that EPA alternative approach, this testing must inlet and outlet piping or channel determine the UV doses needed to involve the following: (1) Full scale configurations of the UV reactor. In the achieve up to 3 log inactivation of testing of a reactor that conforms draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium uniformly to the UV reactors used by (USEPA 2003d), EPA describes testing and up to 4 log inactivation of viruses. the system and (2) inactivation of a test protocols for reactor validation that are The Agreement further recommends microorganism whose dose response intended to meet these criteria. that EPA develop standards to characteristics have been quantified determine if UV systems are acceptable with a low pressure mercury vapor Reactor Monitoring for compliance with drinking water lamp. Systems must monitor for parameters disinfection requirements, including (1) Validation testing must determine a necessary to demonstrate compliance a validation protocol for drinking water set of operating conditions that can be with the operating conditions that were applications of UV technology and (2) monitored by the system to ensure that validated for the required UV dose. At on-site monitoring requirements to the required UV dose is delivered under a minimum systems must monitor for ensure ongoing compliance with UV the range of operating conditions UV intensity as measured by a UV dose tables. EPA also agreed to develop applicable to the system. At a minimum, sensor, flow rate, and lamp outage. As a UV guidance manual to facilitate these operating conditions must include part of this, systems must check the design and operation of UV flow rate, UV intensity as measured by calibration of UV sensors and recalibrate installations. Today’s proposal and

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.011 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47713

accompanying guidance for UV are water. Protocols for reactor validation Association Research Foundation consistent with the Agreement. testing are presented in the draft UV (AWWARF), and surface water utilities guidance manual. throughout the United States. The intent UV Dose Tables c. Request for comment. The Agency of the Partnership is to increase The UV dose values in Table IV–21 requests comment on whether the protection against microbial are based on meta-analyses of UV criteria described in this section for contaminants by optimizing treatment inactivation studies with awarding treatment credit for UV plant performance. Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia disinfection are appropriate, and At the time of the Advisory lamblia, Giardia muris, and adenovirus whether additional criteria, or more Committee recommendation, Phase IV (Qian et al. 2003, USEPA 2003d). specific criteria, should be included. was under development by the Proposed UV doses for inactivation of Partnership. It was to be based on viruses are based on the dose-response 16. Individual Filter Performance Composite Correction Program (CCP) of adenovirus because, among viruses a. What is EPA proposing today? EPA (USEPA 1991) procedures and that have been studied, it appears to be is proposing an additional 1.0 log performance goals, and was to be the most UV resistant and is a Cryptosporidium treatment credit for awarded based on an on-site evaluation widespread waterborne pathogen systems that achieve individual filter by a third-party team. The performance (health effects of adenovirus are performance consistent with the goals goals for Phase IV were such that, over described in Embrey 1999). established for the Partnership for Safe a year, each sedimentation basin and The data supporting the dose values Water Phase IV in August 2001 (AWWA each filter would need to produce in Table IV–21 are from bench-scale et al. 2001). Specifically, systems must specified turbidity levels based on the studies using low pressure mercury demonstrate ongoing compliance with maximum of all the values recorded vapor lamps. These data were chosen the following turbidity criteria, based on during the day. Sedimentation because the experimental conditions continuous monitoring of turbidity for performance goals were set at 2.0 NTU allow UV dose to be accurately each individual filter as required under if the raw water was greater than 10 quantified. Low pressure lamps emit 40 CFR 141.174 or 141.560, as NTU on an annual basis and 1.0 NTU light primarily at a single wavelength applicable: if the raw water was less than 10 NTU. (254 nm) within the germicidal range of (1) Filtered water turbidity less than 0.1 Each filter was to meet 0.1 NTU 95% of 200–300 nm. However, as noted earlier, NTU in at least 95% of the maximum daily the time except for the 15 minute period these dose tables can be applied to values recorded at each filter in each month, following placing the filter in operation. reactors with other lamp types through excluding the 15 minute period following In addition, filters were expected to reactor challenge testing, as described in backwashes, and have maximum turbidity of 0.3 NTU the draft guidance manual. Bench scale (2) No individual filter with a measured and return to less than 0.1 NTU within studies are preferable for determining turbidity level of greater than 0.3 NTU in two 15 minutes of the filter being placed in pathogen dose-response characteristics, consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes service. apart. due to the uniform dose distribution. The primary purpose of the on-site The data sets and statistical Note that today’s proposal does not evaluation was to confirm that the evaluation that were used to develop the include a required peer review step as performance of the plant was consistent UV dose table for Cryptosporidium, a condition for receiving additional with Phase IV performance goals and Giardia lamblia, and viruses are credit. Rather, EPA is proposing to that the system had the administrative described in the draft UV Disinfection award additional credit to systems that support and operational capabilities to Guidance Manual (USEPA 2003d) and meet the performance goals of a peer sustain the performance long-term. The Qian et al. 2003. review program (Phase IV). Systems that on-site evaluation in Phase IV also receive the 1 log additional treatment Reactor Validation Testing allowed utilities that could not meet the credit for individual filter performance, desired performance goals to Today’s proposal requires testing of as described in this section, cannot also demonstrate to the third-party that they full-scale UV reactors because of the receive an additional 0.5 log additional had achieved the highest level of difficulty in predicting reactor credit for lower finished water turbidity performance given their unique raw disinfection performance based on as described in section IV.C.8. water quality. modeled results or on the results of b. How was this proposal developed? After the signing of the Stage 2 M– testing at a reduced scale. All flow- In the Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in DBP Agreement in Principle in through UV reactors deliver a Principle, the Advisory Committee September 2000, the Partnership distribution of doses due to variation in recommended a peer review program as decided to eliminate the on-site third- light intensity within the reactor and the a microbial toolbox component that party evaluation as a component of different flow paths of particles passing should receive a 1.0 log Phase IV. Instead, the requirement for through the reactor. Moreover, the Cryptosporidium treatment credit. The Phase IV is for the water system to reactor dose distribution varies Committee specified Phase IV of the complete an application package that temporally due to processes like lamp Partnership for Safe Water (Partnership) will be reviewed by trained utility aging and fouling, changes in UV as an example of the type of peer review volunteers. Included in the application absorbance of the water, and program where a 1.0 log credit would be package is an Optimization Assessment fluctuations in flow rate. Consequently, appropriate. Spreadsheet in which the system enters it is more reliable to evaluate reactor The Partnership is a voluntary water quality and treatment data to performance through a full scale test cooperative program involving EPA, the demonstrate that Phase IV performance under conditions that can be Association of Metropolitan Water levels have been achieved. The characterized as ‘‘worst case’’ for a given Agencies (AMWA), the American Water application also requires narratives application. Such conditions include Works Association (AWWA), the related to administrative support and maximum and minimum flow rate and National Association of Water operational capabilities to sustain reduced light intensity within the Companies (NAWC), the Association of performance long-term. reactor that accounts for lamp aging, State Drinking Water Administrators Today’s proposal is consistent with fouling, and UV absorbance of the (ASDWA), the American Water Works the performance goals of Phase IV.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47714 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Rather than require systems to complete of treatment process optimization and achieves a Cryptosporidium reduction an application package with historical process control, and will have both a efficiency greater than the presumptive data and narratives, the LT2ESWTR history of consistent performance over a credit specified in the LT2ESWTR, it requires systems to demonstrate to the range of raw water quality conditions may be appropriate for the system to State that they meet the individual filter and the capability and resources to receive a higher Cryptosporidium performance goals of Phase IV on an maintain this performance long-term. treatment credit. Today’s proposal does ongoing basis to receive the 1.0 log c. Request for comment. The Agency not include specific protocols for additional Cryptosporidium treatment invites comment on the following issues systems to make such a demonstration, credit. EPA is not requiring systems to related to the proposed credit for due to the potentially complex and site demonstrate that they meet individual filter performance. specific nature of the testing that would • sedimentation performance goals of Are there different or additional be required. Rather, today’s proposal Phase IV. While EPA recognizes that performance measures that a utility allows a State to award a higher level of settled water turbidity is an important should be required to meet for the 1 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a operational performance measure for a additional credit? • system where the State determines, plant, the Agency does not have data Are there existing peer review based on site-specific testing with a directly relating it to finished water programs for which treatment credit State-approved protocol, that a quality and pathogen risk. should be awarded under the treatment plant or a unit process within The November 2001 pre-proposal LT2ESWTR? If so, what role should a plant reliably achieves a higher level draft of the LT2ESWTR described a primacy agencies play in establishing of Cryptosporidium removal on a potential 1.0 log credit for systems that and managing any such peer review continuing basis. Also, States may achieved individual filter effluent (IFE) program? award a lower level of Cryptosporidium • The individual filter effluent turbidity below 0.15 NTU in 95 percent treatment credit to a system where a turbidity criterion of 0.1 NTU is of samples (USEPA 2001g). The Science State determines, based on site specific proposed because it is consistent with Advisory Board (SAB) subsequently information, that a plant or a unit Phase IV Partnership standards, as reviewed this credit and supporting data process within a plant achieves a based on CCP goals. However, with on the relationship between filter Cryptosporidium removal efficiency less allowable rounding, turbidity levels less effluent turbidity and Cryptosporidium than a presumptive credit specified in than 0.15 NTU are in compliance with removal efficiency (described in section the LT2ESWTR. a standard of 0.1. Consequently, EPA IV.C.8). In written comments from a Systems receiving additional December 2001 meeting of the Drinking requests comment on whether 0.15 NTU Cryptosporidium treatment credit Water Committee, an SAB panel should be the standard for individual through a demonstration of performance recommended only a 0.5 log credit for filter performance credit, as this would may be required by the State to report 95th percentile IFE turbidity below 0.15 be consistent with the standard of 0.15 operational data on a monthly basis to NTU. NTU that is proposed for combined To address this recommendation from filter performance credit in section establish that conditions under which the SAB, EPA is proposing that systems IV.C.8. demonstration of performance credit meet the individual filter performance was awarded are maintained during 17. Other Demonstration of Performance criteria of Phase IV of the Partnership in routine operation. The Toolbox order to be eligible for a 1.0 log a. What is EPA proposing today? The Guidance Manual (USEPA 2003f) will additional Cryptosporidium treatment purpose of the ‘‘demonstration of describe potential approaches to credit. This proposed approach performance’’ toolbox component is to demonstration of performance testing. responds to the concerns raised by the allow a system to demonstrate that a This guidance is available in draft in the SAB because the Phase IV criteria are plant, or a unit process within a plant, docket for today’s proposal (http:// more stringent than those in the 2001 should receive a higher www.epa.gov/edocket/). pre-proposal draft of the LT2ESWTR. Cryptosporidium treatment credit than Note that as described in section IV.C, For example, today’s proposal sets a is presumptively awarded under the today’s proposal allows treatment plants maximum limit on individual filter LT2ESWTR. For example, as described to achieve additional Cryptosporidium effluent turbidity of 0.3 NTU, whereas in section IV.A, plants using treatment credit through meeting the no such upper limit was described in conventional treatment receive a design and/or operational criteria of the 2001 pre-proposal draft. presumptive 3 log credit towards the microbial toolbox components, such as In summary, EPA has concluded that Cryptosporidium treatment combined and individual filter it is appropriate to award additional requirements in Bins 2–4 of the performance, presedimentation, bank Cryptosporidium treatment credit for LT2ESWTR. This credit is based on a filtration, two-stage softening, secondary systems meeting stringent individual determination by EPA that conventional filtration, etc. Plants that receive filter performance standards. Modestly treatment plants achieve an average additional Cryptosporidium treatment elevated turbidity from a single filter Cryptosporidium removal of 3 log when credit through a demonstration of may not significantly impact combined in compliance with the IESWTR or performance are not also eligible for the filter effluent turbidity levels, which are LT1ESWTR. However, EPA recognizes presumptive credit associated with regulated under IESWTR and that some conventional treatment plants microbial toolbox components if the LT1ESWTR, but may indicate a may achieve average Cryptosporidium additional removal due to the toolbox substantial reduction in the overall removal efficiencies greater than 3 log. component is captured in the pathogen removal efficiency of the Similarly, some systems may achieve demonstration of performance credit. filtration process. Consequently, Cryptosporidium reductions with For example, if a plant receives a systems that continually achieve very certain toolbox components that are demonstration of performance credit low turbidity in each individual filter greater than the presumptive credits based on removal of Cryptosporidium or are likely to provide a significantly more awarded under the LT2ESWTR, as an indicator while operating under effective microbial barrier. EPA expects described in this section (IV.C). conditions of lower finished water that systems that select this toolbox Where a system can demonstrate that turbidity, the plant may not also receive option will have achieved a high level a plant, or a unit process within a plant, additional presumptive credit for lower

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47715

finished water turbidity toolbox depend on site specific factors, such as under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR for components. water quality, the particular process(es) the Stage 1 M–DBP rules, as This demonstration of performance being evaluated, resources and recommended by the Stage 1 M–DBP credit does not apply to the use of infrastructure, and the discretion of the Advisory Committee. Today’s proposal chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV light, State. Consequently, EPA is not extends disinfection benchmark because today’s proposal includes proposing specific criteria for requirements to apply to the Stage 2 M– specific provisions allowing the State to demonstration of performance testing. DBP rules. modify the standards for awarding Instead, systems must develop a testing Under the proposed LT2ESWTR, the disinfection credit to these technologies. protocol that is approved by the State, disinfection benchmark procedure As described in section IV.C.14, States including any requirements for ongoing involves a system charting levels of can approve site-specific CT values for reporting if demonstration of Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation inactivation of Cryptosporidium by performance credit is approved. EPA at least once per week over a period of chlorine dioxide and ozone; as has developed a draft document, at least one year. This creates a profile described in section IV.C.15, States can Toolbox Guidance Manual (USEPA of inactivation performance that the approve an alternative approach for 2003f), that is available with today’s System must use to determine a baseline validating the performance of UV proposal and provides guidance on or benchmark of inactivation against reactors. demonstration of performance testing. which proposed changes in disinfection b. How was this proposal developed? c. Request for comment. The Agency practice can be measured. Only certain The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in requests comment on today’s proposal systems are required to develop profiles Principle recommends demonstration of for systems to demonstrate higher and keep them on file for State review performance as a process for systems to Cryptosporidium removal levels. EPA during sanitary surveys. When those receive Cryptosporidium treatment specifically requests comment on the systems that are required to develop a credit higher than the presumptive following issues: profile plan a significant change in credit for many microbial toolbox • Approaches that should be disinfection practice (defined later in components, as well as credit for considered or excluded for this section), they must submit the technologies not listed in the toolbox. demonstration of performance testing; profile and an analysis of how the EPA is aware that there may be plants • Whether EPA should propose proposed change will affect the current where particular unit processes, or minimum elements that demonstration disinfection benchmark to the State for combinations of unit processes, achieve of performance testing must include; review. greater Cryptosporidium removal than • Whether a factor of safety should be the presumptive credit awarded under Systems that developed disinfection applied to the results of demonstration profiles under the IESWTR or the LT2ESWTR. In addition, the Agency of performance testing to account for would like to allow for the use of LT1ESWTR and have not made potential differences in removal of an significant changes in their disinfection Cryptosporidium treatment processes indicator and removal of not addressed in the LT2ESWTR, where practice or changed sources are not Cryptosporidium, or uncertainty in the required to collect additional such processes can demonstrate a application of pilot-scale results to full- reliable specific log removal. Due to operational data to create disinfection scale plants; profiles under the LT2ESWTR. Systems these factors, EPA is proposing a • Whether or under what conditions demonstration of performance that produced a disinfection profile for a demonstration of performance credit Giardia lamblia but not viruses under component in the microbial toolbox, should be allowed for a unit process consistent with the Advisory Committee the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR may be within a plant—a potential concern is required to develop a profile for viruses recommendation. that certain unit processes, such as a The Agreement in Principle makes no under the LT2ESWTR. Where a sedimentation basin, can be operated in recommendations for how a previously developed Giardia lamblia a manner that will increase removal in demonstration of performance should be profile is acceptable, systems may the unit process but decrease removal in conducted. It is generally not practical develop a virus profile using the same subsequent treatment processes and, for systems to directly quantify high log operational data (i.e., CT values) on therefore, lead to no overall increase in removal of Cryptosporidium in which the Giardia lamblia profile is removal through the plant. An approach treatment plants because of the based. Spreadsheets developed by EPA to address this concern is to limit relatively low occurrence of and States automatically calculate demonstration of performance credit to Cryptosporidium in many raw water Giardia lamblia and virus profiles using removal demonstrated across the entire sources and limitations with analytical the same operational data. EPA believes treatment plant. methods. Consequently, if systems are that virus profiling is necessary because to demonstrate the performance of full D. Disinfection Benchmarks for Giardia many of the disinfection processes that scale plants in removing lamblia and Viruses systems will select to comply with the Cryptosporidium, this typically will Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR (e.g., 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? require the use of indicators, where the chloramines, UV, MF/UF) are relatively removal of the indicator has been EPA proposes to establish the less effective against viruses than correlated with the removal of disinfection benchmark under the Giardia lamblia in comparison to free Cryptosporidium. As described LT2ESWTR as a procedure to ensure chlorine. previously, a number of studies have that systems maintain protection against The disinfection benchmark shown that aerobic spores are an microbial pathogens as they implement provisions contain three major indicator of Cryptosporidium removal the Stage 2 M–DBP rules (i.e., Stage 2 components: (a) Applicability by sedimentation and filtration (Dugan DBPR and LT2ESWTR). The requirements and schedule, (b) et al. 2001, Emelko et al. 1999 and 2000, disinfection benchmark serves as a tool characterization of disinfection practice, Yates et al. 1998, Mazounie et al. 2000). for systems and States to evaluate the and (c) State review of proposed The nature of demonstration of impact on microbial risk of proposed changes in disinfection practice. Each of performance testing that will be changes in disinfection practice. EPA these components is discussed in the appropriate at a given facility will established the disinfection benchmark following paragraphs.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47716 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

a. Applicability and schedule. monitor for Cryptosporidium must for compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR, Proposed disinfection profiling and develop Giardia lamblia and virus are at least 80% of the MCL (0.048 mg/ benchmarking requirements apply to disinfection profiles under the L) at any Stage 1 DBPR sampling point surface water systems only. Systems LT2ESWTR. This includes all surface based on an LRAA. serving only ground water are not water systems except (1) systems that subject to the requirements of the provide 5.5 log total treatment for *These criteria only apply to systems LT2ESWTR. The determination of Cryptosporidium, equivalent to meeting that are required to comply with the whether a surface water system is the treatment requirements of Bin 4 and DBP rules, i.e., community and non- required to develop a disinfection (2) small systems (<10,000 people transient non-community systems. profile is based on whether DBP levels served) that do not exceed the E. coli Table IV–22 presents a summary (TTHM or HAA5) exceed specified trigger (see section IV.A for details). schedule of the required deadlines for values, described later in this section, Systems not required to monitor for disinfection profiling activities, and whether a system is required to Cryptosporidium as a result of providing categorized by system size and whether monitor for Cryptosporidium. These 5.5 log of treatment are not required to a small system is required to monitor for criteria trigger profiling because they prepare disinfection profiles. However, Cryptosporidium. The deadlines are identify systems that may be required to small systems that do not exceed the E. based on the expectation that a system make treatment changes under the Stage coli trigger are required to prepare should have a disinfection profile at the 2 DBPR or LT2ESWTR. Note that it is Giardia lamblia and virus disinfection time the system is classified in a not practical to wait until a system has profiles if one of the following criteria Cryptosporidium treatment bin under completed Cryptosporidium monitoring apply, based on DBP levels in their to identify which systems should distribution systems: LT2ESWTR and/or has determined the prepare a disinfection profile. A (1)* TTHM levels in the distribution need to make treatment changes for the completed disinfection profile should system, based on samples collected for Stage 2 DBPR. Systems have three years be available at the point when a system compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR, are from this date, with a possible two year is classified in a treatment bin and must at least 80% of the MCL (0.064 mg/L) at extension for capital improvements if begin developing plans to comply with any Stage 1 DBPR sampling point based granted by the State, within which to any additional treatment requirements. on a locational running annual average complete their evaluation, design, and Unless the system developed a (LRAA). implementation of treatment changes to disinfection profile under the IESWTR (2)* HAA5 levels in the distribution meet the requirements of the or LT1ESWTR, all systems required to system, based on the samples collected LT2ESWTR and the Stage 2 DBPR.

TABLE IVÐ22.—SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES RELATED TO DISINFECTION PROFILING 1

Systems serving <10,000 peo- ple Systems serv- Activity ing ≥10,000 Not required to 2 Required to people monitor for monitor for Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidi- um 236

Complete 1 year of E. coli monitoring ...... NA 42 42 Determine whether required to profile based on DBP levels and notify State 6 ...... NA NA 42 Begin disinfection profiling4 ...... 24 54 42 Complete Cryptosporidium monitoring ...... 30 60 NA Complete disinfection profiling based on at least one year’s data 5 ...... 36 66 54 1 Numbers in table indicate months following promulgation of the LT2ESWTR. 2 Systems providing a total of 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment (equivalent to meeting Bin 4 treatment requirements) are not required to de- velop disinfection profiles. 3 Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if mean E. coli levels are less than 10/100 mL for systems using lake/reservoir sources or less than 50/100 mL for systems using flowing stream sources. 4 Unless system has existing disinfection profiling data that are acceptable. 5 This deadline coincides with the start of the 3 year period at the end of which compliance with the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR is re- quired. 6 Not required to conduct profiling unless TTHM or HAA5 exceeds trigger values of 80% of MCL at any sampling point based on LRAA.

As described in the next section, The locational running annual disinfection profiling by the date systems can meet profiling requirements average (LRAA) of TTHM and HAA5 proposed in Table IV–22. under the proposed LT2ESWTR using levels used by small systems that do not b. Developing the disinfection profile previously collected data (i.e., monitor for Cryptosporidium to and benchmark. Under the LT2ESWTR, grandfathered data). Use of determine whether profiling is required a disinfection profile consists of a grandfathered data is allowed if the must be based on one year of DBP data compilation of Giardia lamblia and system has not made a significant collected during the period following virus log inactivation levels computed change in disinfection practice or promulgation of the LT2ESWTR, or as at least weekly over a period of at least changed sources since the data were determined by the State. By the date one year, as based on operational and collected. This will permit most systems indicated in Table IV–22, these systems water quality data (disinfectant residual that prepared a disinfection profile must report to the State on their DBP concentration(s), contact time(s), under the IESWTR or the LT1ESWTR to LRAAs and whether the disinfection temperature(s), and, where necessary, avoid collecting any new operational profiling requirements apply. If either pH). The system may create the profile data to develop profiles under the DBP LRAA meets the criteria specified by conducting new weekly (or more LT2ESWTR. previously, the system must begin frequent) monitoring and/or by using

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47717

grandfathered data. A system that operational data from one day each Manual (USEPA 1999d). This manual created a Giardia lamblia disinfection week to the corresponding log provides guidance to systems and States profile under the IESWTR or inactivation values for Giardia lamblia on the development of disinfection LT1ESWTR may use the operational and viruses. The procedure for Giardia profiles, identification and evaluation of data collected for the Giardia lamblia lamblia is as follows: significant changes in disinfection profile to create a virus disinfection —Determine CTcalc for each disinfection practices, and considerations for setting profile. segment. an alternative benchmark. If necessary, Grandfathered data are those —Determine CT99.9 (i.e., 3 log EPA will produce an addendum to operational data that a system has inactivation) from tables in the SWTR reflect changes in the profiling and previously collected at a treatment plant (40 CFR 141.74) using temperature benchmarking requirements necessary during the course of normal operation. (and pH for chlorine) for each to comply with LT2ESWTR. Those systems that have all the disinfection segment. States can allow 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? necessary information to determine an alternate calculation procedure profiles using existing operational data (e.g., use of a spreadsheet). A fundamental premise in the collected prior to the date when the —For each segment, log inactivation = development of the M–DBP rules is the concept of balancing risks between system is required to begin profiling (CTcalc/CT99.9) × 3.0. may use these data in developing —Sum the log inactivation values for DBPs and microbial pathogens. profiles. However, grandfathered data each segment to get the log Disinfection profiling and must be substantially equivalent to inactivation for the day (or week). benchmarking were established under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, based on operational data that would be collected For calculating the virus log a recommendation by the Stage 1 M– under this rule. These data must be inactivation, systems should use the DBP Federal Advisory Committee, to representative of inactivation through procedures approved by States under ensure that systems maintained the entire treatment plant and not just the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR. Log adequate control of pathogen risk as of certain treatment segments. inactivation benchmark is calculated as To develop disinfection profiles they reduced risk from DBPs. Today’s follows: under this rule, systems are required to proposal would extend disinfection exercise one of the following three —Determine the calendar month with benchmarking requirements to the options: the lowest log inactivation. LT2ESWTR. Option 1—Systems conduct —The lowest month becomes the EPA believes this extension is monitoring at least once per week critical period for that year. necessary because some systems will following the process described later in —If acceptable data from multiple years make significant changes in their this section. are available, the average of critical current disinfection practice to meet Option 2—Systems that conduct periods for each year becomes the more stringent limits on TTHM and monitoring under this rule, as described benchmark. HAA5 levels under the Stage 2 DBPR under Option 1, can also use one or two —If only one year of data is available, and additional Cryptosporidium years of acceptable grandfathered data, the critical period for that year is the treatment requirements under the in addition to one year of new benchmark. LT2ESWTR. In order to ensure that operational data, in developing the c. State review. If a system that is these systems continue to provide disinfection profile. required to produce a disinfection adequate protection against the full Option 3—Systems that have at least profile proposes to make a significant spectrum of microbial pathogens, it is one year of acceptable existing change in disinfection practice, it must appropriate for systems and States to operational data are not required to calculate Giardia lamblia and virus evaluate the effects of such treatment conduct new monitoring to develop the inactivation benchmarks and must changes on microbial drinking water disinfection profile under this rule. notify the State before implementing quality. The disinfection benchmark Instead, they can use a disinfection such a change. Significant changes in serves as a tool for making such profile based on one to three years of disinfection practice are defined as (1) evaluations. grandfathered data. moving the point of disinfection (this is EPA projects that to comply with the Process to be followed by PWS for not intended to include routine seasonal Stage 2 DBPR, systems will make developing the disinfection profile: changes already approved by the State), changes to their disinfection practice, —Measure disinfectant residual (2) changing the type of disinfectant, (3) including switching from free chlorine concentration (C, in mg/L) before or at changing the disinfection process, or (4) to chloramines and, to a lesser extent, the first customer and just prior to making other modifications designated installing technologies like ozone, each additional point of disinfectant as significant by the State. When membranes, and UV. Similarly, to addition, whether with the same or a notifying the State, the system must provide additional treatment for different disinfectant. provide a description of the proposed Cryptosporidium, some systems will —Determine contact time (T, in change, the disinfection profiles and install technologies like UV, ozone, and minutes) for each residual inactivation benchmarks for Giardia microfiltration. While these processes disinfectant monitoring point during lamblia and viruses, and an analysis of are all effective disinfectants, peak flow conditions. T could be how the proposed change will affect the chloramines are a weaker disinfectant based on either a tracer study or current inactivation benchmarks. In than free chlorine for Giardia lamblia. assumptions based on contactor basin addition, the system should have Ozone, UV, and membranes can provide geometry and baffling. However, disinfection profiles and, if applicable, highly effective treatment for Giardia systems must use the same method for inactivation benchmarking lamblia, but they, as well as both grandfathered data and new data. documentation, available for the State to chloramines, are less efficient for —Measure water temperature (°C) (for review as part of its periodic sanitary treating viruses than free chlorine, disinfectants other than UV). survey. relative to their efficacy for Giardia —Measure pH (for chlorine only). EPA developed for the IESWTR, with lamblia. Because of this, a system To determine the weekly log stakeholder input, the Disinfection switching from free chlorine to one of inactivation, the system must convert Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance these alternative disinfection

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47718 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

technologies could experience a Inactivation varied by several logs (i.e., storage facilities. The proposed rule reduction in the level of virus and/or orders of magnitude) on a day-to-day requires that systems with uncovered Giardia lamblia (for chloramines) basis at particular treatment plants and finished water storage facilities must (1) treatment it is achieving. Consequently, by as much as tens of logs over a year cover the uncovered finished water EPA believes that systems making due to changes in water temperature, storage facility, or (2) treat storage significant changes in their disinfection flow rate, seasonal changes, pH, and facility discharge to the distribution practice under the Stage 2 M–DBP rules disinfectant demand. There were also system to achieve a 4 log virus should assess the impact of these differences between years at individual inactivation, unless (3) the system changes with disinfection benchmarks plants. To address these variations, M– implements a State-approved risk for Giardia lamblia and viruses. DBP stakeholders developed the mitigation plan that addresses physical Changes in the proposed procedure of profiling a plant’s access and site security, surface water benchmarking requirements under the inactivation levels over a period of at runoff, animal and bird waste, and LT2ESWTR in comparison to IESWTR least one year, and then establishing a ongoing water quality assessment, and requirements include decreasing the benchmark of minimum inactivation as includes a schedule for plan frequency of calculating CT values for a way to characterize disinfection implementation. Where applicable, the the disinfection profile from daily to practice. plans should account for cultural uses weekly and requiring all systems to Benchmarking of inactivation levels, by Indian Tribes. prepare a profile for viruses as well as an assessment of the impact of proposed Systems must notify the State if they Giardia lamblia. The proposal of a changes on the level of microbial use uncovered finished water storage weekly frequency for CT calculations inactivation of Giardia lamblia and facilities no later than 2 years following was made to accommodate existing viruses, and State review prior to LT2ESWTR promulgation. Systems profiles from small systems, which are approval of substantial changes in must cover or treat uncovered finished required to make weekly CT treatment are important steps in facilities or have a State-approved risk calculations for profiling under the avoiding conditions that present an mitigation plan within 3 years following LT1ESWTR. As described earlier, EPA increase in microbial risk. In its LT2ESWTR promulgation, with the would like for systems that have assessment of the microbial risk possibility of a two year extension prepared a disinfection profile under associated with the proposed changes, granted by States for systems making the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR and have States could consider site-specific capital improvements. Systems seeking not subsequently made significant knowledge of the watershed and approval for a risk mitigation plan must changes in disinfection practice to be hydrologic factors as well as variability, submit the plan to the State within 2 able to grandfather this profile for the flexibility and reliability of treatment to years following LT2ESWTR LT2ESWTR. Allowing weekly ensure that treatment for both protozoan promulgation. calculation of CT values under the and viral pathogens is appropriate. These provisions apply to uncovered LT2ESWTR will make this possible. EPA emphasizes that benchmarking is The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR tanks, reservoirs, or other facilities not intended to function as a regulatory where water is stored after it has required virus inactivation profiling standard. Rather, the objective of the only for systems using ozone or undergone treatment to satisfy microbial disinfection benchmark is to facilitate treatment technique requirements for chloramine as their primary interactions between the States and disinfectant. However, as noted earlier, Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium, and systems for the purpose of assessing the EPA has projected that under the Stage viruses. In most cases, this refers to impact on microbial risk of proposed 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR, systems will storage of water following all filtration significant changes to current switch from free chlorine to disinfection steps, where required, and primary disinfection practices. Final decisions processes like chloramines, UV, ozone, disinfection. regarding levels of disinfection for and microfiltration. The efficiency of Giardia lamblia and viruses beyond 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? these processes for virus treatment those required by the SWTR that are relative to protozoa treatment is lower Today’s proposal is intended to necessary to protect public health will in comparison to free chlorine. As a mitigate the water quality degradation continue to be left to the States. For this result, a disinfection benchmark for and increased health risks that can Giardia lamblia would not necessarily reason EPA has not mandated specific result from uncovered finished water provide an indication of the level or evaluation protocols or decision storage facilities. In addition, these adequacy of treatment for viruses. matrices for analyzing changes in proposed requirements for uncovered Consequently, EPA believes it is disinfection practice. EPA, however, finished water storage facilities are appropriate for systems to develop will provide support to the States in consistent with recommendations of the profiles for both Giardia lamblia and making these analyses through the Stage 2 M–DBP Advisory Committee in viruses. Moreover, developing a profile issuance of guidance. the Agreement in Principle (USEPA for viruses involves a minimal increase 3. Request for Comments 2000a). in effort and no additional data The use of uncovered finished water EPA requests comment on the collection for those systems that have storage facilities has been questioned proposed provisions of the inactivation disinfection profiles for Giardia lamblia. since 1930 due to their susceptibility to profiling and benchmarking Systems will use the same calculated CT contamination and subsequent threats to requirement. values for viruses as would be used for public health (LeChevallier et al. 1997). the Giardia lamblia profile. E. Additional Treatment Technique Many potential sources of The strategy of disinfection profiling Requirements for Systems With contamination can lead to the and benchmarking stemmed from data Uncovered Finished Water Storage degradation of water quality in provided to the Stage1 M–DBP Advisory Facilities uncovered finished water storage Committee, in which the baseline of facilities. These include surface water microbial inactivation (expressed as logs 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? runoff, algal growth, insects and fish, of Giardia lamblia inactivation) EPA is proposing requirements for bird and animal waste, airborne demonstrated high variability. systems with uncovered finished water deposition, and human activity.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47719

Algal blooms are the most common contribute to the microbial degradation mitigation is adequate, provided a problem in open reservoirs and can of an open finished water reservoir system implements a risk mitigation become a public health risk, as they (Graczyk et al. 1996, Geldreich 1990, plan as described in this section. increase the presence of bacteria in the Fayer and Ungar 1986, Current 1986). 3. Request for Comments water. Algae growth also leads to the As described in section II, the formation of disinfection byproducts IESWTR and LT1ESWTR require water EPA requests comment on the and causes taste and odor problems. systems to cover all new reservoirs, proposed requirements pertaining to Some algae produce toxins that can holding tanks, or other storage facilities uncovered finished water storage induce headache, fever, diarrhea, for finished water. However, these rules facilities. Specifically, the Agency abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. do not require systems to cover existing would like comment on the following Bird and animal wastes are also finished water storage facilities. EPA issues, and requests that comments common and significant sources of stated in the preamble to the final include available supporting data or contamination. These wastes may carry IESWTR (63 FR 69494, December 16, other technical information: microbial contaminants such as 1998) (USEPA 1998a) that with respect • Is it appropriate to allow systems coliform bacteria, viruses, and human to requirements for existing uncovered with uncovered finished water storage pathogens, including Vibrio cholera, finished water storage facilities, the facilities to implement a risk Salmonella, Mycobacteria, Typhoid, Agency needed more time to collect and management plan or treat the effluent to Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium analyze additional information to inactivate viruses instead of covering (USEPA 1999e). Microbial pathogens are evaluate regulatory impact. The the facility? found in surface water runoff, along IESWTR preamble affirmed that EPA • If systems treat the effluent of an with agricultural chemicals, automotive would consider whether to require the uncovered finished water storage wastes, turbidity, metals, and organic covering of existing storage facilities facility instead of covering it, should matter (USEPA 1999e, LeChevallier et during the development of subsequent systems be required to inactivate al. 1997). microbial regulations when additional Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia, In an effort to minimize data to estimate national costs were since these protozoa have been found to contamination, systems have available. increase in uncovered storage facilities? implemented various controls such as Since promulgation of the IESWTR, • Additional information on reservoir covers and liners, regular EPA has collected sufficient data to contamination or health risks that may draining and washing, security and estimate national cost implications of be associated with uncovered finished monitoring, bird and insect control regulatory control strategies for water storage facilities. programs, and drainage design to uncovered finished water storage • Additional data on how prevent surface runoff from entering the facilities. Based on information climatological conditions affect water facility (USEPA 1999e). provided by States, EPA estimates that quality, including daily fluctuations in A number of studies have evaluated there are approximately 138 uncovered the stability of the water related to the degradation of water quality in finished water storage facilities in the corrosion control. uncovered finished water storage United States and territories, not • The definition of an uncovered facilities. LeChevallier et al. (1997) including reservoirs that systems finished water storage facility in 40 CFR compared influent and effluent samples currently plan to cover or take off-line. 141.2 is a tank, reservoir, or other from six uncovered finished water Costs for covering these storage facilities facility used to store water that will storage reservoirs in New Jersey for a or treating the effluent, consistent with undergo no further treatment except one year period. There were significant today’s proposed requirements, are residual disinfection and is open to the increases in the turbidity, particle presented in section VI of this preamble atmosphere. There is a concern that this count, total coliform, fecal coliform, and and in the Economic Analysis for the definition may not include certain heterotrophic plate count bacteria in the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). Briefly, systems using what would generally be effluent relative to the influent. Of total capital costs were estimated as considered an uncovered finished water particular concern were fecal coliforms, $64.4 million, resulting in annualized storage facility. An example is a system which were detected in 18 percent of present value costs of $5.4 million at a that applies a corrosion inhibitor effluent samples (no influent samples three percent discount rate and $6.4 compound to the effluent of an were positive for coliforms). Fecal million at a seven percent discount rate. uncovered storage facility where water coliforms are used as an indicator of the Based on the findings of studies cited is stored after filtration and primary potential for contamination by in this section, EPA continues to be disinfection. In this case, the system pathogens. Giardia and/or concerned about contamination may claim that the corrosion inhibitor Cryptosporidium were detected in 15% occurring in uncovered finished water constitutes additional treatment and, of inlet samples and 25% of effluent storage facilities. Therefore, as consequently, the reservoir does not samples, demonstrating a significant recommended by the Advisory meet EPA’s definition of an uncovered increase in the effluent. There was a Committee, EPA is proposing control finished water storage facility. EPA significant decrease in the chlorine measures for all systems with uncovered requests comment on whether the residual concentration in some effluent finished water storage facilities. This definition of an uncovered finished samples. proposal is intended to represent a water storage facility should be revised Increases in algal cells, heterotrophic balanced approach, recognizing both the to specifically include systems that plate count (HPC) bacteria, turbidity, potentially significant but uncertain apply a treatment such as corrosion color, particle counts, and biomass, and risks associated with uncovered control to water stored in an uncovered decreases in residual chlorine levels, finished water storage facilities and the reservoir after the water has undergone have been reported in other studies of substantial costs of either covering them filtration, where required, and primary uncovered finished water reservoirs as or building alternative storage. Today’s disinfection. well (Pluntze 1974, AWWA Committee proposal allows systems to treat the 1983, Silverman et al. 1983). storage facility effluent instead of F. Compliance Schedules Researchers have shown that small providing a cover. Alternatively, States Today’s proposal includes deadlines mammals, birds, fish, and algal growth may determine that existing risk for public water systems to comply with

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47720 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

the proposed monitoring, reporting, and sample at least monthly for an E. coli sampling schedule to their treatment requirements. These Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity primacy agency no later than 27 months deadlines stem from the microbial in their source water for 24 months, after LT2ESWTR promulgation. If framework approach of the proposed beginning 6 months after promulgation Cryptosporidium monitoring is LT2ESWTR, which involves a system- of the LT2ESWTR. Large systems must required, small systems must submit a specific risk characterization through submit a sampling schedule to their Cryptosporidium sampling schedule no monitoring to determine the need for primacy agency (in this case, EPA) no later than 45 months after LT2ESWTR additional treatment. later than 3 months after promulgation promulgation. of the LT2ESWTR. 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? Large systems must carry out a second a. Source water monitoring. Small surface water systems (fewer round of source water monitoring i. Filtered systems. Under today’s than 10,000 people served) that filter beginning 108 months after LT2ESWTR proposal, filtered systems conduct must conduct biweekly E. coli sampling promulgation, which is 6 years after source water Cryptosporidium in their source water for 1 year, initial bin classification. Similarly, monitoring for the purpose of being beginning 30 months after LT2ESWTR small systems must conduct a second classified in one of four risk bins that promulgation. States may designate an round of indicator monitoring (E. coli or determine the extent of any additional alternate indicator monitoring strategy other as designated by the State) treatment requirements. Small filtered based on EPA guidance, but compliance beginning 138 months after LT2ESWTR schedules will not change. Small systems first monitor for E. coli as a promulgation, which is 6 years after systems that exceed the indicator trigger screening analysis and are only required their initial bin classification. Small value (i.e., mean E. coli > 10/100 mL for to monitor for Cryptosporidium if the systems that exceed the indicator trigger lake/reservoir sources or > 50/100 mL mean E. coli level exceeds specified value in the second round of indicator trigger values. Note that systems that for flowing stream sources) must monitoring must conduct a second currently provide or will provide a total conduct source water Cryptosporidium round of Cryptosporidium monitoring, of at least 5.5 log of treatment for sampling twice-per-month for 1 year, beginning 156 months after LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium are exempt from beginning 48 months after LT2ESWTR monitoring requirements. promulgation (i.e., beginning 6 months promulgation. Large surface water systems (serving following the completion of E. coli Compliance dates for filtered systems at least 10,000 people) that filter must sampling). Small systems must submit are summarized in Table IV–23.

TABLE IVÐ23.—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE DATES FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS

System type Requirement Compliance date

Large Systems (serve ≥10,000 peo- Submit sampling schedule 1,2 ...... No later than 3 months after promulgation. ple). Source water Cryptosporidium, E. coli and turbidity Begin monthly monitoring 6 months after promulga- monitoring. tion for 24 months. Comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment No later than 72 months after promulgation.3 requirements. Second round of source water Cryptosporidium, E. Begin monthly monitoring 108 months after promul- coli, and turbidity monitoring 2. gation for 24 months. Small Systems (serve <10,000 peo- Submit E. coli sampling schedule2 ...... No later than 27 months after promulgation. ple). Source water E. coli monitoring ...... Begin biweekly monitoring 30 months after promul- gation for 1 year. Second round of source water E. coli monitoring 2 ... Begin biweekly monitoring 138 months after promul- gation for 1 year.

Additional requirements if indicator (e.g., E. coli) trigger level is exceeded4

Submit Cryptosporidium sampling schedule 1,2 ...... No later than 45 months after promulgation. Source water Cryptosporidium monitoring ...... Begin twice-per-month monitoring no later than 48 months after promulgation for 1 year. Comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment No later than 102 months after promulgation.3, 5 requirements. Second round of source water Cryptosporidium Begin twice-per-month monitoring no later than 156 monitoring. months after promulgation for 1 year. 1 Systems may be eligible to use previously collected (grandfathered) data to meet LT2ESWTR requirements if specified quality control criteria are met (described in section IV.A.1.d). 2 Systems are not required to monitor if they will provide at least 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment and notify EPA or the State. 3 States may grant up to an additional two years for systems making capital improvements. 4 If the E. coli annual mean concentration exceeds 10/100 mL for systems using lakes/reservoir sources or exceeds 50/100 mL for systems using flowing stream sources, Cryptosporidium monitoring is required. 5 Systems that do not exceed the E. coli trigger level are classified in Bin 1 and are not required to provide Cryptosporidium treatment beyond LT1ESWTR levels.

ii. Unfiltered systems. Surface water required to conduct source water oocysts/L. There is no E. coli screening systems that do not filter and meet the Cryptosporidium monitoring to analysis available to small unfiltered criteria for avoidance of filtration (40 determine if their mean source water systems. However, both large and small CFR 141.71) (i.e., unfiltered systems) are Cryptosporidium level exceeds 0.01 unfiltered systems conduct

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47721

Cryptosporidium monitoring on the than 10,000 people) must conduct at Cryptosporidium monitoring on the same schedule as filtered systems of the least twice-per-month Cryptosporidium same schedule as filtered systems of the same size. Note that unfiltered systems sampling for 12 months, beginning 48 same size. Large systems must carry out that currently provide or will provide a months after LT2ESWTR promulgation. a second round of Cryptosporidium total of at least 3 log Cryptosporidium Large systems must submit a monitoring, beginning 108 months after inactivation are exempt from monitoring Cryptosporidium sampling schedule to LT2ESWTR promulgation. Small requirements. EPA no later than 3 months after systems must perform a second round of Large unfiltered systems (serving at LT2ESWTR promulgation, and small Cryptosporidium monitoring, beginning least 10,000 people) must conduct at systems must submit a sampling 156 months after LT2ESWTR least monthly Cryptosporidium schedule to their State no later than 45 promulgation. sampling for 24 months, beginning 6 months after LT2ESWTR promulgation. months after LT2ESWTR promulgation. Unfiltered systems are required to Compliance dates for unfiltered Small unfiltered systems (serving fewer conduct a second round of systems are summarized in Table IV–24.

TABLE IVÐ24.—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE DATES FOR UNFILTERED SYSTEMS

System type Requirement Compliance date

Large Systems (serve ≥10,000 peo- Submit sampling schedule 1 ...... No later than 3 months after promulgation. ple). Source water Cryptosporidium monitoring ...... Begin monthly monitoring [6 months after promulga- tion for 24 months. Comply with Cryptosporidium inactivation require- No later than 72 months after promulgation.2 ments. Second round of source water Cryptosporidium Begin monthly monitoring 108 months after promul- monitoring. gation for 24 months. Small Systems (serve < 10,000 Submit sampling schedule 1 ...... No later than 45 months after promulgation. people). Source water Cryptosporidium monitoring ...... Begin twice-per-month monitoring no later than 48 months after promulgation for 1 year. Comply with Cryptosporidium inactivation require- No later than 102 months after promulgation.2 ments. Second round of source water Cryptosporidium Begin twice-per-month monitoring no later than 156 monitoring. months after promulgation for 1 year. 1 Systems may be eligible to use previously collected (grandfathered) data to meet LT2ESWTR requirements if specified quality control criteria are met (described in section IV.A.1.d). 2 States may grant up to an additional two years for systems making capital improvements.

b. Treatment requirements. Filtered Systems with uncovered finished major components: applicability systems must determine their bin water storage facilities are required to determination, characterization of classification and unfiltered systems comply with the provisions described in disinfection practice, and State review must determine their mean source water section IV.E by 36 months following of proposed changes in disinfection Cryptosporidium level within 6 months LT2ESWTR promulgation, with the practice. Each of these components is of the scheduled month for collection of possibility of a 2 year extension granted discussed in detail in section IV.D. their final Cryptosporidium sample in by the State for systems making capital Compliance deadlines associated with the first round of monitoring. This 6 improvements. Systems seeking each of these components, including month period provides time for systems approval for a risk mitigation plan must associated reporting requirements, are to receive all sample analysis results submit the plan to the State within 24 stated in section IV.J, Reporting and from the laboratory, analyze the data, months following LT2ESWTR Recordkeeping Requirements. and work with their primacy agency. promulgation. Systems must comply with additional 2. How Was This Proposal Developed? Filtered systems have 3 years Cryptosporidium treatment The compliance dates in today’s following initial bin classification to requirements by implementing one or proposal reflects the risk-targeted meet any additional Cryptosporidium more treatment processes or control approach of the proposed LT2ESWTR, treatment requirements. This equates to strategies from the microbial toolbox. wherein additional treatment compliance dates of 72 months after Most of the toolbox components require requirements are based on a system LT2ESWTR promulgation for large submission of documentation to the specific risk characterization as systems and 102 months after State demonstrating compliance with determined through source water LT2ESWTR promulgation for small design and/or implementation criteria monitoring. Additionally, they are systems (see Table IV–23). Unfiltered required to receive credit. Compliance designed to allow for systems to systems must comply with dates for reporting requirements simultaneously comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment associated with microbial toolbox LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR in order requirements on the same schedule as components are presented in detail in to balance risks in the control of filtered systems of the same size (see section IV.J, Reporting and microbial pathogens and DBPs. These Table IV–24). The State may grant Recordkeeping Requirements. dates are consistent with systems an additional two years to c. Disinfection benchmarks for recommendations from the Stage 2 M– comply when capital investments are Giardia lamblia and viruses. Today’s DBP Federal Advisory Committee. necessary, as specified in the Safe proposed LT2ESWTR includes Under the LT2ESWTR, large systems Drinking Water Act (section disinfection profiling and benchmarking will sample for Cryptosporidium for a 1412(b)(10)). requirements, which consist of three period of two years in order to

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47722 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

characterize source water pathogen their bin classification following the promulgated at the same time as the levels and capture a degree of annual conclusion of Cryptosporidium LT2ESWTR). variability. To expedite the date by sampling. From this point, which is 5.5 As with the LT2ESWTR, small water which systems will provide additional years after LT2ESWTR promulgation, systems (< 10,000 served) generally treatment where high risk source waters small systems have three years to meet begin monitoring and must be in are identified, large system any additional treatment requirements compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR at a Cryptosporidium monitoring will begin resulting from bin classification. States date later than that for large systems. six months after promulgation of the can grant additional time to small LT2ESWTR. Upon completion of systems for compliance with treatment However, the Advisory Committee Cryptosporidium monitoring, systems technique requirements through recommended that small systems that will have six months to work with their granting exemptions (see SDWA section buy/receive from or sell/deliver finished primacy agency to determine their bin 1416). water to a large system (that is, they are classification. Beginning at this point, part of the same ‘‘combined distribution 3. Request for Comments which is three years following system’’) comply with Stage 2 DBPR LT2ESWTR promulgation, large systems EPA requests comments on the requirements on the same schedule as will have three years to implement the treatment technique compliance the largest system in the combined treatment processes or control strategies schedules for large and small systems in distribution system. This approach is necessary to comply with any additional today’s proposal, including the intended to ensure that systems treatment requirements stemming from following issues: consider impacts throughout the bin classification. Time Window Between Large and Small combined distribution system when Other large system compliance dates System Monitoring making compliance decisions (e.g, in areas like approval of grandfathered selecting new technologies or making monitoring data, disinfection profiling Under the current proposal, small operational modifications) and to filtered system E. coli monitoring begins and benchmarking, and reporting facilitate all systems meeting the in the month following the end of large deadlines associated with microbial compliance deadlines for the rule. toolbox components all stem from the system Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and Cryptosporidium monitoring and turbidity monitoring. EPA plans to The issue of combined distribution treatment compliance schedule. evaluate large system monitoring results systems associated with systems buying With respect to small systems under on an ongoing basis as the data are and selling water is expected to be of the LT2ESWTR, EPA is proposing that reported to determine if any refinements less significance for the LT2ESWTR. small systems first monitor for E. coli as to the E. coli levels that trigger small The requirements of the LT2ESWTR a screening analysis in order to reduce system Cryptosporidium monitoring are apply to systems treating raw surface the number of small systems that incur necessary. If such refinements were water and generally will not involve the cost of Cryptosporidium monitoring. deemed appropriate, EPA would issue compliance steps when systems However, due to limitations in available guidance to States, which can establish purchase treated water. Consequently, data, the Agency has determined that it alternative trigger values for small the compliance schedule for today’s is necessary to use data generated by system monitoring under the proposal does not address combined large systems under the LT2ESWTR to LT2ESWTR. distribution systems. However, this confirm or refine the E. coli indicator This implementation schedule does proposed approach raises the possibility criteria that will trigger small system not leave any time between the end of that a small system treating surface Cryptosporidium monitoring. large system monitoring and the water and selling it to a large system Consequently, small system indicator initiation of small system monitoring. could be required to take compliance monitoring will begin at the conclusion Consequently, if it is necessary to steps at an earlier date under the Stage of large system monitoring. This provide guidance on alternative trigger 2 DBPR than under the LT2ESWTR. approach was recommended by the values prior to when small system While a small system in this situation Advisory Committee. monitoring begins, such guidance could choose to comply with the Accordingly, small systems will would be based on less than the full set LT2ESWTR on an earlier schedule, the monitor for E. coli for one year, of large system results (e.g., first 18 two rules would not require beginning 30 months after LT2ESWTR months of large system data). EPA promulgation. Following this, small requests comment on whether an simultaneous compliance. EPA requests systems will have six months to additional time window between the comment on how this scenario should determine if they are required to end of large system monitoring and the be addressed in the LT2ESWTR. monitor for Cryptosporidium and, if so, beginning of small system monitoring is G. Public Notice Requirements contract with an approved analytical appropriate and, if so, how long such a laboratory. Cryptosporidium monitoring window should be. 1. What Is EPA Proposing Today? by small systems will be conducted for one year, which, when added to the one Implementation Schedule for EPA is proposing that under the year of E. coli monitoring, equals two Consecutive Systems LT2ESWTR, a Tier 2 public notice will years of source water monitoring. This The Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in be required for violations of additional is equivalent to the time period large Principle (65 FR 83015, December 29, treatment requirements and a Tier 3 systems spend in source water 2000) (USEPA 2000a) continues the public notice will be required for monitoring. principle of simultaneous compliance to violations of monitoring and testing The time periods associated with bin address microbial pathogens and requirements. Where systems violate assignment and compliance with disinfection byproducts. Systems are LT2ESWTR treatment requirements, additional treatment requirements for generally expected to address today’s proposal requires the use of the small systems are the same as those LT2ESTWR requirements concurrently existing health effects language for proposed for large systems. Specifically, with those of the Stage 2 DBPR (as noted microbiological contaminant treatment small systems will have six months to earlier, the Stage 2 DBPR is scheduled technique violations, as stated in 40 work with their States to determine to be proposed later this year and to be CFR 141 Subpart Q, Appendix B.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47723

2. How Was This Proposal Developed? notice is already required or where the as efficient in lowering the level of the In 2000, EPA published the Public State has elevated the notice to Tier 1 contaminant (section 1415(a)(3)). or 2; and EPA does not believe the first Notification Rule (65 FR 25982, May 4, • 2000) (USEPA 2000d), which revised Operation under a variance or provision for granting a variance is the general public notification exemption. applicable to the LT2ESWTR because regulations for public water systems in The State, at its discretion, may Cryptosporidium treatment technique order to implement the public elevate the notice requirement for requirements under this rule account for notification requirements of the 1996 specific monitoring or testing the degree of source water SDWA amendments. This regulation procedures from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2 contamination. Systems initially comply established the requirements that public notice, taking into account the potential with the LT2ESWTR by conducting water systems must follow regarding the health impacts and persistence of the source water monitoring for form, manner, frequency, and content of violation. Cryptosporidium. Filtered systems are a public notice. Public notification of As part of the IESWTR, EPA required to provide additional treatment violations is an integral part of the established health effects language for for Cryptosporidium only if the source public health protection and consumer violations of treatment technique water concentration exceeds a level right-to-know provisions of the 1996 requirements for microbiological where current treatment does not SDWA Amendments. contaminants. EPA believes this provide sufficient protection. All Owners and operators of public water language, which was developed with unfiltered systems are required to systems are required to notify persons consideration of Cryptosporidium provide a baseline of 2 log inactivation served when they fail to comply with health effects, is appropriate for of Cryptosporidium to achieve finished the requirements of a NPDWR, have a violations of additional water risk levels comparable to filtered variance or exemption from the drinking Cryptosporidium treatment systems; however, unfiltered systems water regulations, or are facing other requirements under the LT2ESWTR. are required to achieve 3 log inactivation only if the source water situations posing a risk to public health. 3. Request for Comment The public notification requirements level exceeds 0.01 oocysts/L. divide violations into three categories EPA requests comment on whether The second provision for granting a (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) based on the the violations of additional treatment variance is not applicable to the seriousness of the violations, with each requirements for Cryptosporidium LT2ESWTR because the treatment tier having different public notification under the LT2ESWTR should require a technique requirements of this rule requirements. Tier 2 public notice and whether the specify the degree to which systems EPA has limited its list of violations proposed health effects language is must lower their source water and situations routinely requiring a Tier appropriate. Cryptosporidium level (e.g., 4, 5, and 5.5 log reduction in Bins 2, 3, and 4, 1 notice to those with a significant H. Variances and Exemptions potential for serious adverse health respectively). The LT2ESWTR provides effects from short term exposure. Tier 1 SDWA section 1415 allows States to broad flexibility in how systems achieve violations contain language specified by grant variances from national primary the required level of Cryptosporidium EPA that concisely and in non-technical drinking water regulations under certain reduction, as shown in the discussion of terms conveys to the public the adverse conditions; section 1416 establishes the the microbial toolbox in section VI.C health effects that may occur as a result conditions under which States may Moreover, the microbial toolbox of the violation. States and water grant exemptions to MCL or treatment contains an option for Demonstration of utilities may add additional information technique requirements. For the reasons Performance, under which States can to each notice, as deemed appropriate presented in the following discussion, award treatment credit based on the for specific situations. A State may EPA has determined that systems will demonstrated efficiency of a treatment elevate to Tier 1 other violations and not be eligible for variances or process in reducing Cryptosporidium situations with significant potential to exemptions to the requirements of the levels. Thus, there is no need for this have serious adverse health effects from LT2ESWTR. type of variance under the LT2ESWTR. SDWA section 1415(e) describes small short-term exposure, as determined by 1. Variances the State. system variances, but these cannot be Tier 2 public notices address other Section 1415 specifies two provisions granted for a treatment technique for a violations with potential to have serious under which general variances to microbial contaminant. Hence, small adverse health effects on human health. treatment technique requirements may system variances are not allowed for the Tier 2 notices are required for the be granted: LT2ESWTR. (1) A State that has primacy may grant following situations: 2. Exemptions • All violations of the MCL, a variance to a system from any maximum residual disinfectant level requirement to use a specified treatment Under SDWA section 1416(a), a State (MRDL) and treatment technique technique for a contaminant if the may exempt any public water system requirements, except where a Tier 1 system demonstrates to the satisfaction from a treatment technique requirement notice is required or where the State of the State that the treatment technique upon a finding that (1) due to determines that a Tier 1 notice is is not necessary to protect public health compelling factors (which may include required; and because of the nature of the system’s economic factors such as qualification • Failure to comply with the terms raw water source. EPA may prescribe of the system as serving a disadvantaged and conditions of any existing variance monitoring and other requirements as community), the system is unable to or exemption. conditions of the variance (section comply with the requirement or Tier 3 public notices include all other 1415(a)(1)(B)). implement measures to develop an violations and situations requiring (2) EPA may grant a variance from any alternative source of water supply; (2) public notice, including the following treatment technique requirement upon a the system was in operation on the situations: showing by any person that an effective date of the treatment technique • A monitoring or testing procedure alternative treatment technique not requirement, or for a system that was violation, except where a Tier 1 or 2 included in such requirement is at least not in operation by that date, no

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47724 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

reasonable alternative source of to the proposed LT2ESWTR, specifically J. System Reporting and Recordkeeping drinking water is available to the new including Cryptosporidium inactivation Requirements system; (3) the exemption will not result requirements for unfiltered systems. 1. Overview in an unreasonable risk to health; and In theory it would be possible for an (4) management or restructuring Today’s proposal includes reporting unfiltered system to demonstrate raw changes (or both) cannot reasonably and recordkeeping requirements water Cryptosporidium levels that were result in compliance with the Act or associated with proposed monitoring improve the quality of drinking water. 3 log lower than the cutoff for bin 1 for and treatment requirements. As If EPA or the State grants an filtered systems and, thus, that it may be described earlier, systems must conduct exemption to a public water system, it providing comparable public health source water monitoring to determine a must at the same time prescribe a protection without additional treatment bin classification for filtered schedule for compliance (including inactivation. However, EPA has systems or a mean Cryptosporidium increments of progress or measures to determined that in practice it is not level for unfiltered systems. Systems develop an alternative source of water currently economically or with previously collected monitoring supply) and implementation of technologically feasible for systems to data may be able to use (i.e., appropriate control measures that the ascertain the level of Cryptosporidium grandfather) those data in lieu of State requires the system to meet while at this concentration. This is due to the conducting new monitoring. Following the exemption is in effect. Under section extremely large number and volume of source water monitoring, systems will 1416(b)(2)(A), the schedule shall require samples that would be necessary to be required to comply with any compliance as expeditiously as make this demonstration with sufficient additional Cryptosporidium treatment practicable (to be determined by the confidence. Based on this determination requirements by implementing treatment and control strategies from a State), but no later than three years after and the Cryptosporidium occurrence microbial toolbox of options. Systems the otherwise applicable compliance data described in section III.C, EPA is date for the regulations established must conduct a second round of source not proposing to allow unfiltered pursuant to section 1412(b)(10). For water monitoring six years after bin systems to demonstrate raw water public water systems that do not serve classification. more than a population of 3,300 and Cryptosporidium levels low enough to In addition, systems using uncovered that need financial assistance for the avoid inactivation requirements. EPA finished water storage facilities must necessary improvements, EPA or the requests comment on this approach. cover the facility or provide treatment State may renew an exemption for one b. Exemptions. EPA requests unless the system implements a State- or more additional two-year periods, but comment on the determination that approved risk management strategy. not to exceed a total of six years. granting an exemption to the Certain systems will be required to A public water system shall not be Cryptosporidium treatment conduct disinfection profiling and granted an exemption unless it can requirements of the LT2ESWTR would benchmarking. The proposed rule requires public establish that: (1) The system cannot result in an unreasonable risk to health. meet the standard without capital water systems to submit schedules for improvements that cannot be completed I. Requirements for Systems To Use Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity prior to the date established pursuant to Qualified Operators sampling at least 3 months before section 1412(b)(10); or (2) in the case of monitoring must begin. Source water a system that needs financial assistance The SWTR established a requirement sample analysis results must be reported for the necessary implementation, the that each public water system using a not later than ten days after the end of system has entered into an agreement to surface water source or a ground water first month following the month when obtain financial assistance pursuant to source under the direct influence of the sample is collected. As described section 1452 or any other Federal or surface water must be operated by later, large systems (at least 10,000 state program; or (3) the system has qualified personnel who meet the people served) will report monitoring entered into an enforceable agreement to requirements specified by the State (40 results from the initial round of become part of a regional public water CFR 141.70). The Stage 1 DBPR monitoring directly to EPA through an system. extended this requirement to include all electronic data system. Small systems EPA believes that granting an systems affected by that rule, and will report monitoring results to the exemption to the Cryptosporidium required that States maintain a register State. Both small and large systems will treatment requirements of the of qualified operators (40 CFR report monitoring results from the LT2ESWTR would result in an 141.130(c)). While the proposed second round of monitoring to the State. Systems must report a bin unreasonable risk to health. As LT2ESWTR establishes no new classification (filtered systems) or mean described in section II.C, requirements regarding the operation of Cryptosporidium causes acute health Cryptosporidium level (unfiltered systems by qualified personnel, the systems) within six months following effects, which may be severe in sensitive Agency would like to emphasize the subpopulations and include risk of the month when the last sample in a important role that qualified operators mortality. Moreover, the additional particular round of monitoring is play in delivering safe drinking water to Cryptosporidium treatment scheduled to be collected. If systems are the public. EPA encourages States that requirements of the LT2ESWTR are required to provide additional treatment targeted to systems with the highest do not already have operator for Cryptosporidium, they must report degree of risk. Due to these factors, EPA certification programs in effect to regarding the use of microbial toolbox is not proposing to allow exemptions develop such programs. States should components. Systems must notify the under the LT2ESWTR. also review and modify, as required, State within 24 months following their qualification standards to take into promulgation of the rule if they use 3. Request for Comment account new technologies (e.g., uncovered finished water storage a. Variances. EPA requests comment ultraviolet disinfection) and new facilities. Systems must also make on the determination that the provisions compliance requirements. reports related to disinfection profiling for granting variances are not applicable and benchmarking. Reporting

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47725

requirements associated with these activities are summarized in Tables IV– 25 to IV–28.

TABLE IVÐ25.— SUMMARY OF INITIAL LARGE FILTERED SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

You must report the following items On the following schedule

Sampling schedule for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity No later than 3 months after promulgation. monitoring. Results of Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity analyses ...... No later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month in which the sample is collected. Bin determination ...... No later than 36 months after promulgation. Demonstration of compliance with additional treatment require- Beginning 72 months after promulgation 1 (See table IVÐ34). ments. Disinfection profiling component reports ...... See Table IVÐ35. 1 States may grant an additional two years for systems making capital improvements.

TABLE IVÐ26.—SUMMARY OF INITIAL SMALL FILTERED SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

You must report the following items On the following schedule

Sampling schedule for E. coli monitoring ...... No later than 27 months after promulgation. Results of E. coli analyses (unless State approves a different No later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month in indicator). which the sample was collected. Mean E. coli concentration (unless State approves a different No later than 45 months after promulgation. indicator). Disinfection profiling component reports ...... See Table IVÐ36.

Additional requirements if E. coli trigger level is exceeded 1

Sampling schedule for Cryptosporidium monitoring ...... No later than 45 months after promulgation. Results of Cryptosporidium analyses ...... No later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month in which the sample is collected. Bin determination ...... No later than 66 months after promulgation. Demonstration of compliance with additional treatment require- Beginning 102 months after promulgation 2 (See Table IVÐ34). ments. 1 If the E. coli annual mean concentration exceeds 10/100 mL for systems using lakes/reservoirs or exceeds 50/100 mL for systems using flow- ing streams, then systems must conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring. States may approve alternative indicator criteria to trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring. 2 States may grant an additional two years for systems making capital improvements.

TABLE IVÐ27.—SUMMARY OF INITIAL LARGE UNFILTERED SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

You must report the following items On the following schedule

Cryptosporidium sampling schedule ...... No later than 3 months after promulgation. Results of Cryptosporidium analyses ...... No later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month in which the sample was collected. Determination of mean Cryptosporidium concentration ...... No later than 36 months after promulgation. Disinfection profiling component reports ...... See Table IVÐ35. Demonstration of compliance with Cryptosporidium inactivation Beginning 72 months after promulgation 1 (see Table IVÐ34). requirements. 1 States may grant an additional two years for systems making capital improvements.

TABLE IVÐ28.—SUMMARY OF INITIAL SMALL UNFILTERED SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

You must report the following items On the following schedule

Cryptosporidium sampling schedule ...... No later than 45 months after promulgation. Results of Cryptosporidium analyses ...... No later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month in which the sample was collected. Determination of mean Cryptosporidium concentration ...... No later than 66 months after promulgation. Disinfection profiling component reports ...... See Table IVÐ35. Demonstration of compliance with Cryptosporidium inactivation Beginning 102 months after promulgation 1 (see Table IVÐ34). requirements. 1 States may grant an additional two years for systems making capital improvements.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47726 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

2. Reporting Requirements for Source elements specified in Table IV–29 for manage and analyze the microbial Water Monitoring each Cryptosporidium analysis. To monitoring data that will be reported by comply with LT2ESWTR requirements, large systems under the LT2ESWTR. a. Data elements to be reported. only the sample volume filtered and the EPA is exploring approaches for Proposed reporting requirements for number of oocysts counted must be application of this data system to LT2ESWTR monitoring stem from reported for samples in which at least support small system data reporting as proposed analytical method 10 L is filtered and all of the sample well. Systems, or laboratories acting as requirements. As stated in sections IV.K volume is analyzed. Additional the systems’ agents, must keep Method and IV.L, systems must have information is required for samples 1622/1623 bench sheets and slide Cryptosporidium analyses conducted by where the laboratory analyzes less than examination report forms until 36 EPA-approved laboratories using 10 L or less than the full sample volume months after an equivalent round of Methods 1622 or 1623. E. coli analyses collected. Table IV–30 presents the data must be performed by State-approved elements that systems must report for E. source water monitoring has been laboratories using the E. coli methods coli analyses. completed (e.g., second round of proposed for approval in section IV.K. As described in the following section, Cryptosporidium monitoring). Systems are required to report the data EPA is developing a data system to

TABLE IVÐ29.—PROPOSED Cryptosporidium DATA ELEMENTS TO BE REPORTED

Data element Reason for data element

Identifying information

• PWSID ...... Needed to associate plant with public water system. • Facility ID ...... Needed to associate sample result with facility. • Sample collection point ...... Needed to associate sample result with sampling point. • Sample collection date ...... Needed to determine that utilities are collecting samples at the frequency required. • Sample type (field or matrix spike) 1 ...... Needed to distinguish field samples from matrix samples for recovery calculations.

Sample results

• Sample volume filtered (L), to nearest 1⁄4 L 2 ...... Needed to verify compliance with sample volume requirements. • Was 100% of filtered volume examined? 3 ...... Needed to calculate the final concentration of oocysts/L and determine if volume ana- lyzed requirements are met. • Number of oocysts counted ...... Needed to calculate the final concentration of oocysts/L. 1 For matrix spike samples, sample volume spiked and estimated number of oocysts spiked must be reported. These data are not required for field samples. 2 For samples in which <10 L is filtered or <100% of the sample volume is examined, the number of filters used and the packed pellet volume must also be reported to verify compliance with LT2ESWTR sample volume analysis requirements. These data are not required for most sam- ples. 3 For samples in which <100% of sample is examined, the volume of resuspended concentrate and volume of this resuspension processed through IMS must be reported to calculate the sample volume examined. These data will not be required for most samples.

TABLE IVÐ30.—PROPOSED E. coli DATA ELEMENTS TO BE REPORTED

Data element Reason for collecting data element

Identifying Information

PWS ID ...... Needed to associate analytical result with public water system. Facility ID ...... Needed to associate plant with public water system. Sample collection point ...... Needed to associate sample result with sampling point. Sample collection date ...... Needed to determine that utilities are collecting samples at the frequency required. Analytical method number ...... Needed to associate analytical result with analytical method. Method Type ...... Needed to verify that an approved method was used and call up correct web entry form. Source water type ...... Needed to assess Cryptosporidium indicator relationships. E. coli/100 mL ...... Sample result (although not required, the laboratory also will have the option of entering primary measure- ments for a sample into the LT2ESWTR internet-based database to have the database automatically cal- culate the sample result).

Turbidity Information

Turbidity result ...... Needed to assess Cryptosporidium indicator relationships.

b. Data system. Because source water analysis, and data reporting. To Monitoring Rule (UCMR) (64 FR 50556, monitoring by large systems (serving at facilitate collection and analysis of large September 17, 1999) (USEPA 1999c). least 10,000 people) will begin 6 months system monitoring data, EPA is Analytical results for following promulgation of the developing an Internet-based electronic Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity LT2ESWTR, EPA expects to act as the data collection and management system. analyses will be reported directly to this primacy agency with oversight This approach is similar to that used database using web forms and software responsibility for large system sampling, under the Unregulated Contaminants that can be downloaded free of charge.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47727

The data system will perform logic and petition EPA or the State to method requirements (e.g., violation of checks on data entered and calculate invalidate the sample. If a system quality control requirements), the final results from primary data (where contests a sample result, the system system must collect a replacement necessary). This is intended to reduce must submit a rationale to the primacy sample within 14 days of being notified reporting errors and limit the time agency, including a supporting by the laboratory or the State that a involved in investigating, checking, and statement from the laboratory, providing result cannot be reported for that date correcting errors at all levels. EPA will a justification. Systems may arrange and must submit an explanation for the make large system monitoring data with laboratories to review their sample replacement sample with the analytical available to States when States assume results prior to the results being entered results. A system will not incur a primacy for the LT2ESWTR or earlier into the EPA data system. Also, if a monitoring violation if the State under State agreements with EPA. system determines that its laboratory determines that the failure to report a Large systems should instruct their does not have the capability to report laboratories to electronically enter data electronically, the system can valid analysis result was due to monitoring results into the EPA data submit a request to EPA to use an circumstances beyond the control of the system using web-based manual entry alternate reporting format. system. However, in all cases the system forms or by uploading XML files from Regardless of the reporting process must collect a replacement sample. laboratory information management used, systems are required to report an The data elements to be collected by systems (LIMS). After data are analytical monitoring result to the the electronic data system will enhance submitted by a laboratory, systems may primacy agency no later than 10 days the reliability of the microbial data review the results on-line. If a system after the end of the first month generated under the LT2ESWTR, while believes that a result was entered into following the month when the sample reducing the burden on the analytical the data system erroneously, the system was collected. As described in section laboratories and public water systems. may notify the laboratory to rectify the IV.A.1, if a system is unable to report a Tables IV–31 and IV–32 summarize the entry. In addition, if a system believes valid Cryptosporidium analytical result system’s data analysis functions for that a result is incorrect, the system may for a scheduled sampling date due to Cryptosporidium measurements. submit the result as a contested result failure to comply with the analytical

TABLE IVÐ31.— LT2ESWTR DATA SYSTEM FUNCTIONS FOR Cryptosporidium DATA

Applicability to sample types Value calculated Formula Matrix Field spike

Calculation of sample volume ana- (Volume filtered) * (resuspended concentrate volume transferred to IMS/re- Yes ...... Yes. lyzed. suspended concentrate volume). Pellet volume analyzed ...... (pellet volume)*(resuspended concentrated volume transferred to IMS/resus- Yes ...... Yes. pended concentrate volume). Calculation of oocysts/L ...... (Number of oocysts counted)/(sample volume analyzed) ...... Yes ...... Yes. Calculation of estimated number of (Number of oocysts spiked)/(sample volume spiked) ...... No ...... Yes. oocysts spiked/L. Calculation of percent recoveries for ((Calculated # of oocysts/L for the MS sample)—(Calculated # of oocysts/L No ...... Yes. MS samples. in the associated field sample)) / (Estimated number of oocysts spiked/L) * 100%.

TABLE IVÐ32.—LT2ESWTR DATA SYSTEM FUNCTIONS FOR Cryptosporidium COMPLIANCE CHECKS

LT2 requirements Description

Sample volume analysis ...... Specifies that the LT2 requirements for sample volume analyzed were met when: • volume analyzed is > 10 L. • volume analyzed is < 10 L and pellet volume analyzed is at least 2 mL. • volume analyzed < 10 L and pellet volume analyzed < 2 mL and 100% of filtered volume examined= Y and two filters were used. Specifies that the LT2 requirements for sample volume analyzed were not met when: • volume analyzed < 10 L and pellet volume analyzed is < 2 mL and 100% of filtered volume examined= N. • volume analyzed is < 10 L and pellet volume analyzed < 2 mL and only 1 filter used. Schedule met ...... Specifies that the predetermined sampling schedule is met when the sample collection data is within ± 2 days of the scheduled date.

c. Previously collected monitoring the laboratory that analyzed the samples Alternatively, the laboratory may data. Table IV–33 provides a summary must submit a letter certifying that all provide for each field, MS, OPR, and of the items that systems must report to Method 1622 and 1623 quality control MB sample a bench sheet and sample EPA for consideration of previously requirements (including ongoing examination report form (Method 1622 collected (grandfathered) monitoring precision and recovery (OPR) and and 1623 bench sheets are shown in data under the LT2ESWTR. For each method blank (MB) results, holding USEPA 2003h). field and matrix spike (MS) sample, times, and positive and negative Systems must report all routine systems must report the data elements staining controls) were performed at the source water Cryptosporidium specified in Table IV–29. In addition, required frequency and were acceptable. monitoring results collected during the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47728 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

period covered by the previously and QA/QC. Other requirements during monitoring. Review of the collected data that have been submitted. associated with use of previously submitted information, along with the This applies to all samples that were collected data are specified in section results of the quality assurance audits of collected from the sampling location IV.A.1.d. Where applicable, systems the laboratory that produced the data, used for monitoring, not spiked, and must provide documentation addressing will be used to determine whether the analyzed using the laboratory’s routine the dates and reason(s) for re-sampling, data meet the requirements for process for Method 1622 or 1623 as well as the use of presedimentation, grandfathering. analyses, including analytical technique off-stream storage, or bank filtration

TABLE IVÐ33.—ITEMS THAT MUST BE REPORTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF GRANDFATHERED MONITORING DATA

The following items must be reported 1 On the following schedule 1

Data elements listed in Table IVÐ29 for each field and MS sample ...... No later than 2 months after promulgation if the system does not intend to conduct new monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. Letter from laboratory certifying that method-specified QC was performed at re- quired frequency and was acceptable. OR OR Method 1622/1623 bench sheet and sample examination report form for each field, No later than 8 months after promulgation if the system in- MS, OPR, and method blank sample. tends to conduct new monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. Letter from system certifying (1) that all source water data collected during the time period covered by the previously collected data have been submitted and (2) that the data represent the plant’s current source water. Where applicable, documentation addressing the dates and reason(s) for re-sam- pling, as well as the use of presedimentation, off-stream storage, or bank filtration during monitoring. 1 See section IV.A.1. for details.

3. Compliance With Additional receive credit for toolbox components, shown through ongoing monitoring. Treatment Requirements systems must initially demonstrate that Required design, implementation, they comply with any required design operational, and monitoring criteria for Under the proposed LT2ESWTR, and implementation criteria, including toolbox components are described in systems may choose from a ‘‘toolbox’’ of performance validation testing. section IV.C. Proposed reporting management and treatment options to Additionally, systems must provide requirements associated with these meet their additional Cryptosporidium monthly verification of compliance with criteria are shown in Table IV–34 for treatment requirements. In order to any required operational criteria, as both large and small systems.

TABLE IVÐ34.—TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Toolbox option On the following sched- On the following sched- (potential ule 1 ule 1 Cryptosporidium re- You must submit the following items (systems serving ≥10,000 (systems serving < 10,000 duction log credit) people) people)

Watershed Control Notify State of intention to develop WCP ...... No later than 48 months No later than 78 months Program (WCP) Submit initial WCP plan to State ...... after promulgation after promulgation. (0.5 log) No later than 60 months No later than 90 months after promulgation after promulgation. Annual program status report and State-approved watershed By a date determined by By a date determined by survey report. the State, every 12 the State, every 12 months, beginning 84 months, beginning 114 months after promulga- months after promulga- tion tion. Request for re-approval and report on the previous approval No later than 6 months No later than 6 months period. prior to the end of the prior to the end of the current approval period current approval period or by a date previously or by a date previously determined by the State determined by the State. Pre-sedimentation Monthly verification of: Monthly reporting within Monthly reporting within (0.5 log) (new ba- Continuous basin operation 10 days following the 10 days following the sins) Treatment of 100% of the flow month in which the month in which the Continuous addition of a coagulant monitoring was con- monitoring was con- At least 0.5 log removal of influent turbidity based on the ducted, beginning 72 ducted, beginning 102 monthly mean of daily turbidity readings for 11 of the 12 months after promulga- months after promulga- previous months tion tion. Two-Stage Lime Soft- Monthly verification of: No later than 72 months No later than 102 months ening (0.5 log) Continuous operation of a second clarification step between after promulgation after promulgation. the primary clarifier and filter Presence of coagulant (may be lime) in first and second stage clarifiers Both clarifiers treat 100% of the plant flow

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47729

TABLE IVÐ34.—TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Toolbox option On the following sched- On the following sched- (potential ule 1 ule 1 Cryptosporidium re- You must submit the following items (systems serving ≥10,000 (systems serving < 10,000 duction log credit) people) people)

Bank filtration (0.5 or Initial demonstration of: Initial demonstration no Initial demonstration no 1.0 log) (new) Unconsolidated, predominantly sandy aquifer later than 72 months later than 102 months Setback distance of at least 25 ft. (0.5 log) or 50 ft. (1.0 log) after promulgation after promulgation. If monthly average of daily max turbidity is greater than 1 NTU Report within 30 days fol- Report within 30 days fol- then system must report result and submit an assessment lowing the month in lowing the month in of the cause which the monitoring which the monitoring was conducted, begin- was conducted, begin- ning 72 months after ning 102 months after promulgation promulgation. Combined filter per- Monthly verification of: Monthly reporting within Monthly reporting: within formance (0.5 log) Combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity levels less than or 10 days following the 10 days following the equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the 4 hour CFE month in which the month in which the measurements taken each month monitoring was con- monitoring was con- ducted, beginning on 72 ducted, beginning on months after promulga- 102 months after pro- tion mulgation. Membranes (MF, UF, Initial demonstration of: No later than 72 months No later than 102 months NF, RO) (2.5 log or Removal efficiency through challenge studies after promulgation after promulgation. greater based on Methods of challenge studies meet rule criteria verification/integrity Integrity test results and baseline testing) Monthly report summarizing: Within 10 days following Within 10 days following All direct integrity test results above the control limit and the the month in which the month in which corrective action that was taken monitoring was con- monitoring was con- All indirect integrity monitoring results triggering direct integrity ducted, beginning 72 ducted, beginning 102 testing and the corrective action that was taken months after promulga- months after promulga- tion tion. Bag filters (1.0 log) Initial demonstration that the following criteria are met: No later than 72 months No later than 102 months and Cartridge filters Process meets the basic definition of bag or cartridge filtra- after promulgation after promulgation. (2.0 log) tion; Removal efficiency established through challenge testing that meets rule criteria Challenge test shows at least 2 and 3 log removal for bag and cartridge filters, respectively Chlorine dioxide (log Summary of CT values for each day and log inactivation Within 10 days following Within 10 days following credit based on based on tables in section IV.C.14 the month in which the month in which CT) monitoring was con- monitoring was con- ducted, beginning 72 ducted, beginning 102 months after promulga- months after promulga- tion tion. Ozone (log credit Summary of CT values for each day and log inactivation Within 10 days following Within 10 days following based on CT) based on tables in section IV.C.14 the month in which the month in which monitoring was con- monitoring was con- ducted, beginning 72 ducted, beginning 102 months after promulga- months after promulga- tion tion. UV (log credit based Results from reactor validation testing demonstrating oper- No later than 72 months No later than 102 months UV dose and oper- ating conditions that achieve required UV dose after promulgation after promulgation. ating within vali- dated conditions) Monthly report summarizing the percentage of water entering Within 10 days following Within 10 days following the distribution system that was not treated by UV reactors the month in which the month in which operating within validated conditions for the required UV monitoring was con- monitoring was con- dose in section IV.C.15 ducted, beginning 72 ducted, beginning 102 months after promulga- months after promulga- tion tion. Individual filter per- Monthly verification of the following, based on continuous Monthly reporting within Monthly reporting: within formance (1.0 log) monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter: 10 days following the 10 days following the Filtered water turbidity less than 0.1 NTU in at least 95 per- month in which the month in which the cent of the daily maximum values from individual filters (ex- monitoring was con- monitoring was con- cluding 15 minute period following start up after ducted, beginning on 72 ducted, beginning 102 backwashes) months after promulga- months after promulga- No individual filter with a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 tion tion. NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart Demonstration of Per- Results from testing following State approved protocol ...... No later than 72 months No later than 102 months formance after promulgation after promulgation.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47730 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

TABLE IVÐ34.—TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Toolbox option On the following sched- On the following sched- (potential ule 1 ule 1 Cryptosporidium re- You must submit the following items (systems serving ≥10,000 (systems serving < 10,000 duction log credit) people) people)

Monthly verification of operation within State-approved condi- Within 10 days following Within 10 days following tions for demonstration of performance credit the month in which the month in which monitoring was con- monitoring was con- ducted, beginning 72 ducted, beginning 102 months after promulga- months after promulga- tion tion. 1 States may allow an additional two years for systems making capital improvements. Reporting requirements associated with disinfection profiling and benchmarking are summarized in Table IV–35 for large systems and in Table IV–36 for small systems.

TABLE IVÐ35.—DISINFECTION BENCHMARKING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SYSTEMS

System type Benchmark component Submit the following items On the following schedule

Systems required to Characterization of Disinfection Practices ...... Giardia lamblia and virus inactiva- No later than 36 months after pro- conduct tion profiles must be on file for mulgation. Cryptosporidium State review during sanitary monitoring. survey. State Review of Proposed Changes to Dis- Inactivation profiles and bench- Prior to significant modification of infection Practices. mark determinations. disinfection practice. Systems not required Applicability ...... None ...... None. to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring1. Characterization of Disinfection Practices ...... None ...... None. State Review of Proposed Changes to Dis- None ...... None. infection Practices. 1Systems that provide at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment consistent with a Bin 4 treatment implication are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring.

TABLE IVÐ36.—DISINFECTION BENCHMARKING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS

System type Benchmark component Submit the following items On the following schedule

Systems required to Characterization of Disinfection Practices ...... Giardia lamblia and virus inactiva- No later than 66 months after pro- conduct tion profiles must be on file for mulgation. Cryptosporidium State review during sanitary monitoring. survey. State Review of Proposed Changes to Dis- Inactivation profiles and bench- Prior to significant modification of infection Practices. mark determinations. disinfection practice. Systems not required Applicability Period...... Notify State that profiling is re- No later than 42 months after pro- to conduct quired based on DBP levels. mulgation. Cryptosporidium monitoring and that exceed DBP trig- gers1,2,3. Characterization of Disinfection Practices ...... Giardia lamblia and virus inactiva- No later than 54 months after pro- tion profiles must be on file for mulgation. State review during sanitary survey. State Review of Proposed Changes to Dis- Inactivation profiles and bench- Prior to significant modification of infection Practices. mark determinations. disinfection practice. Systems not required Applicability Period ...... Notify State that profiling is not re- No later than 42 months after pro- to conduct quired based on DBP levels. mulgation. Cryptosporidium monitoring and that do not exceed DBP triggers2,3. Characterization of Disinfection Practices ...... None ...... None. State Review of Proposed Changes to Dis- None ...... None. infection Practices. 1 Systems that provide at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment consistent with a Bin 4 treatment implication are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring. 2 If the E. coli annual mean concentration is ≤ 10/100 mL for systems using lakes/reservoir sources or ≤ 50/100 mL for systems using flowing stream sources, the system is not required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring and will only be required to characterize disinfection practices if DBP triggers are exceeded.

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47731

3 If the system is a CWS or NTNCWSs and TTHM or HAA5 levels in the distribution system are at least 0.064 mg/L or 0.048 mg/L, respec- tively, calculated as an LRAA at any Stage 1 DBPR sampling site, then the system is triggered into disinfection profiling.

4. Request for Comment the concentrated sample after if the volume of the MS sample is EPA requests comment on the centrifugation has been performed in greater than 10 L, the system is reporting and recordkeeping EPA Methods 1622 and 1623). Based on permitted to filter all but 10 L of the MS requirements proposed for the IMS purification limitations, samples sample in the field, and ship the filtered LT2ESWTR. resulting in large packed pellets will sample and the remaining 10 L of source Specifically, the Agency requests require that the sample concentrate be water to the laboratory. In this case, the comment on the proposed requirement aliquoted into multiple ‘‘subsamples’’ laboratory must spike the remaining 10 that systems report monthly on the use for independent processing through L of water and filter it through the filter of microbial toolbox components to IMS, staining, and examination. Because used to collect the balance of the sample demonstrate compliance with their of the expense of the IMS reagents and in the field. Cryptosporidium treatment analyst time to examine multiple slides EPA is proposing to require the use of requirements. An alternative may be for per sample, systems are not required to flow cytometer-counted spiking systems to keep records on site for State analyze more than 2 mL of packed pellet suspensions for spiked QC samples review instead of reporting the data. volume per sample. during the LT2ESWTR. This provision In cases where it is not feasible for a is based on the improved precision K. Analytical Methods system to process a 10–L sample for expected for spiking suspensions EPA is proposing to require public Cryptosporidium analysis (e.g., filter counted with a flow cytometer, as water systems to conduct LT2ESWTR clogs prior to filtration of 10 L) the compared to those counted using well monitoring using approved methods for system must analyze as much sample slides or hemacytometers. During the Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity volume as can be filtered by 2 filters, up Information Collection Rule analyses. This includes meeting quality to a packed pellet volume of 2 mL. This Supplemental Surveys, the mean control criteria stipulated by the condition applies only to filters that relative standard deviation (RSD) across approved methods and additional have been approved by EPA for 25 batches of flow cytometer-sorted method-specific requirements, as stated nationwide use with Methods 1622 and Cryptosporidium spiking suspensions later in this section. Related 1623—the Pall Gelman EnvirochekTM was 1.8%, with a median of 1.7% requirements on the use of approved and EnvirochekTM HV filters, the IDEXX (Connell et al. 2000). In EPA laboratories are discussed in section Filta-MaxTM foam filter, and the Performance Evaluation (PE) studies, IV.L, and proposed requirements for Whatman CrypTestTM cartridge filter. the mean RSD for flow cytometer sorted reporting of data were stated previously Methods 1622 and 1623 include Cryptosporidium spiking suspensions in section IV.J. EPA has developed draft fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) as the was 3.4%. In comparison, the mean RSD guidance for sampling and analyses primary antibody stain for for Cryptosporidium spiking under the LT2ESWTR (see USEPA Cryptosporidium detection, DAPI suspensions enumerated manually by 2003g and 2003h). This guidance is staining to detect nuclei, and DIC to 20 laboratories using well slides or available in draft form in the docket for detect internal structures. For purposes hemacytometers was 17% across 108 today’s proposal (http://www.epa.gov/ of the LT2ESWTR, systems must report rounds of 10-replicate counts. edocket/). total Cryptosporidium oocysts as QC requirements in Methods 1622 detected by FITC as determined by the and 1623 must be met by laboratories 1. Cryptosporidium color (apple green or alternative stain analyzing Cryptosporidium samples a. What is EPA proposing today? color approved for the laboratory under under the LT2ESWTR. The QC Method 1622: ‘‘Cryptosporidium in the Lab QA Program described in acceptance criteria are the same as Water by Filtration/IMS/FA’’ (EPA–821- section VI.L), size (4–6 µm) and shape stipulated in the method. For the initial R–01–026, April 2001) (USEPA 2001e) (round to oval). This total includes all precision and recovery (IPR) test, the and Method 1623: ‘‘Cryptosporidium of the oocysts identified as described mean Cryptosporidium recovery must and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/ here, less atypical organisms identified be 24% to 100% with maximum relative FA’’ (EPA 821–R–01–025, April 2001) by FITC, DIC, or DAPI (e.g., possessing standard deviation (i.e., precision) of (USEPA 2001f) are proposed for spikes, stalks, appendages, pores, one or 55%. For each ongoing precision and Cryptosporidium analysis under this two large nuclei filling the cell, red recovery (OPR) sample, recovery must rule. Methods 1622 and 1623 require fluorescing chloroplasts, crystals, be in the range of 11% to 100%. For filtration, immunomagnetic separation spores, etc.). each method blank, oocysts must be (IMS) of the oocysts from the captured undetected. Matrix Spike Samples material, and examination based on IFA, Methods 1622 and 1623 are DAPI staining results, and differential As required by Method 1622 and performance-based methods and, interference contrast (DIC) microscopy 1623, systems must have 1 matrix spike therefore, allow multiple options to for determination of oocyst (MS) sample analyzed for each 20 perform the sample processing steps in concentrations. source water samples. The volume of the methods if a laboratory can meet the MS sample must be within ten applicable QC criteria and uses the same Method Requirements percent of the volume of the unspiked determinative technique. If a laboratory For each Cryptosporidium sample sample that is collected at the same uses the same procedures for all under this proposal, all systems must time, and the samples must be collected samples, then all field samples and QC analyze at least a 10–L sample volume. by splitting the sample stream or samples must be analyzed in that same Systems may collect and analyze greater collecting the samples sequentially. The manner. However, if a laboratory uses than a 10–L sample volume. If a sample MS sample and the associated unspiked more than one set of procedures for is very turbid, it may generate a large sample must be analyzed by the same Cryptosporidium analyses under packed pellet volume upon procedure. MS samples must be spiked LT2ESWTR then the laboratory must centrifugation (a packed pellet refers to and filtered in the laboratory. However, analyze separate QC samples for each

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47732 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

option to verify compliance with the QC methods would need to achieve Approval of Updated Versions of EPA criteria. For example, if the laboratory comparable performance to be Methods 1622 and 1623 analyzes samples using both the considered for use under the EPA has developed draft revised TM TM Envirochek and Filta-Max filters, a LT2ESWTR. For example, EPA does not versions of EPA Methods 1622 and 1623 separate set of IPR, OPR, method blank, expect the Information Collection Rule in order to consolidate several method- and MS samples must be analyzed for Method, which resulted in 12% mean related changes EPA believes may be each filtration option. recovery for MS samples during the necessary to address LT2ESWTR b. How was this proposal developed? Information Collection Rule Laboratory monitoring requirements (see USEPA EPA is proposing EPA Methods 1622 Spiking Program (Scheller, 2002), to 2003j and USEPA 2003k). EPA is and 1623 for Cryptosporidium analyses meet LT2ESWTR data quality requesting comment on whether these under the LT2ESWTR because these are objectives. revised versions should be approved for the best available methods that have For systems collecting samples larger monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, undergone full validation testing. In than 10 L, EPA is proposing the rather than the April 2001 versions addition, these methods have been used approach of allowing systems to filter proposed in today’s rule. If the revised successfully in a national source water all but 10 L of the corresponding MS versions were approved, previously monitoring program as part of the sample in the field, and ship the filtered collected data generated using the Information Collection Rule sample and the remaining 10 L of source earlier versions of the methods would Supplemental Surveys (ICRSS). The water to the laboratory for spiking and minimum sample volume and other still be acceptable for grandfathering, analysis. The Agency has determined provided the other criteria described in quality control requirements are that the added costs associated with intended to ensure that data are of section IV.A.1.d were met. Drafts of the shipping entire high-volume (e.g. 50–L) updated methods are provided in the sufficient quality to assign systems to samples to a laboratory for spiking and LT2ESWTR risk bins. Further, the docket for today’s rule, and differences analysis are not merited by improved between these versions and the April proposed method requirements for data quality relative to the use of analysis of Cryptosporidium are 2001 versions of the methods are clearly Cryptosporidium MS data under the indicated for evaluation and comment. consistent with recommendations by the LT2ESWTR. EPA estimates that the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee. In Changes to the methods include the average cost for shipping a 50–L bulk following: the Agreement in Principle, the water sample is $350 more than the cost (1) Increased flexibility in matrix spike Committee recommended that source of shipping a 10–L sample and a filter. water Cryptosporidium monitoring (MS) and initial precision and recovery (IPR) A study comparing these two under the LT2ESWTR be conducted requirements—the requirement that the approaches (i.e., spiking and filtering 50 using EPA Methods 1622 and 1623 with laboratory must analyze an MS sample on the L vs. field filtering 40 L and spiking 10 no less than 10 L samples. EPA also has first sampling event for a new PWS would be L) indicated that spiking the 10–L changed to a recommendation; the revised proposed these methods for approval for sample produced somewhat higher method would allow the IPR test to be ambient water monitoring under recoveries (USEPA 2003i). However, the performed across four different days, rather Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures differences were not significant enough than restrict analyses to 1 day; for the Analysis of Pollutants; to offset the greatly increased shipping (2) Clarification of some method Analytical Methods for Biological procedures, including the spiking suspension costs, given the limited use of MS data Pollutants in Ambient Water (66 FR vortexing procedure and the buffer volumes 45811, August 30, 2001) (USEPA 2001i). in LT2ESWTR monitoring. used during immunomagnetic separation When considering the method c. Request for comment. EPA requests (IMS); requiring (rather than recommending) performance that could be achieved for comment on the proposed method that laboratories purchase HCl and NaOH analysis of Cryptosporidium under the requirements for Cryptosporidium standards at the normality specified in the LT2ESWTR, EPA and the Advisory analysis, including the following method; and clarification that the use of specific issues: methanol during slide staining in section Committee evaluated the 14.2 of the method is as per manufacturer’s Cryptosporidium recoveries reported for Minimum Sample Volume instructions; Methods 1622 and 1623 in the ICRSS. (3) Additional recommendations for As described in section III.C, the ICRSS It is the intent of EPA that LT2ESWTR minimizing carry-over of debris onto was a national monitoring program that sampling provide representative annual microscope slides after IMS and information involved 87 utilities sampling twice per mean source water concentrations. If on microscope cleaning; month over 1 year for Cryptosporidium systems were unable to analyze an (4) Clarification in the method of the and other microorganisms and water entire sample volume during certain actions to take in the event of QC failures, quality parameters. During the ICRSS, periods of the year due to elevated such as that any positive sample in a batch the mean recovery and relative standard turbidity or other water quality factors, associated with an unacceptable method this could result in systems analyzing blank is unacceptable and that any sample in deviation associated with enumeration a batch associated with an unacceptable of MS samples for total oocysts by different volumes in different samples. ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) sample Methods 1622 and 1623 were 43% and Today’s proposal requires systems to is unacceptable; 47%, respectively (Connell et al. 2000). analyze at least 10 L of sample or the (5) Changes to the sample storage and EPA believes that with provisions like maximum amount of sample that can be shipping temperature to ‘‘less than 10°C and the Laboratory QA Program for filtered through two filters, up to a not frozen’’, and additional guidance on Cryptosporidium laboratories (see packed pellet volume of 2 mL. EPA sample storage and shipping procedures that section IV.L), comparable performance requests comment on whether these addresses time of collection, and includes to that observed in the ICRSS can be requirements are appropriate for suggestions for monitoring sample achieved in LT2ESWTR monitoring systems with source waters that are temperature during shipment and upon receipt at the laboratory. with the use of Methods 1622 and 1623, difficult to filter or that generate a large (6) Additional analyst verification and that this level of performance will packed pellet volume. Alternatively, procedures—adding examination using be sufficient to realize the public health systems could be required to filter and differential interference contrast (DIC) goals intended by EPA and the Advisory analyze at least 10 L of sample with no microscopy to the analyst verification Committee for the LT2ESWTR. Other exceptions. requirements.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47733

(7) Addition of an approved method for demonstrating comparability of method and laboratories to follow than modification using the Pall Gelman modifications in a single laboratory. addressing them in multiple sources Envirochek HV filter. This approval was (10) Removal of the Whatman Nuclepore (i.e., existing methods, the final rule, TM based on an interlaboratory validation study CrypTest cartridge filter. Although a and laboratory guidance). demonstrating that three laboratories, each method modification using this filter was analyzing reagent water and a different approved by EPA in the April 2001 versions 2. E. coli source water, met all method acceptance of the methods, the filter is no longer available from the manufacturer, and so is no a. What is EPA proposing today? For criteria for Cryptosporidium. EPA issued a enumerating source water E. coli density letter (dated March 21, 2002) under the longer an option for sample filtration. Alternative Test Procedures program under the LT2ESWTR, EPA is proposing approving the procedure as an acceptable The changes in the June 2003 draft to approve the same methods that were version of Method 1623 for Cryptosporidium revisions of EPA Methods 1622 and proposed by EPA under Guidelines (but not for Giardia). EPA also noted in the 1623 reflect method-related Establishing Test Procedures for the letter that the procedure was considered to be clarifications, modifications, and Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical an acceptable modification of EPA Method additions that EPA believes should be Methods for Biological Pollutants in 1622. addressed for LT2ESWTR Ambient Water (66 FR 45811, August (8) Incorporation of detailed procedures for Cryptosporidium monitoring. 30, 2001) (USEPA 2001i). These concentrating samples using an IDEXX Filta- Alternatively, these issues could be methods are summarized in Table IV– MaxTM foam filter. A method modification addressed through regulatory 37. Methods are listed within the using this filter already is approved by EPA requirements in the final LT2ESWTR general categories of most probable in the April 2001 versions of the methods. TM (for required changes and additions) and number tests and membrane filtration (9) Addition of BTF EasySeed irradiated through guidance (for recommended tests. Method identification numbers are oocysts and cysts as acceptable materials for spiking routine QC samples. EPA approved changes and clarifications). However, provided for applicable standards the use of EasySeedTM based on side-by-side EPA believes that addressing these published by EPA and voluntary comparison tests of method recoveries using issues through a single source in consensus standards bodies (VCSB) EasySeedTM and live, untreated organisms. updated versions of EPA Methods 1622 including Standard Methods, American EPA issued a letter (dated August 1, 2002) and 1623 (which could be approved in Society of Testing Materials (ASTM), approving EasySeedTM for use in routine QC the final LT2ESWTR) may be more and the Association of Analytical samples for EPA Methods 1622 and 1623 and straightforward and easier for systems Chemists (AOAC).

TABLE IVÐ37.— PROPOSED METHODS FOR E. COLI ENUMERATION 1

VCSB methods 1 Technique Method EPA Standard Commercial example ASTM3 AOAC4 methods2

Most Probable Number LTB, EC-MUG ...... 9221B.1/ (MPN). 9221F ONPG-MUG ...... 9223B ...... 991.15 Colilert5. ONPG-MUG ...... 9223B ...... Colilert-1857. Membrane Filter (MF) .. mFC➝NAÐMUG ...... 9222D/ 9222G mENDO or LES- ...... 9222B/ ENDO➝NAÐMUG. 9222G mTEC agar ...... 1103.1 9213D D5392Ð93 Modified mTEC agar ...... 1603 MI medium ...... 1604 m-ColiBlue24 broth ...... m-ColiBlue246. 1 Tests must be conducted in a format that provides organism enumeration. 2 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association. 20th, 19th, and 18th Editions. Amer. Publ. Hlth. Assoc., Washington, DC. 3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards—Water and Environmental Technology. Section 11.02. ASTM. 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. 4 Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 16th Edition, Volume I, Chapter 17. AOAC International. 481 North Frederick Avenue, Suite 500, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877Ð2417. 5 Manufactured by IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine 04092. 6 Manufactured by Hach Company, 100 Dayton Ave., Ames, IA 50010. 7 Acceptable version of method approved as a drinking water alternative test procedure.

EPA is proposing to allow a holding will be comparable to samples held for and will be required to ship samples to time of 24 hours for E. coli samples. The 8 hours, provided the samples are held a certified laboratory. EPA believes that holding time refers to the time between below 10°C and are not allowed to it is feasible for these systems to comply sample collection and initiation of freeze. This proposed increase in with a 24 hour holding time for E. coli analysis. Currently, 40 CFR 141.74(a) holding time is significant for the samples through using overnight limits the holding time for source water LT2ESWTR because typically it is not delivery services. coliform samples to 8 hours and feasible for systems to meet an 8-hour b. How was this proposal developed? requires that samples be kept below holding time when samples cannot be As noted, EPA recently proposed 10°C during transit. EPA believes that analyzed on-site. Many small systems methods for ambient water E. coli new studies, described later in this that will conduct E. coli monitoring analysis under Guidelines Establishing section, demonstrate that E. coli analysis under the LT2ESWTR lack a certified Test Procedures for the Analysis of results for samples held for 24 hours on-site laboratory for E. coli analyses Pollutants; Analytical Methods for

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47734 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water NA–MUG) and Colilert (Quanti-Tray 37) incurred no significant degradation (66 FR 45811, August 30, 2001) (USEPA 2000) (Pope et al. 2003). after a 30 to 48 hour holding time. As 2001i). These proposed methods were • Phase 3–EPA, through cooperation a result, should EPA increase the source selected based on data generated by EPA with AWWA, obtained E. coli holding water E. coli holding time to 30 or 48 laboratories, submissions to the time data from ten drinking water hours for samples evaluated by ONPG- alternate test procedures (ATP) program utilities that evaluated samples from 12 MUG, and retain a 24-hour holding time and voluntary consensus standards source waters. Each utility used an E. for samples analyzed by other methods? bodies, published peer reviewed journal coli method of its choice (Colilert, EPA also requests comment on the cost articles, and publicly available study mTEC, mEndo to NA–MUG, or mFC to and availability of overnight delivery reports. NA–MUG). Samples were stored in services for E. coli samples, especially The source water analysis for E. coli coolers with wet ice, Utek ice packs, or in rural areas. Blue ice (Pope et al. 2003). that will be conducted under the 3. Turbidity LT2ESWTR is similar to the type of Phase 1 results indicated that E. coli ambient water analyses for which these concentrations were not significantly a. What is EPA proposing today? For methods were previously proposed (66 different after 24 hours at most sites turbidity analyses that will be FR 45811, August 30, 2001) (USEPA when samples were stored at lower conducted under the LT2ESWTR, EPA 2001i). EPA continues to support the temperatures. Results from Phase 2, is proposing to require systems to use findings of this earlier proposal and which evaluated actual sample storage the analytical methods that have been believes that these methods have the practices, verified the Phase 1 previously approved by EPA for necessary sensitivity and specificity to observations at most sites. Similar analysis of turbidity in drinking water, meet the data quality objectives of the results were observed during Phase 3, as listed in 40 CFR Part 141.74. These LT2ESWTR. which evaluated a wider variety of are Method 2130B as published in surface waters from different regions Standard Methods for the Examination New Information on E. coli Sample throughout the U.S. During Phase 3, E. of Water and Wastewater (APHA 1992), Holding Time coli concentrations were not EPA Method 180.1 (USEPA 1993), and It is generally not feasible for systems significantly different after 24 hours at Great Lakes Instruments Method 2 most sites when samples were (Great Lakes Instruments, 1992), and that must ship E. coli samples to an off- ° site laboratory to comply with an 8-hour maintained below 10 C and did not Hach FilterTrak Method 10133. EPA method 180.1 and Standard holding time requirement. During the freeze during storage. At longer holding times (e.g., 48 hours), larger differences Method 2130B are both nephelometric ICRSS, 100% of the systems that were observed. methods and are based upon a shipped samples off-site for E. coli Based on these studies, EPA has comparison of the intensity of light analysis exceeded the 8 hour holding concluded that E. coli samples can be scattered by the sample under defined time; 12% of these samples had holding held for up to 24 hours prior to analysis conditions with the intensity of light times in excess of 30 hours. Most large without compromising the data quality scattered by a standard reference systems that will be required to monitor objectives of LT2ESWTR E. coli suspension. Great Lakes Instruments for E. coli under the LT2ESWTR could monitoring. Further, EPA believes that it Method 2 is a modulated four beam conduct these analyses on-site, but is feasible for systems that must ship E. infrared method using a ratiometric many small systems will need to ship coli samples to an off-site laboratory for algorithm to calculate the turbidity samples off-site to a certified contract analysis to meet a 24 hour holding time. value from the four readings that are laboratory. EPA is developing guidance for systems produced. Hach Filter Trak (Method EPA participated in three phases of on packing and shipping E. coli samples 10133) is a laser-based nephelometric studies to assess the effect of increased so that samples are maintained below method used to determine the turbidity sample holding time on E. coli analysis 10°C and not allowed to freeze (USEPA of finished drinking waters. results. These are summarized as 2003g). This guidance is available in follows, and are described in detail in draft in the docket for today’s proposal Turbidimeters Pope et al. (2003). (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/). Systems are required to use • Phase 1–EPA, the Wisconsin State c. Request for comment. EPA requests turbidimeters described in EPA- Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH), and comment on whether the E. coli approved methods for measuring DynCorp conducted a study to evaluate methods proposed for approval under turbidity. For regulatory reporting E. coli sample concentrations from four the LT2ESWTR are appropriate, and purposes, either an on-line or a bench sites at 8, 24, 30, and 48 hours after whether there are additional methods top turbidimeter can be used. If a system sample collection for samples stored at not proposed that should be considered. chooses to use on-line units for 4°C, 10°C, 20°C, and 35°C. Temperature Comments concerning method approval monitoring, the system must validate was varied to assess the effect of should be accompanied by supporting the continuous measurements for different shipping conditions. Samples data where possible. accuracy on a regular basis using a were analyzed in triplicate by EPA also requests comment on the protocol approved by the State. membrane filtration (mFC followed by proposal to extend the holding time for b. How was this proposal developed? transfer to NA–MUG) and Colilert E. coli source water sample analyses to EPA believes the currently approved (Quanti-Tray 2000) (Pope et al. 2003). 24 hours, including any data or other methods for analysis of turbidity in • Phase 2–EPA conducted a study to information that would support, modify, drinking water are appropriate for evaluate E. coli sample concentrations or repudiate such an extension. Should turbidity analyses that will be from seven sites at 8, 24, 30, and 48 EPA limit the extended holding time to conducted under the LT2ESWTR. hours after sample collection for only those E. coli analytical methods c. Request for comment. EPA requests samples stored in coolers containing that were evaluated in the holding time comment on whether the turbidity wet ice or Utek ice packs (to assess real- studies noted in this section? The methods proposed today for the world storage conditions). Samples were results in Pope et al. (2003) indicate that LT2ESWTR should be approved, and analyzed in triplicate by membrane most E. coli samples analyzed using whether there are additional methods filtration (mFC followed by transfer to ONPG-MUG (see methods in Table IV– not proposed that should be approved.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47735

L. Laboratory Approval reliably measure Cryptosporidium analytical techniques the laboratory is Given the potentially significant occurrence with EPA Methods 1622 and certified to use under the drinking water implications in terms of both cost and 1623, using both performance testing certification program (e.g., membrane public health protection of microbial samples and an on-site evaluation. filtration, multiple-well, multiple-tube) EPA initiated the Lab QA Program for monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, will be the methods the laboratory can Cryptosporidium analysis prior to laboratory analyses for use to conduct E. coli source water promulgation of the LT2ESWTR to Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity analyses under the LT2ESWTR. ensure that adequate sample analysis must be accurate and reliable within the capacity will be available at qualified 3. Turbidity Analyst Approval limits of approved methods. Therefore, laboratories to support the required Measurements of turbidity must be EPA proposes to require public water monitoring. The Agency is monitoring conducted by a party approved by the systems to use laboratories that have sample analysis capacity at approved State. This is consistent with current been approved to conduct analyses for laboratories through the Lab QA requirements for turbidity these parameters by EPA or the State. Program, and does not plan to measurements in drinking water (40 The following criteria are proposed for implement LT2ESWTR monitoring until CFR 141.74). laboratory approval under the the Agency determines that there is LT2ESWTR: 4. Request for Comment • adequate laboratory capacity. In For Cryptosporidium analyses addition, utilities that choose to conduct EPA requests comment on the under the LT2ESWTR, EPA proposes to Cryptosporidium monitoring prior to laboratory approval requirements approve laboratories that have passed a LT2ESWTR promulgation with the proposed today, including the following quality assurance evaluation under intent of grandfathering the data may specific issues: EPA’s Laboratory Quality Assurance elect to use laboratories that have Analyst Experience Criteria Evaluation Program (Lab QA Program) passed the EPA quality assurance for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in evaluation. The Lab QA Program, which EPA will Water (described in 67 FR 9731, March Laboratories seeking to participate in use to approve laboratories for 4, 2002) (USEPA 2002c). If States adopt the EPA Lab QA Program for Cryptosporidium analyses under the an equivalent approval process under Cryptosporidium analysis must submit LT2ESWTR, includes criteria for analyst State laboratory certification programs, an interest application to EPA, experience. Principal analyst/ then systems can use laboratories successfully analyze a set of initial supervisors (minimum of one per approved by the State. performance testing samples, and laboratory) should have a minimum of • For E. coli analyses, EPA proposes undergo an on-site evaluation. The on- one year of continuous bench to approve laboratories that have been site evaluation includes two separate experience with Cryptosporidium and certified by EPA, the National but concurrent assessments: (1) immunofluorescent assay (IFA) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Assessment of the laboratory’s sample microscopy, a minimum of six months Conference, or the State for total processing and analysis procedures, experience using EPA Method 1622 coliform or fecal coliform analysis in including microscopic examination, and and/or 1623, and a minimum of 100 source water under 40 CFR 141.74. The (2) evaluation of the laboratory’s samples analyzed using EPA Method laboratory must use the same analytical personnel qualifications, quality 1622 and/or 1623 (minimum 50 samples technique for E. coli that the laboratory assurance/quality control program, if the person was an analyst approved uses for total coliform or fecal coliform equipment, and recordkeeping to conduct analysis for the Information analysis under 40 CFR 141.74. procedures. Collection Rule Protozoan Method) for • Turbidity analyses must be Laboratories that pass the quality the specific analytical procedure they conducted by a person approved by the assurance evaluation will be eligible for will be using. State for analysis of turbidity in approval for Cryptosporidium analysis Under the Lab QA Program, other drinking water under 40 CFR 141.74. under the LT2ESWTR. The Lab QA analysts (no minimum number of These criteria are further described in Program is described in detail in a analysts per laboratory) should have a the following paragraphs. Federal Register Notice (67 FR 9731, minimum of six months of continuous bench experience with Cryptosporidium 1. Cryptosporidium Laboratory March 4, 2002) (USEPA 2002c) and and IFA microscopy, a minimum of Approval additional information can be found online at: www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/ three months experience using EPA Because States do not currently cla_int.html. Method 1622 and/or 1623, and a approve laboratories for Laboratories in the Lab QA Program minimum of 50 samples analyzed using Cryptosporidium analyses and will receive a set of three ongoing EPA Method 1622 and/or 1623 LT2ESWTR monitoring will begin 6 proficiency testing (OPT) samples (minimum 25 samples if the person was months after rule promulgation, EPA approximately every four months. EPA an analyst approved to conduct analysis will initially assume responsibility for will evaluate the precision and recovery for the Information Collection Rule Cryptosporidium laboratory approval. data for OPT samples to determine if the Protozoan Method) for the specific EPA expects, however, that States will laboratory continues to meet the analytical procedures they will be using. include Cryptosporidium analysis in performance criteria of the Laboratory The Lab QA Program criteria for their State laboratory certification QA Program. principal analyst/supervisor experience programs in the future. EPA has are more rigorous than those in Methods established the Lab QA Program for 2. E. coli Laboratory Approval 1622 and 1623, which are as follows: Cryptosporidium analysis to identify Pubic water systems are required to the analyst must have at least 2 years of laboratories that can meet LT2ESWTR have samples analyzed for E. coli by college lecture and laboratory course data quality objectives. This is a laboratories certified under the State work in microbiology or a closely voluntary program open to laboratories drinking water certification program to related field. The analyst also must have involved in analyzing Cryptosporidium perform total coliform and fecal at least 6 months of continuous bench in water. Under this program, EPA coliform analyses under 40 CFR 141.74. experience with environmental protozoa assesses the ability of laboratories to EPA is proposing that the general detection techniques and IFA

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47736 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

microscopy, and must have successfully on the elements that would constitute Under the IESWTR, primacy States analyzed at least 50 water and/or an equivalent State approval program are required to have the appropriate wastewater samples for for Cryptosporidium analyses, including rules or other authority to assure that Cryptosporidium. Six months of the following: (1) Successful analysis of systems respond in writing to additional experience in the above areas initial and ongoing blind proficiency significant deficiencies outlined in may be substituted for two years of testing samples prepared using flow sanitary survey reports no later than 45 college. cytometry, including a matrix and days after receipt of the report, In seeking approval for an Information meeting EPA’s pass/fail criteria indicating how and on what schedule Collection Request, EPA requested (described in USEPA 2002c); (2) an on- the system will address significant comment on the Lab QA Program (67 FR site evaluation of the laboratory’s deficiencies noted in the survey (40 CFR 9731, March 4, 2002) (USEPA 2002c). A sample processing and analysis 142.16(b)(1)(ii)). Further, primacy States number of commenters stated that the procedures, including microscopic must have the authority to assure that analyst qualification criteria are examination skills, by auditors who systems take necessary steps to address restrictive and could make it difficult meet the qualifications of a principal significant deficiencies identified in for laboratories to maintain adequate analyst as set forth in the Lab QA sanitary survey reports if such analyst staffing (and, hence, sample Program (described in USEPA 2002c); deficiencies are within the control of the analysis capacity) in the event of staff (3) an on-site evaluation of the system and its governing body (40 CFR turnover or competing priorities. Some laboratory’s personnel qualifications, 142.16(b)(1)(iii)). The IESWTR did not commenters suggested that laboratories quality assurance/quality control define a significant deficiency, but and analysts should be evaluated based program, equipment, and recordkeeping required that primacy States describe in on proficiency testing, and that analyst procedures; (4) a data audit of the their primacy applications how they experience standards should be reduced laboratories’ QC data and monitoring will decide whether a deficiency or eliminated. (Comments are available data; and (5) use of the audit checklist identified during a sanitary survey is in Office of Water docket, number W– used in the Lab QA Program or significant for the purposes of the 01–17). equivalent. requirements stated in this paragraph Another aspect of the analyst (40 CFR 142.16(b)(3)(v)). experience criteria is that systems may M. Requirements for Sanitary Surveys EPA conducts sanitary surveys under generate Cryptosporidium data for Conducted by EPA SDWA section 1445 for public water grandfathering under the LT2ESWTR 1. Overview systems not regulated by primacy States using laboratories that meet the analyst (e.g., Tribal systems, Wyoming). experience requirement of Methods In today’s proposal, EPA is requesting However, EPA does not have the 1622 or 1623 but not the more rigorous comment on establishing requirements authority required of primacy States principal analyst/supervisor experience for public water systems with under 40 CFR 142 to ensure that requirement of the Lab QA Program. significant deficiencies as identified in EPA requests comment on whether a sanitary survey conducted by EPA systems address significant deficiencies the criteria for analyst experience in the under SDWA section 1445. These identified during sanitary surveys. Lab QA Program are necessary, whether requirements would apply to surface Consequently, the sanitary survey systems are experiencing difficulty in water systems for which EPA is requirements established by the finding laboratories that have passed the responsible for directly implementing IESWTR create an unequal standard. Lab QA Program to conduct national primary drinking water Systems regulated by primacy States are Cryptosporidium analysis, and whether regulations (i.e., systems not regulated subject to the States’ authority to require any of the Lab QA Program criteria by States with primacy). As described in correction of significant deficiencies should be revised to improve the this section, these requirements would noted in sanitary survey reports, while LT2ESWTR lab approval process. ensure that systems in non-primacy systems for which EPA has direct States, currently Wyoming, and systems implementation authority do not have to State Programs To Approve Laboratories not regulated by States, such as Tribal meet an equivalent requirement. for Cryptosporidium Analysis systems, are subject to standards for 3. Request for Comment Under today’s proposal, systems must sanitary surveys similar to those that have Cryptosporidium samples analyzed apply to systems regulated by States In order to ensure that systems for by a laboratory approved under EPA’s with primacy. which EPA has direct implementation Lab QA Program, or an equivalent State authority address significant laboratory approval program. Because 2. Background deficiencies identified during sanitary States do not currently approve As established by the IESWTR in 40 surveys, EPA requests comment on laboratories for Cryptosporidium CFR 142.16(b)(3), primacy States must establishing either or both of the analyses, EPA will initially assume conduct sanitary surveys for all surface following requirements under 40 CFR responsibility for Cryptosporidium water systems no less frequently than 141 as part of the NPDWR established laboratory approval. EPA expects, every three years for community water in the final LT2ESWTR: however, that States will adopt systems and no less frequently than (1) For sanitary surveys conducted by EPA equivalent approval programs for every five years for noncommunity under SDWA section 1445, systems would be Cryptosporidium analysis under State water systems. The sanitary survey is an required to respond in writing to significant laboratory certification programs. EPA onsite review and must address the deficiencies outlined in sanitary survey requests comment on how to establish following eight components: (1) Source, reports no later than 45 days after receipt of that a State approval program for (2) treatment, (3) distribution system, (4) the report, indicating how and on what finished water storage, (5) pumps, pump schedule the system will address significant Cryptosporidium analysis is equivalent deficiencies noted in the survey. to the Lab QA Program. facilities, and controls, (6) monitoring, (2) Systems would be required to correct Specifically, should EPA evaluate reporting, and data verification, (7) significant deficiencies identified in sanitary State Approval programs to determine if system management and operation, and survey reports if such deficiencies are within they are equivalent to the Lab QA (8) operator compliance with State the control of the system and its governing Program? EPA also requests comment requirements. body.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47737

For the purposes of these To implement the proposed issuance of variances and exemptions. requirements, a sanitary survey, as LT2ESWTR, States will be required to The proposed LT2ESWTR will require conducted by EPA, is an onsite review adopt revisions to: States to keep additional records of the of the water source (identifying sources § 141.2—Definitions following, including all supporting of contamination by using results of § 141.71—Criteria for avoiding filtration information and an explanation of the source water assessments where § 141.153—Content of the reports technical basis for each decision: available), facilities, equipment, § 141.170—Enhanced filtration and • Results of source water E. coli and operation, maintenance, and monitoring disinfection Cryptosporidium monitoring; compliance of a public water system to Subpart Q—Public Notification • Cryptosporidium bin classification evaluate the adequacy of the system, its New Subpart W—Additional treatment for each filtered system, including any sources and operations, and the technique requirements for changes to initial bin classification distribution of safe drinking water. A Cryptosporidium based on review of the watershed during significant deficiency includes a defect § 142.14—Records kept by States sanitary surveys or the second round of in design, operation, or maintenance, or § 142.15—Reports by States monitoring; a failure or malfunction of the sources, § 142.16—Special primacy requirements • Determination of whether each treatment, storage, or distribution A. Special State Primacy Requirements unfiltered system has a mean source system that EPA determines to be water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 To ensure that a State program causing, or has the potential for causing oocysts/L; includes all the elements necessary for • the introduction of contamination into The treatment processes or control an effective and enforceable program the water delivered to consumers. measures that each system employs to under today’s rule, a State primacy meet Cryptosporidium treatment V. State Implementation application must include a description requirements under the LT2ESWTR; of how the State will perform the This section describes the regulations this includes documentation to following: and other procedures and policies States demonstrate compliance with required (1) Approve watershed control will be required to adopt to implement design and implementation criteria for programs for the 0.5 log watershed the LT2ESWTR, if finalized as proposed receiving credit for microbial toolbox control program credit in the microbial today. States must continue to meet all options, as specified in section IV.C; toolbox (see section IV.C.2); • other conditions of primacy in 40 CFR A list of systems required to cover (2) Assess significant changes in the or treat the effluent of an uncovered Part 142. watershed and source water as part of The Safe Drinking Water Act (Act) finished water storage facilities; and the sanitary survey process and • A list of systems for which the State establishes requirements that a State or determine appropriate follow-up action has waived the requirement to cover or eligible Indian tribe must meet to (see section IV.A); treat the effluent of an uncovered assume and maintain primary (3) Determine that a system with an finished water storage facility, along enforcement responsibility (primacy) for uncovered finished water storage with supporting documentation of the its public water systems. These facility has a risk mitigation plan that is risk mitigation plan. requirements include: (1) Adopting adequate for purposes of waiving the drinking water regulations that are no requirement to cover the storage facility C. State Reporting Requirements less stringent than Federal drinking or treat the effluent (see section IV.E); EPA currently requires in § 142.15 water regulations, (2) adopting and (4) Approve protocols for removal that States report to EPA information implementing adequate procedures for credits under the Demonstration of such as violations, variance and enforcement, (3) keeping records and Performance toolbox option (see section exemption status, and enforcement making reports available on activities IV.C.17) and for site specific chlorine actions. The LT2ESWTR, as proposed, that EPA requires by regulation, (4) dioxide and ozone CT tables (see section will add additional reporting issuing variances and exemptions (if IV.C.14); and requirements in the following area: allowed by the State), under conditions (5) Approve laboratories to analyze for • The Cryptosporidium bin no less stringent than allowed under the Cryptosporidium. classification for each filtered system, Act, and (5) adopting and being capable Note that a State program can be including any changes to initial bin of implementing an adequate plan for more, but not less, stringent than classification based on review of the the provisions of safe drinking water Federal regulations. As such, some of watershed during sanitary surveys or under emergency situations. the elements listed here may not be the second round of monitoring; 40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific applicable to a specific State program. • The determination of whether each program implementation requirements For example, if a State chooses to unfiltered system has a mean source for States to obtain primacy for the require all finished water storage water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 public water supply supervision facilities to be covered or provide oocysts/L, including any changes to this program as authorized under section treatment and not to allow a risk determination based on the second 1413 of the Act. In addition to adopting mitigation plan to substitute for this round of monitoring. basic primacy requirements specified in requirement, then the description for D. Interim Primacy 40 CFR Part 142, States may be required item (3) would be inapplicable. to adopt special primacy provisions On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its pertaining to specific regulations where B. State Recordkeeping Requirements State primacy regulations at 40 CFR implementation of the rule involves The current regulations in § 142.14 142.12 to incorporate the new process activities beyond general primacy require States with primacy to keep identified in the 1996 SDWA provisions. States must include these various records, including the Amendments for granting primary regulation specific provisions in an following: Analytical results to enforcement authority to States while application for approval of their determine compliance with MCLs, their applications to modify their program revision. Primacy requirements MRDLs, and treatment technique primacy programs are under review (63 for today’s proposal are discussed requirements; system inventories; State FR 23362, April 28, 1998) (USEPA below. approvals; enforcement actions; and the 1998f). The new process grants interim

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47738 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

primary enforcement authority for a address public health risks from and risk-targeted treatment new or revised regulation during the microbial contamination of surface and requirements for systems with the period in which EPA is making a GWUDI drinking water supplies and, highest vulnerability to determination with regard to primacy more specifically, prevent Cryptosporidium following for that new or revised regulation. This Cryptosporidium from reaching implementation of the IESWTR and interim enforcement authority begins on consumers. As described in section I, LT1ESWTR. In addition, the Committee the date of the primacy application the Agency promulgated the IESWTR considered related factors such as submission or the effective date of the and LT1ESWTR to provide a baseline of surrogates for Cryptosporidium new or revised State regulation, protection against Cryptosporidium in monitoring and alternative monitoring whichever is later, and ends when EPA large and small drinking water systems, strategies to minimize costs to small makes a final determination. However, respectively. Today’s proposed rule drinking water systems. this interim primacy authority is only would achieve further reductions in After considering these general available to a State that has primacy Cryptosporidium exposure for systems approaches, the Committee focused on (including interim primacy) for every with the highest vulnerability. This four specific regulatory alternatives for existing NPDWR in effect when the new economic analysis considers only the filtered systems (see Table VI–1). With regulation is promulgated. incremental reduction in exposure from the exception of Alternative 1, which As a result, States that have primacy the two previously promulgated rules requires all systems to achieve an for every existing NPDWR already in (IESWTR and LT1ESWTR) to the additional 2 log (99%) reduction in effect may obtain interim primacy for alternatives evaluated for the Cryptosporidium levels, these this rule, beginning on the date that the LT2ESWTR. alternatives incorporate a microbial State submits the application for this Both benefits and costs are framework approach. In this approach, rule to USEPA, or the effective date of determined as annualized present systems are classified in different risk its revised regulations, whichever is values. The process allows comparison bins based on the results of source water later. In addition, a State that wishes to of cost and benefit streams that are monitoring. Additional treatment obtain interim primacy for future variable over a given time period. The requirements are directly linked to the NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this time frame used for both benefit and risk bin classification. Accordingly, rule. As described in Section IV.A, EPA cost comparisons is 25 years; these rule alternatives are differentiated expects to oversee the initial source approximately five years account for by two criteria: (1) The Cryptosporidium water monitoring that will be conducted rule implementation and 20 years for concentrations that define the bin under the LT2ESWTR by systems the average useful life of the equipment boundaries and (2) the degree of serving at least 10,000 people, beginning used to comply with treatment treatment required for each bin. 6 months following rule promulgation. technique requirements. The Agency In assessing regulatory alternatives, uses social discount rates of both three EPA and the Advisory Committee were VI. Economic Analysis percent and seven percent to calculate concerned with the following questions: This section summarizes the present values from the stream of (1) Do the treatment requirements economic analysis (EA) for the benefits and costs and also to annualize adequately control Cryptosporidium LT2ESWTR proposal. The EA is an the present value estimates (see EPA’s concentrations in finished water? (2) assessment of the benefits, both health Guidelines for Preparing Economic How many systems will be required to and non-health related, and costs to the Analyses (USEPA 2000c) for a add treatment? (3) What is the regulated community of the proposed discussion of social discount rates). The likelihood that systems with high source regulation, along with those of LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a) also water Cryptosporidium concentrations regulatory alternatives that the Agency shows the undiscounted stream of both will not be required to provide considered. EPA developed this EA to benefits and costs over the 25 year time additional treatment (i.e., be meet the requirement of SDWA section frame. misclassified in a low risk bin)? and (4) 1412(b)(3)(C) for a Health Risk What is the likelihood that systems with Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA), A. What Regulatory Alternatives Did the low source water Cryptosporidium as well as the requirements of Executive Agency Consider? concentrations will be required to Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Regulatory alternatives considered by provide unnecessary additional Review, under which EPA must Agency for the LT2ESWTR were treatment (i.e., misclassified in a high estimate the costs and benefits of the developed through the deliberations of risk bin)? LT2ESWTR. The full EA is presented in the Stage 2 M–DBP Federal Advisory The Committee reached consensus Economic Analysis for the Long Term 2 Committee (described in section II). The regarding additional treatment Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Committee considered several general requirements for unfiltered systems and (USEPA 2003a), which is available in approaches for reducing the risk from uncovered finished water storage the docket for today’s proposal Cryptosporidium in drinking water. As facilities without formally identifying (www.epa.gov.edocket/). discussed in section IV.A.2, these regulatory alternatives. Table VI–1 Today’s proposed LT2ESWTR is the approaches included both additional summarizes the four alternatives that second in a staged set of rules that treatment requirements for all systems were considered for filtered systems.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47739

TABLE VIÐ1.—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS

Additional Average source water Cryptosporidium monitoring result (oocysts/L) treatment re- quirements 1

Alternative A1 2.0 log inactivation required for all systems Alternative A2

< 0.03 ...... No action. ≥ 0.03 and < 0.1 ...... 0.5 log. ≥ 0.1 and < 1.0 ...... 1.5 log. ≥ 1.0 ...... 2.5 log.

Alternative A3—Preferred Alternative

< 0.075 ...... No action. ≥ 0.075 and < 1.0 ...... 1 log. ≥ 1.0 and < 3.0 ...... 2 log. ≥ 3.0 ...... 2.5 log.

Alternative A4

< 0.1 ...... No action. ≥ 0.1 and < 1.0 ...... 0.5-log. ≥1.0 ...... 1.0 log. 1 Note: ‘‘Additional treatment requirements’’ are in addition to levels already required under existing rules (e.g., the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR).

B. What Analyses Support Selecting the Cryptosporidium in surface water. EPA available analytical methods and Proposed Rule Option? evaluated these distributions treatment technologies. EPA has quantified benefits and costs independently when assessing benefits Incremental costs and benefits of of each of the regulatory alternatives in and costs for different regulatory regulatory alternatives for the Table VI–1, as well as for the proposed alternatives. In most cases, results from LT2ESWTR are shown in section VI.F, the ICRSSM data set are within the requirements for unfiltered systems. and the LT2ESWTR EA contains more range of results of the Information Quantified benefits stem from estimated detailed information about the benefits reductions in the incidence of Collection Rule and ICRSSL data sets. EPA selected a Preferred Regulatory and costs of each regulatory option cryptosporidiosis resulting from the (USEPA 2003a). regulation. To make these estimates, the Alternative for the LT2ESWTR, Agency developed a two-dimensional consistent with the recommendations of C. What Are the Benefits of the Monte Carlo model that accounts for the Advisory Committee. As described Proposed LT2ESWTR? uncertainty and variability in key next, this selection was based on the parameters like Cryptosporidium estimated impacts and feasibility of the As discussed previously, the occurrence, infectivity, and treatment alternatives shown in Table VI–1. LT2ESWTR is expected to substantially efficiency. Analyses involved estimating Alternative A1 (across-the-board 2-log reduce drinking water related exposure the baseline (pre-LT2ESWTR) risk from inactivation) was not selected because it to Cryptosporidium, thereby reducing Cryptosporidium in drinking water, and was the highest cost option and both illness and death associated with then projecting the reductions in imposed costs but provided few benefits cryptosporidiosis. As described in exposure and risk resulting from the to systems with high quality source section II, cryptosporidiosis is an additional treatment requirements of the water (i.e., relatively low infection caused by Cryptosporidium LT2ESWTR. Costs result largely from Cryptosporidium risk). In addition, and is an acute, typically self-limiting, the installation of additional treatment, there were concerns about the feasibility illness with symptoms that include with lesser costs due to monitoring and of requiring almost every surface water diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, other implementation activities. Results treatment plant to install additional vomiting, and fever (Juranek, 1995). treatment processes (e.g., UV or ozone) of these analyses are summarized in the Cryptosporidiosis patients in sensitive for Cryptosporidium. following subsections, and details are subpopulations, such as infants, the Alternatives A2–A4 were evaluated shown in the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA elderly, and AIDS patients, are at risk 2003a). based on several factors, including Cryptosporidium occurrence predictions of costs and benefits, for severe illness, including risk of significantly influences the estimated performance of analytical methods for death. While EPA has quantified and benefits and costs of regulatory classifying systems in the risk bins, and monetized the health benefits for alternatives. As discussed in section other specific impacts (e.g., impacts on reductions in endemic cryptosporidiosis III.C, EPA analyzed data collected under small systems or sensitive that would result from the LT2ESWTR, the Information Collection Rule, the subpopulations). Alternative A3 was the Agency was unable to quantify or Information Collection Rule recommended by the Advisory monetize other health and non-health Supplemental Surveys of medium Committee because it provides related benefits associated with this systems (ICRSSM), and the Information significant health benefits in terms of rule. These unquantified benefits are Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys avoided illnesses and deaths for an characterized next, followed by a of large systems (ICRSSL) to estimate acceptable cost. In addition, the Agency summary of the quantified benefits. the national occurrence distribution of believes this alternative is feasible with

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47740 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

1. Non-Quantifiable Health and Non- rule due to reduced rates of endemic unquantified benefits that result from health Related Benefits cryptosporidiosis, other potentially this rule are summarized in Table VI– Although there are substantial significant benefits of this rule remain 2 and are described in greater detail in monetized benefits that result from this unquantified and non-monetized. The the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a).

TABLE VIÐ2.—SUMMARY OF NONQUANTIFIED BENEFITS

Benefit type Potential effect on benefits Comments

Reducing outbreak risks and response costs ...... Increase ...... Some outbreaks are caused by human or equipment failures that may occur even with the proposed new requirements; however, by adding barriers of protec- tion for some systems, the rule will reduce the possi- bility of such failures leading to outbreaks. Reducing averting behavior (e.g., boiling tap water or Increase / No Change ...... Averting behavior is associated with both out-of-pocket purchasing bottled water). costs (e.g., purchase of bottled water) and oppor- tunity costs (e.g., time requiring to boil water) to the consumer. Reductions in averting behavior are ex- pected to have a positive impact on benefits from the rule. Improving aesthetic water quality ...... Increase ...... Some technologies installed for this rule (e.g., ozone) are likely to reduce taste quality and odor problems. Reducing risk from co-occurring and emerging patho- Increase ...... Although focused on removal of Cryptosporidium from gens. drinking water, systems that change treatment proc- esses will also increase removal of pathogens that the rule does not specifically regulate. Additional ben- efits will accrue. Increased source water monitoring ...... Increase ...... The greater understanding of source water quality that results from monitoring may enhance the ability of plants to optimize treatment operations in ways other than those addressed in this rule. Reduced contamination due to covering on treating fin- Increase ...... Although insufficient data were available to quantify ished water storage facilities. benefits, the reduction of contaminants introduced through uncovered finished water storage facilities would produce positive public health benefits. Source: Chapter 5 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

2. Quantifiable Health Benefits unfiltered and filtered systems. A first divided projected cases into three complete discussion on how EPA categories, mild, moderate, and severe, EPA quantified benefits for the derived these rates can be found in and then calculated a monetized value LT2ESWTR based on reductions in the subchapter 5.2 of the LT2ESWTR EA per case avoided for each severity level. risk of endemic cryptosporidiosis. (USEPA 2003a). These were then combined into a Several categories of monetized benefits Reductions in mortalities were weighted average value per case based were considered in this analysis. monetized using EPA’s standard on the relative frequency of each First, EPA estimated the number of methodology for monetizing mortality severity level. According to a study cases expected to result in premature risk reduction. This methodology is conducted by Corso et al. (2003), the mortality (primarily for members of based on a distribution of value of majority of illness falls into the mild sensitive subpopulations such as AIDS statistical life (VSL) estimates from 26 category (88 percent). Approximately 11 patients). In order to estimate the labor market and stated preference percent of illness falls into the moderate benefits from deaths avoided as a result studies, with a mean VSL of $6.3M in category, which is defined as those who of the rule, EPA multiplied the 2000, and a 5th to 95th percentile range seek medical treatment but are not estimates for number of illnesses of $1.0 to $14.5. A more detailed hospitalized. The final one percent have avoided by a projected mortality rate. discussion of these studies and the VSL severe symptoms that result in This mortality rate was developed using estimate can be found in EPA’s hospitalization. EPA estimated different mortality data from the Milwaukee Guidelines for Preparing Economic medical expenses and time losses for cryptosporidiosis outbreak of 1993 Analyses (USEPA 2000c). A real income each category. (described in section II), with growth factor was applied to these Benefits for non-fatal cases were adjustments to account for the estimates of approximately 2.3% per calculated using a cost-of-illness (COI) subsequent decrease in the mortality year for the 20 year time span following approach. Traditional COI valuations rate among people with AIDS and for implementation. Income elasticity for focus on medical costs and lost work the difference between the 1993 VSL was estimated as a triangular time, and leave out significant Milwaukee AIDS rate and the current distribution that ranged from 0.08 to categories of benefits, specifically the national rate. EPA estimated a mortality 1.00, with a mode of 0.40. VSL values reduced utility from being sick (i.e., lost rate of 16.6 deaths per 100,000 illnesses for the 20 year span are shown in the personal or non-work time, including for those served by unfiltered systems LT2 EA in Exhibit C.13 (USEPA 2003a). activities such as child care, and a mortality rate of 10.6 deaths per The substantial majority of cases are homemaking, community service, time 100,000 illnesses for those served by not expected to be fatal and the Agency spent with family, and recreation), filtered systems. These different rates separately estimated the value of non- although some COI studies also include are associated with the incidence of fatal illnesses avoided that would result an estimate for unpaid labor (household AIDS in populations served by from the LT2ESWTR. For these, EPA production) valued at an estimated wage

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47741

rate designed to reflect the market value cryptosporidiosis; hence, estimates from decreased enjoyment of time spent in of such labor (e.g., median wage for this literature are inappropriate for use non-work activities, and lost household domestic labor). This in this analysis. Instead, EPA presents productivity at work on days when reduced utility is variously referred to two COI estimates: a traditional workers are ill but go to work anyway. as lost leisure or a component of pain approach that only includes valuation Table VI–3 shows the various and suffering. Ideally, a comprehensive for medical costs and lost work time categories of loss and how they were willingness to pay (WTP) estimate (including some portion of unpaid would be used that includes all household production); and an valued for each estimate for a ‘‘typical’’ categories of loss in a single number. enhanced approach that also factors in case (weighted average of severity However, a review of the literature valuations for lost unpaid work time for level—see LT2ESWTR EA—Chapter 5 indicated that the available studies were employed people, reduced utility (or for more details (USEPA 2003a). not suitable for valuing sense of well-being) associated with

TABLE VIÐ3.—TRADITIONAL AND ENHANCED COI FOR CRYPTOSPORIDIOSIS

Traditional Loss category COI Enhanced COI

Direct Medical Costs ...... $93.82 $93.82 Lost Paid Work Days ...... 109.88 109.88 Lost Unpaid Work Days 1 ...... 20.22 40.44 Lost Caregiver Days 2 ...... 20.70 54.31 Lost Leisure Time 3 ...... 5 333.96 Lost Productivity at Work ...... 5 112.49 Total 4 ...... 244.62 744.89 1 Assigned to 38.2% of the population not engaged in market work; assumes 40 hr, unpaid work week, valued at $5.46/hr in traditional COI and $10.92/hr in enhanced COI. Does not include lost unpaid work for employed people and may not include all unpaid work for people outside the paid labor force. 2 Values lost work or leisure time for people caring for the ill. Traditional approach does not include lost leisure time. 3 Includes child care and homemaking (to the extent not covered in lost unpaid work days above), time with family, and recreation for people within and outside the paid labor force. 4 Detail may not calculate to totals due to independent rounding; Source: Appendix L in LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a). 5 Not included.

The various loss categories were In the enhanced COI estimate, all time in the traditional approach. In addition, calculated as follows: Medical costs are other than paid work and sleep (8 hours for days when an individual is well a weighted average across the three per day) is valued at the median after enough to work but still experiencing illness severity levels of actual costs for tax wage, or $10.92 per hour. This symptoms, such as diarrhea, the doctor and emergency room visits, includes lost unpaid work (e.g., enhanced estimate also includes a 30% medication, and hospital stays. Lost household production) and leisure time loss of work and leisure productivity, paid work represents missed work time for people within and outside the paid based on a study of giardiasis illness of paid employees, valued at the median labor force. Implicit in this approach, is (Harrington et al. 1985) which is similar pre-tax wage, plus benefits of $18.47 that people would pay the same amount to cryptosporidiosis. Appendix P in the hour. The average number of lost work not to be sick during their leisure time EA describes similar productivity losses hours per case is 5.95 (this assumes that as they require to give up their leisure for other illnesses such as influenza 62 percent of the population is in the time to work (i.e., the after tax wage). In (35%–73% productivity losses). In the paid labor force and the loss is averaged reality, people might be willing to pay traditional COI analysis, productivity over seven days). Medical costs and lost either more than this amount (if they losses are not included for either work work days reflect market transactions. were very sick and suffering a lot) or or non-work time. Medical costs are always included in less than this amount (if they were not The Agency believes that losses in COI estimates and lost work days are very sick and still got some enjoyment productivity and lost leisure time are usually included in COI estimates. out of activities such as resting, reading unquestionably present and that these In the traditional COI estimate, an and watching TV), not to be sick. categories have positive value; equivalent amount of lost unpaid work Multiplying 16 hours by $10.92 gives a consequently, the traditional COI time was assigned to the 38% of the value of about $175.00 for a day of estimate understates the true value of population that are not in the paid labor ‘‘lost’’ unpaid work and leisure (i.e., lost these loss categories. EPA notes that force. This includes homemakers, utility of being sick). these estimates should not be regarded students, children, retires, and An estimate of lost unpaid work days as upper and lower bounds. In unemployed persons. EPA did not for the enhanced approach was made by particular, the enhanced COI estimate attempt to calculate what percent of assigning the value of $10.92 per hour may not fully incorporate the value of cases falls in each of these five groups, to the same number of unpaid work pain and suffering, as people may be or how many hours per week each hours valued in the traditional COI willing to pay more than $201 to avoid group works, but rather assumed an approach (i.e., 40 unpaid work hours a day of illness. The traditional COI across-the-board 40 hour unpaid work per week for people outside the paid estimate includes a valuation for a lost week. This time is valued at $5.46 per labor force). Lost unpaid work for 40 hour work week for all persons not hour, which is one half the median post- employed people and any unpaid labor in the labor force, including children tax wage, (since work performed by beyond 40 hours per week for those not and retirees. This may be an these groups is not taxed). This is in the labor market is shown as lost overstatement of lost productivity for approximately the median wage for paid leisure time in Table VI–3 for the these groups, which would depend on household domestic labor. enhanced approach and is not included the impact of such things as missed

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47742 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

school work or volunteer activities that and $59,749 in 2027. Correspondingly, period of implementation; the change in may be affected by illness. the real income growth factor of the COI valuation is due to the underlying As with the avoided mortality estimates increases by the equivalent of change in projected real wages. valuation, the real wages used in the 2.3% per year (except for medical costs, Table VI–4 summarizes the annual COI estimates were increased by a real which are not directly tied to wages). cases of cryptosporidiosis illness and income growth factor that varies by This approach gives a total COI associated deaths avoided due to the year, but is the equivalent of about 2.3% valuation in 2008 of $268.92 for the over the 20 year period. This approach traditional COI estimate and $931.06 for LT2ESWTR proposal. The proposed of adjusting for real income growth was the enhanced COI estimate; the rule, on average, is expected to reduce recommended by the SAB (USEPA valuation in 2027 is $362.75 for the 256,000 to 1,019,000 illnesses and 37 to 2000e) because the median real wage is traditional COI estimate and $1,429.99 141 deaths annually after full expected to grow each year (by for the enhanced COI estimate. There is implementation (range based on the approximately 2.3%)—the median real no difference in the methodology for ICRSSL, ICRSSM, and Information wage is projected to be $38,902 in 2008 calculating the COI over this 20 year Collection Rule data sets).

TABLE VIÐ4.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AVOIDED ILLNESS AND DEATHS

Annual illinesses avoided Annual deaths avoided 90 percent confidence 90 percent confidence Data set bound bound Mean Mean Lower Upper Lower Upper (5th %ile) (95th %ile) (5th %ile) (95th %ile)

Annual Total After Full Implementation

ICR ...... 1,018,915 169,358 2,331,467 141 25 308 ICRSSL ...... 256,173 45,292 560,648 37 7 78 ICRSSM ...... 498,363 84,724 1,177,415 70 13 157

Annual Average Over 25 years

ICR ...... 720,668 119,694 1,647,796 100 18 218 ICRSSL ...... 181,387 32,179 396,845 26 5 55 ICRSSM ...... 352,611 59,942 833,290 50 9 111 Source: The LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

Tables VI–5a and VI–5b show the confidence bound of $52 million to percent confidence bound of $27 monetized present value of the benefit $198 million at the lower 5th percentile million to $105 million at the lower 5th for reductions in endemic and $959 million to $3.7 billion at the percentile and $713 million to $2.7 cryptosporidiosis estimated to result upper 95th percentile; at a seven billion at the upper 95th percentile; for from the LT2ESWTR for the enhanced percent discount rate, this estimate a seven percent discount rate, this and traditional COI values, respectively. ranges from $318 million to $1.2 billion, estimate ranges from $216 million to Estimates are given for the Information with a 90 percent confidence bound of $826 million, with a 90 percent Collection Rule, ICRSSL, and ICRSSM $44 million to $168 million at the lower confidence bound of $23 million to $89 occurrence data sets. 5th percentile and $816 million to $3.1 million at the lower 5th percentile and With the enhanced COI and a three billion at the upper 95th percentile. $610 million to $2.3 billion at the upper percent discount rate, the annual With the traditional COI, the 95th percentile. None of these values present value of the mean benefit corresponding benefit estimate at a three include the unquantified and non- estimate ranges from $374 million to percent discount rate ranges from $253 monetized benefits discussed $1.4 billion, with a 90 percent million to $967 million, with a 90 previously.

TABLE VIÐ5A.—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED BENEFITS—ENHANCED COI [$millions, 2000$]

Value of benefits—Enhanced COI 1 90 percent confidence bound Data set Mean Lower Upper (5th %ile) (95th %ile)

Annualized Value (at 3%, 25 Years)

ICR ...... $1,445 $198 3,666 ICRSSL ...... 374 52 959 ICRSSM ...... 715 96 1,849

Annualized Value (at 7%, 25 Years)

ICR ...... 1,230 168 3,120

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47743

TABLE VIÐ5A.—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED BENEFITS—ENHANCED COI—Continued [$millions, 2000$]

Value of benefits—Enhanced COI 1 90 percent confidence bound Data set Mean Lower Upper (5th %ile) (95th %ile)

ICRSSL ...... 318 44 816 ICRSSM ...... 609 81 1,577 1 The traditional COI only includes valuation for medical costs and lost work time (including some portion of unpaid household production). The enhanced COI also factors in valuations for lost personal time (non-worktime) such as child care and homemaking (to the extent not covered by the traditional COI), time with family, and recreation, and lost productivity at work on days when workers are ill but go to work anyway. Source: The LT2ESWR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

TABLE VIÐ5B.—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED BENEFITS—TRADITIONAL COI [($Millions, 2000$]

Value of Benefits—Traditional COI 1

Data Set 90 percent con- fidence bound Mean Lower Upper (5th %ile) 95th %ile)

Annualized Value (at 3%, 25 Years)

ICR ...... $967 $105 $2,713 ICRSSL ...... 253 27 713 ICRSSM ...... 481 50 1,372

Annualized Value (at 7%, 25 Years)

ICR ...... 826 89 2,315 ICRSSL ...... 216 23 610 ICRSSM ...... 411 43 1,172 1 The traditional COI only includes valuation for medical costs and lost work time (including some portion of unpaid household production). The enhanced COI also factors in valuations for lost personal time (non-worktime) such as child care and homemaking (to the extent not covered by the traditional COI), time with family, and recreation, and lost productivity at work on days when workers are ill but go to work anyway. Source: The LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

a. Filtered systems. Benefits to the ICRSSL and ICRSSM data sets by D. What Are the Costs of the Proposed approximately 161 million people multiplying the Information Collection LT2ESWTR? served by filtered surface water and Rule unfiltered system result by the GWUDI systems range from 88,000 to ratio, for the quantity estimated, In order to estimate the costs of 472,000 reduction in mean annual cases between filtered system results from the today’s proposed rule, the Agency of endemic illness based on ICRSSL, supplemental survey data set (SSM or considered impacts on public water ICRSSM, and ICR data sets. In addition, SSL) and filtered system results from systems and on States (including premature mortality is expected to be the Information Collection Rule. territories and EPA implementation in reduced by an average of 9 to 50 deaths non-primacy States). EPA assumed that annually. 3. Timing of Benefits Accrual (Latency) systems would be in compliance with the IESWTR, which has a compliance b. Unfiltered systems. The 12 million In previous rulemakings, some date of January 2002 for large systems people served by unfiltered surface commenters have argued that the and the LT1ESWTR, which has a water or GWUDI systems will see a Agency should consider an assumed compliance date of January 2005 for significant reduction in time lag or latency period in its benefits cryptosporidiosis as a result of the small systems. Therefore, this cost calculations. The Agency has not LT2ESWTR. In this population, the rule estimate only considers the additional conducted a latency analysis for this is expected to reduce approximately requirements that are a direct result of rule because cryptosporidiosis is an 168,000 to 547,000 cases of illness and the LT2ESWTR. More detailed acute illness; therefore, very little time 28 to 91 premature deaths annually. information on cost estimates are elapses between exposure, illness, and described next and a complete For unfiltered systems, only the mortality. However, EPA does account discussion can be found in chapter 6 of Information Collection Rule data set is for benefits and costs that occur in used to directly calculate illness the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a). An future years by converting these to reduction because it is the only data set detailed discussion of the proposed rule present value estimates. that includes sufficient information on provisions is located in section IV of unfiltered systems. Illness reduction in this preamble. unfiltered systems was estimated for the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47744 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

1. Total Annualized Present Value Costs bin classifications and, thus, impacts out by rule component. A comparison of Tables VI–6a and VI–6b summarize the cost of the rule. Results for the annualized present value costs among the annualized present value cost ICRSSM fall within the range of results the rule alternatives considered by the estimates for the proposed LT2ESWTR for the Information Collection Rule and Agency is located in subsection VI.F. at three percent and seven percent ICRSSL. In addition to mean estimates and in the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA discount rates, respectively. The mean of costs, the Agency calculated 90 2003a). Using a present value allows annualized present value costs of the percent confidence bounds by costs and benefits that occur during proposed LT2ESWTR are estimated to considering the uncertainty in different time periods to be compared. range from approximately $73 to $111 Cryptosporidium occurrence estimates For any future cost, the higher the million using a three percent discount and around the mean unit technology discount rate, the lower the present rate and $81 to $121 million using a costs (USEPA 2003a). value. Specifically, a future cost seven percent discount rate. This range Public water systems will incur evaluated at a seven percent discount in mean cost estimates is associated approximately 99 percent of the rule’s rate will always result in a lower total with the ICRSSL and Information total annualized present value costs. present value cost than the same future Collection Rule Cryptosporidium States incur the remaining rule costs. cost evaluated at a three percent occurrence data sets. Using different Table VI–7 shows the undiscounted discount rate. occurrence data sets results in different initial capital and one-time costs broken BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47745

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.012 47746 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.013 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47747

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.014 47748 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C approximately $73 to $111 million subject to the LT2ESWTR (including 2. Water System Costs using a three percent discount rate ($81 filtered and unfiltered systems) will to $121 million using a seven percent incur one-time costs that include time The proposed LT2ESWTR applies to discount rates). for staff training on rule requirements. all community, non-transient non- The majority of costs of the rule result Systems will incur monitoring costs to community, and transient non- from treatment changes incurred by assess source water Cryptosporidium community water systems that use filtered and unfiltered systems. Table levels, though monitoring requirements surface water or GWUDI as a source VI–8 shows the number of filtered and vary by system size (large vs. small) and (including both filtered and unfiltered unfiltered systems that will incur costs system type (filtered vs. unfiltered). A systems). EPA has estimated the cost by rule provision. Subsection VI.D.2.b discussion of future monitoring that will impacts for these three types of public discusses treatment costs for filtered drinking water systems. As shown in system and subsection VI.D.2.c occur six years after initial bin Table VI–6a and VI–6b, the mean discusses treatment options for assignments can be found in subsection annualized present value costs for all unfiltered systems. All non-purchased VI.D.2.e. drinking water systems range from surface water and GWUDI systems BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C measurement. Thus, EPA assumes that equal to the percent of large plants that a. Source water monitoring costs. the incremental turbidity monitoring would fall into any bin requiring Source water monitoring costs are burden associated with the LT2ESWTR additional treatment. structured on a per-plant basis. Also, as is negligible. Estimates of laboratory fees, shipping with implementation activities, Filtered plants in small systems costs, labor hours for sample collection, purchased plants are assumed not to initially will be required to conduct one and hours for reporting results were treat source water and will not have any year of biweekly E. coli source water used to predict system costs for initial monitoring costs. There are three types monitoring. These plants will be source water monitoring under the of monitoring that plants may be required to monitor for Cryptosporidium LT2ESWTR. Table VI–9 summarizes the required to conduct—turbidity, E. coli if, as a result of initial bin classification, present value of monitoring costs for and Cryptosporidium. Source water E. coli levels exceed the following initial bin classification. Total present turbidity is a common water quality concentrations: (1) Annual mean > 10 E. value monitoring costs for initial bin parameter used for plant operational coli/100 mL for lakes and reservoir classification range from $46 million to control. Also, to meet SWTR, sources, and (2) annual mean > 50 E. $60 million depending on the LT1ESWTR and IESWTR requirements, coli/100 mL for flowing stream sources. occurrence data set and discount rate. most water systems have turbidity EPA estimated the percent of small Appendix D of the LT2ESWTR EA analytical equipment in-house and plants that would be triggered into provides a full explanation of how these operators are experienced with turbidity Cryptosporidium monitoring as being costs were developed (USEPA 2003a).

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.015 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47749

TABLE VIÐ9.—SUMMARY OF PRESENT VALUE MONITORING COSTS FOR INITIAL BIN CLASSIFICATION ($millions, 2000$)

ICR (3%) ICR (7%) ICRSSL (3%) ICRSSL (7%) ICRSSM (3%) ICRSSM (7%) System Size A B C D E F

≤10K ...... $34.6 $29.7 $25.7 $22.2 $29.2 $25.1 10K ...... 25.7 24.3 25.7 24.3 25.7 24.3

Total ...... 60.3 54.0 51.4 46.5 54.9 49.4 Source: Chapter 6 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

b. Filtered systems treatment costs. number of plants that must make percentages, which recognize that some The Agency calculated treatment costs treatment changes to meet the proposed plants will not be able to implement by estimating the number of plants that LT2ESWTR requirement was certain technologies because of site- will be adding treatment technologies determined by the binning process. specific conditions. In addition, certain and coupling these estimates with unit Second, EPA predicted the treatment potentially lower cost components of costs ($/plant) of the selected technologies that plants would choose the microbial toolbox, such as changes technologies. Table VI–10 shows the to meet the proposed requirements. The to the plant intake, were not included number of plants estimated to select Agency used a ‘‘least-cost decision tree’’ because the Agency lacked data to different treatment technologies; Table as the basic framework for determining estimate the number of plants that could VI–11 summarizes the present value the treatment technology selection. In select it. These limitations on treatment costs and annualized present other words, EPA assumed that drinking technology use may result in an value costs for both filtered and water plants would select the least overestimate of costs. An in-depth unfiltered systems. expensive technology or combination of discussion of the technology selection To estimate the number of filtered technologies to meet the log removal methodology and unit cost estimates plants that would select a particular requirements of a given action bin. can be found in appendices E and F of treatment technology, the Agency However, these technology selections the proposed LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA followed a two step process. First, the were constrained by maximum use 2003a).

TABLE VIÐ10.—TECHNOLOGY SELECTION FORECASTS FOR FILTERED PLANTS

Data set ICR ICRSSL ICRSSM

Technology Selections Bag Filter 1.0 Log ...... 1,545 1,236 1,441 Cartridge Filter 2.0 Log ...... 190 17 52 CL02 0.5 Log ...... 77 60 70 Combined Filter Performance 0.5 Log ...... 16 12 14 In-bank Filtration 1.0 Log ...... 5 3 4 MF/UF 2.5 Log ...... 10 3 5 Technology Selections 1 03 0.5 Log ...... 26 17 21 03 1.0 Log ...... 24 18 21 03 2.0 Log ...... 9 1 2 Secondary Filter 1.0 Log ...... 0 0 0 UV 2.5 Log ...... 998 490 632 WS Control 0.5 Log ...... 0 0 0 Total Plants Selecting Technologies ...... 2,893 1,852 2,255 1 Some plants are projected to select more than one technology to meet LT2ESWTR bin requirements; consequently, the value for total plants does not equal the sum of all technologies selected. Source: Chapter 6 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

c. Unfiltered systems treatment costs. systems, EPA estimated that a small assumes that no unfiltered systems The proposed LT2ESWTR requires all percentage of plants would elect to currently use these additional treatment unfiltered plants to achieve 2 logs of install a technology more expensive technologies. For this cost analysis, the inactivation if their mean source water than UV due to the configuration of Agency assumed 100 percent of very Cryptosporidium concentration is less existing equipment or other factors. small unfiltered systems will use UV; than or equal to 0.01 oocysts/L and 3 Ozone is the next least expensive for all other unfiltered system sizes, the logs of inactivation if it is greater than technology that will meet the Agency estimated that 90 percent would 0.01 oocysts/L. For most systems, UV inactivation requirements for some install UV and 10 percent would add appears to be the least expensive systems, and is estimated to be used by ozone. This analysis is discussed in technology that can achieve the required plants that do not use UV. more detail in the LT2ESWTR EA log inactivation of Cryptosporidium, All unfiltered plants must meet (USEPA 2003a). Treatment costs for and it is expected to be widely used by requirements of the LT2ESWTR; unfiltered systems are included in Table unfiltered systems to meet the rule therefore, the percent of plants adding VI–11. requirement. However, as with filtered technology is 100 percent. This also

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47750 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VIÐ11.—TOTAL PRESENT VALUE AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE TREATMENT COSTS FOR FILTERED AND UNFILTERED PLANTS

Present Present System Size Value Cap- Value Cap- Annualized Annualized Total Total Data Set (population ital Costs at ital Costs at O&M Costs O&M Costs Annuallized Annualized served) 3% 7% at 3% at 7% Costs at 3% Costs at 7% A B C D E F

ICR ...... ≤10,000 $76.1 $56.0 $5.2 $4.3 $9.6 $9.1 >10,000 1,092.4 868.0 26.1 22.7 88.8 97.1 TOTAL ...... 1,168.5 924.0 31.3 26.9 98.4 106.2

ICRSSL ...... ≤10,000 42.8 31.5 2.9 2.4 5.3 5.1 >10,000 707.1 561.8 16.2 14.0 56.8 62.3 TOTAL ...... 749.8 593.3 19.0 16.4 62.1 67.3

ICRSSM ...... ≤10,000 52.6 38.7 3.5 2.9 6.6 6.2 >10,000 842.4 669.3 19.4 16.9 67.8 74.3 TOTAL ...... 894.9 708.0 23.0 19.8 74.4 80.6

Source: Chapter 6 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a)

d. Uncovered finished water storage used in this analysis is presented in least expensive alternative for the facilities. As part of the LT2ESWTR, Chapter 6 and Appendix I of the remaining systems, the ability of a systems with uncovered finished water LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a). system to use booster chlorination storage facilities have the option to The Agency assumed that all systems depends on their current residual cover the storage facility or provide with uncovered finished water storage disinfectant type. Less than half of all disinfection after the storage facility, facilities will have to either install a surface water systems are predicted to unless the State has determined that cover or treat their discharge. This use chloramination following existing risk mitigation is adequate. overestimates the cost of this provision implementation of the Stage 2 DBPR. because States can determine that Disinfection alternatives must achieve at Adding chlorine to water that has been systems with uncovered finished storage least four logs of virus inactivation. To treated with chloramines is not a facilities do not need to take these develop national cost estimates for additional measures. The technology feasible alternative; therefore, the systems to comply with this provision selection for the uncovered finished fraction of systems projected to add of the LT2ESWTR, unit costs for each water storage facilities was developed booster chlorination to the effluent from treatment alternative and the percentage through a least-cost approach. the storage facility was estimated at 50 of systems selecting each alternative For systems with uncovered storage percent, with the remaining 50 percent were estimated for the inventory of facility capacities of five million gallons estimated to add covers. The technology systems with uncovered finished water (MG) or less, covering the storage selection for uncovered finished water storage facilities. A full description of facilities is the least expensive storage facilities is presented in Table the unit costs and other assumptions alternative. Although chlorination is the VI–12.

TABLE VIÐ12.—ESTIMATED TECHNOLOGY SELECTION FOR UNCOVERED STORAGE FACILITIES

Floating Booster Size category (MG) Number of uncovered cover chlorination storage facilities (%) (%)

0Ð0.1 ...... 25 100 ...... 0.1Ð1 ...... 7 100 ...... >1Ð5 ...... 44 100 ...... >5Ð10 ...... 12 100 ...... >10Ð20 ...... 10 100 ...... >20Ð40 ...... 9 50 50 >40Ð60 ...... 4 50 50 >60Ð80 ...... 4 50 50 >80Ð100 ...... 6 50 50 >100Ð150 ...... 6 50 50 >150Ð200 ...... 2 50 50 >200Ð250 ...... 4 50 50 >250Ð1,000 ...... 4 50 50 >1,000 ...... 1 50 50 Source: Appendix I of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a)

Table VI–13 summarizes total discount rates. The Agency estimates approximately $5.4 million at a three annualized present value costs for the the total annualized present value cost percent discount rate and $6.4 million uncovered storage facility provision for covering or treating uncovered at a seven percent discount rate. using both three and seven percent finished water storage facilities to be

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47751

TABLE VIÐ13.—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE COST FOR UNCOVERED FINISHED WATER STORAGE FACILITY PROVISION (2000$)

Annualized cost at 3% Annualized cost at 7% System size (population served) Capital O&M Total Capital O&M Total

≤10,000 ...... $3,520 $1,649 $5,169 $4,713 $1,552 $6,264 >10,000 ...... 3,349,320 2,046,425 5,395,745 4,483,927 1,925,203 6,409,129

Total ...... 3,352,840 2,048,074 5,400,915 4,488,639 1,926,754 6,415,393 Source: Appendix I of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a)

e. Future monitoring costs. Six years information, it was assumed that the monitoring in the table). EPA estimates after initial bin classification, filtered laboratory costs would be the same as the cost of re-binning will range from and unfiltered plants will be required to for the initial monitoring. $23 million to $38 million depending conduct a second round of monitoring All plants that conducted initial on the occurrence data set and discount to assess whether source water monitoring were assumed to conduct rate used in the estimate (see Table VI– Cryptosporidium levels have changed the second round of monitoring as well, 14). Costs differ among Cryptosporidium significantly. EPA will evaluate new except for those systems that installed occurrence data sets due to differences analytical methods and surrogate treatment that reduces 2.5 logs of in estimates of the number of plants that indicators of microbial water quality in Cryptosporidium or greater as a result of will add technologies to achieve at least the interim. While the costs of the rule. These systems are exempt from 2.5 log Cryptosporidium reduction and monitoring are likely to change in the monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. Table the number of small plants that will be six years following rule promulgation, it VI–8 shows the number of systems that triggered into monitoring for is difficult to predict how they will are estimated to conduct the second Cryptosporidium. Appendix D of the EA change. In the absence of any other round of monitoring (listed as ‘‘future’’ provides further details (USEPA 2003a).

TABLE VIÐ14.—PRESENT VALUE OF MONITORING COSTS OF FUTURE RE-BINNING [$millions, 2000$]

ICR ICR ICRSSL ICRSSL ICRSSM ICRSSM System size (3%) (7%) (3%) (7%) (3%) (7%) A B C D E F

≤10K ...... $23.5 $14.3 $18.4 $11.3 $20.7 $12.6 >10k ...... 14.4 9.8 16.4 11.2 15.6 10.7 Total ...... 37.8 24.1 34.8 22.5 36.3 23.3 Source: Chapter 6 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a)

f. Sensitivity analysis—influent $1.0 million using a three percent States will assume primacy for small bromide levels on technology selection discount rate and $1.2 million at seven system monitoring. In addition, States for filtered plants. One concern about percent. State implementation activities will review of the second round of the ICR data set was that it may not include regulation adoption and monitoring results. States will also incur actually reflect influent bromide levels program implementation, training State costs in reviewing technology in some plants during droughts. High staff, training PWS staff, providing compliance data and consulting with influent bromide levels (the precursor technical assistance to PWSs, and systems regarding benchmarking for for bromate formation) limits ozone use updating the management system. To systems that change their disinfection because the plant would not be able to estimate implementation costs to States/ procedures to comply with the rule. meet the MCL for bromate. The Agency Primacy Agencies, the number of full- Appendix D of the LT2ESWTR EA conducted a sensitivity analysis to time employees (FTEs) per activity is provides more information about the estimate an impact of higher influent multiplied by the number of labor hours State and primacy agency cost analysis bromide levels would have on per FTE, the cost per labor hour, and the (USEPA 2003a). technology decisions. The sensitivity number of States and Territories. 4. Non-Quantified Costs analysis assumes influent bromide In addition to implementation costs, concentrations of 50 parts per billion States and primacy agencies will also EPA has quantified all the major costs (ppb) above the ICR concentrations. incur costs associated with monitoring for this rule and has provided Overall, the impact of these data management. Because EPA will uncertainty analyses to bound the over assumptions have a minimal impact on directly manage the first round of or underestimates in the costs. There are costs. A complete discussion of this monitoring by large systems (serving at some costs that EPA has not quantified, sensitivity analysis is located in least 10,000 people), States are not however, because of lack of data. For LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a). predicted to incur costs for these example, some systems may merge with activities. States will, however, incur neighboring systems to comply with this 3. State/Primacy Agency Costs costs associated with small system rule. Such changes have both costs The Agency estimates that States and monitoring. This is a result of the (legal fees and connecting primacy agencies will incur an delayed start of small system infrastructure) and benefits (economies annualized present value cost of $0.9 to monitoring, which will mean that some of scale). Likewise, systems would incur

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47752 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

costs for procuring a new source of storage facilities. Costs for small systems EPA estimates that all households water that may result in lower overall Cryptosporidium monitoring, additional served by surface and GWUDI sources treatment costs. Cryptosporidium treatment, and will face some increase in household In addition, the Agency was unable to uncovered finished water storage costs due to implementation of the predict the usage or estimate the costs facilities are assigned only to the subset LT2ESWTR (except for those few served of several toolbox options. These of systems expected to incur them. by systems that have already installed options include intake management and Although implementation and 5.5 logs of treatment for demonstrations of performance. They monitoring represent relatively small, Cryptosporidium). Of all the households have not been included in the one-time costs, they have been included subject to the rule, from 24 to 35 percent quantified analysis because data are not in the analysis to provide a complete are projected to incur costs for adding available to estimate the number of distribution of the potential household treatment, depending on the systems that may use these toolbox cost. A detailed description of the Cryptosporidium occurrence data set options to comply with the LT2ESWTR. derivation of household costs is in used. Not including these generally low-cost section 6.10 and Appendix J of the Approximately 95 percent of the options may result in overestimation of LT2ESTWR EA (USEPA 2003a). households potentially subject to the costs. For purchased systems that are linked to larger nonpurchased systems, the rule are served by systems serving at E. What Are the Household Costs of the households costs are calculated based least 10,000 people; these systems Proposed Rule? on the unit costs of the larger system but experience the lowest increases in costs Another way to assess a rule’s impact included in the distribution from the due to significant economies of scale. is to consider how it might impact size category of the purchased system. Over 90 percent of all households will residential water bills. This analysis Households costs for these purchased face an annual cost increase of less than considers the potential increase in a systems are based on the household $5. Households served by small systems household’s water bill if a CWS passed usage rates appropriate for the retail that install advanced technologies will the entire cost increase resulting from system and not the system selling the face the greatest increases in annual this rule on to its customers. It is a tool water. This approach for the purchased costs. EPA expects that the model’s to gauge potential impacts and should systems reflects the fact that although projections for these systems are, in not be construed as precise estimates of they will not face increased costs from some cases, overstated. Some systems potential changes to individual water adding their own treatment, whatever are likely to find alternative treatment bills. costs the wholesale utility incurs would techniques such as other toolbox Included in this analysis are all CWS likely be passed on as higher water options not included in this analysis, or costs, including rule implementation, costs. sources of water (ground water, initial and future monitoring for bin Table VI–15 shows the results of the purchased water, or consolidating with classification, additional household cost analysis. In addition to another system) that would be less Cryptosporidium treatment, and treating mean and median estimates, the Agency costly than installing more expensive or covering uncovered finished water calculated the 90th and 95th percentile. treatment techniques.

TABLE VIÐ15.—POTENTIAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD COSTS IMPACTS FOR THE PREFERRED REGULATORY OPTION (2000$)

Percent of Percent of systems with systems with System: type/size Households Mean Median 90th 95th household household Percentile Percentile cost increase cost increase < $12 < $120

All Systems—ICR

All CWS ...... 65,816,979 $1.68 $0.13 $4.06 $7.57 98.37 99.99 CWS ≤ 10,000 ...... 3,318,012 4.61 1.34 13.04 14.92 87.88 99.88

All Systems—ICRSSL

All CWS ...... 65,816,979 $1.07 $0.03 $3.24 $5.43 98.31 100.00 CWS ≤ 10,000 ...... 3,318,012 2.68 0.80 6.10 9.39 95.71 99.95

All Systems—ICRSSM

All CWS ...... 65,816,979 $1.28 $0.03 $3.48 $6.47 99.07 100.00 CWS ≤ 10,000 ...... 3,318,012 3.27 0.80 6.62 13.04 93.90 99.93 Source: Chapter 6 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

F. What Are the Incremental Costs and regulatory options considered by the analyses should consider both Benefits of the Proposed LT2ESWTR? Agency. Generally, the goal of an quantified and non-quantified (where Incremental costs and benefits are incremental analysis is to identify the possible) benefits and costs. those that are incurred or realized in regulatory option where incremental Usually an incremental analysis reducing Cryptosporidium exposures benefits most closely equal incremental implies increasing levels of stringency from one alternative to the next. costs. However, the usefulness of this along a single parameter, with each Estimates of incremental costs and analysis is limited because many alternative providing all the protection benefits are useful in considering the benefits from this rule are unquantified of the previous alternative, plus economic efficiency of different and not monetized. Incremental additional protection. However, the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47753

regulatory alternatives in this rule vary benefits from the baseline and With the enhanced COI, incremental by multiple parameters (e.g, risk bin alternative to alternative. Tables VI–16a costs are generally closest to boundaries, treatment requirements). and VI–16b show incremental costs, incremental benefits for A2, a more The comparison between any two benefits, and net benefits for the four stringent alternative than the Preferred alternatives is, therefore, between two regulatory alternatives shown in Table Alternative, A3. For the traditional COI, separate sets of benefits, in the sense VI–1, using the enhanced and incremental costs most closely equal that they may be distributed to traditional COI, respectively. All values incremental benefits for A3, the somewhat different population groups. are annualized present values expressed Preferred Alternative, under the The regulatory alternatives, however, in Year 2000 dollars. The displayed majority of conditions evaluated. do achieve increasing levels of benefits values are the mean estimates for the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P at increasing levels of costs. As a result, different occurrence distributions. it is possible to display incremental net

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.016 47754 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C Cryptosporidium, the LT2ESWTR is viruses. Chemical contaminants such as G. Are There Benefits From the expected to reduce exposure to other arsenic, DBPs and atrazine may also be Reduction of Co-Occurring parasitic protozoans that EPA regulates, controlled, in part, by control of Contaminants? or is considering for future regulation. Cryptosporidium, depending on the This section presents information on For example, it is expected that the technologies selected. the unquantified benefits that will LT2ESWTR will improve control of Giardia lamblia and Cyclospora sp. accrue from removal of other Giardia lamblia, Cyclospora sp. and are larger than Cryptosporidium, while contaminants, primarily pathogens, due members of the Microsporididea class, Microsporididea, bacteria, and the to improved control of seven genera (10 species) of which have viruses are smaller than Cryptosporidium. While the benefits been recovered in humans (Mota et al., Cryptosporidium. The expected removal analysis for the LT2ESWTR only 2000). In addition, greater of co-occurring microorganisms can includes reductions in illness and Cryptosporidium control may improve often be predicted for those treatment mortality attributable to control of the pathogenic bacteria and unit processes whose removal efficiency

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.017 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47755

depends in part, or entirely, on the size DBPR, and systems will have to comply uncertainty is associated with of the organism. For example, a study by with these regulations when estimating finished water occurrence Goodrich and Lykins (1995) evaluating implementing technologies to meet the because the analysis is based on bag filters showed that any microbe or LT2ESWTR. assumptions about treatment plant object greater than 4.5 microns in size performance. To account for these I. What Are The Effects of the (the average size of Cryptosporidium) uncertainties, the Agency used Monte Contaminant on the General Population would be subject to removal ranging Carlo simulation models that allow and Groups Within the General from 0.5 to 2.0 logs. substantial variation in each estimate Populations That Are Identified as Although not directly dependent on and computed finished water Likely To Be at Greater Risk of Adverse organism size, other treatment occurrence values based on statistical Health Effects? technologies identified in the sampling of the variable estimates. LT2ESWTR should also provide Section II of this preamble discusses The risk associated with finished additional control of co-occurring the health effects associated with water occurrence is of lesser uncertainty microbial pathogens. Membrane Cryptosporidium on the general than is typical for many contaminants processes that remove Cryptosporidium population as well as the effects on because the health effects are measured are shown to achieve equivalent log other sensitive sub-populations. In based on Cryptosporidium challenge removal of Giardia under worst-case and addition, health effects associated with studies to human volunteer populations. normal operating conditions (USEPA children and pregnant women are Nevertheless, there is significant 2003c). Reduction in individual filter discussed in greater detail in section uncertainty about the dose-response turbidities will reduce concentrations of VII.G of this preamble. associated with Cryptosporidium other pathogens as well as J. What Are the Uncertainties in the because there exists considerable Cryptosporidium. For example, in Dutch Baseline, Risk, Benefit, and Cost differences in infectivity among the surface water, Giardia and Estimates for the Proposed LT2ESWTR various tested Cryptosporidium parvum Cryptosporidium occurrence appeared as Well as the Quality and Extent of the isolates. As described in section III.B, to correlate well with each other and for Information? the Agency accounted for these the Rhine River, with turbidity differences using Monte Carlo (Medema et al. 2001). Thus, improved Today’s proposal models the current simulations that randomly sampled control of Cryptosporidium should also baseline risk from Cryptosporidium from infectivity distributions for the result in improved control of Giardia exposure, as well as the reduction in three tested isolates. The different lamblia. risk and the cost for various rule simulations were designed to account Some membrane technologies that options. There is uncertainty in the risk for the limited number of challenge might be installed to comply with the calculation, the benefit estimate, the studies and the variability in the LT2ESWTR can also reduce or eliminate cost estimates, and the interaction of infectivity of the isolates themselves. In chemical contaminants including other upcoming rules. Section IV of the addition, because the Cryptosporidium arsenic, DBPs and atrazine. EPA has proposed rule considers the uncertainty dosing levels in the human feeding recently finalized a rule to further with the risk estimates; however, a brief studies were above typical drinking control arsenic levels in drinking water summary of the major risk uncertainties water exposure levels (e.g., one oocyst), and is concurrently proposing the Stage as they relate to benefit estimation is there remains significant uncertainty 2 DBPR to address DBP control. provided next. In addition, the that could not be quantified into the The extent to which the LT2ESWTR LT2ESWTR EA has a more extensive analysis. can reduce the overall risk from other discussion of all of the uncertainties While all of the significant costs of contaminants has not been (USEPA 2003a). today’s proposed rule have been quantitatively evaluated because of the In addition, the Agency conducted identified by EPA, there are Agency’s lack of data regarding the co- sensitivity analyses to address uncertainties about some of the occurrence among Cryptosporidium and uncertainty. The sensitivity analyses estimates. However, the Agency other microbial pathogens and focus on various occurrence, benefit and explored the impact of the uncertainties contaminants. Because of the difficulties cost factors that may have a significant that might have the greatest impact by in establishing which systems would effect on the estimated impacts of the conducting sensitivity analyses and have multiple problems, such as rule. All of these sensitivity analyses are using Monte Carlo techniques. For microbial contamination, arsenic, and explained in more detail in the EA for example, section VI.D.2.f of today’s rule DBPs or any combination of the three, the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). explores the impact of influent bromide no estimate was made of the potential One area of uncertainty is associated levels on technology selection. As cost savings from addressing more than with the estimate of Cryptosporidium shown in the EA for this rule, the one contaminant simultaneously. occurrence on a national basis. The impact of higher influent bromide levels Information Collection Rule plant-mean will not have a significant impact on the H. Are There Increased Risks From data were higher than the ICRSS rule’s costs. In addition, subsection 6.12 Other Contaminants? medium or large system plant-mean of the EA summarizes other cost It is unlikely that the LT2ESWTR will data at the 90th percentile. The reasons uncertainties including the Agency’s result in a significant increase in risk for these differing results are not well inability to include some lower cost from other contaminants. Many of the understood but may stem from toolbox options in the cost analysis options that systems will select to differences in the populations sampled, (USEPA 2003a). comply with the LT2ESWTR, such as year-to-year variation in occurrence, and Last, EPA has recently finalized new UV, improved filtration performance, systematic differences in the sampling regulations for arsenic, radon, and watershed control, do not form and measurement methods employed. Cryptosporidium in small surface water DBPs. Other technologies that are These data suggest that systems, and filter backwash in all effective against Cryptosporidium, such Cryptosporidium levels are relatively system sizes (LT1ESWTR and Filter as ozone and chlorine dioxide, do form low in most water sources, but there is Backwash Rule); proposed a rule for DBPs. However, these DBPs are a subset of sources with significantly microbials in ground water systems currently regulated under the Stage 1 higher concentrations. Additional (Ground Water Rule); and is

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47756 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

concurrently proposing additional option and the preferred option are risk bin boundaries) and the magnitude control of disinfection byproducts relatively small while the incremental of the benefits and costs (i.e., treatment (Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule). costs are significant. In addition, the requirements). Consequently, the more These rules may have overlapping preferred regulatory option, unlike stringent regulatory alternatives provide impacts on some drinking water systems option A1, specifically targets those benefits to population groups that do but the extent is not possible to estimate systems whose source water requires not experience any benefit under less because of lack of information on co- higher levels of treatment. stringent alternatives. occurrence. However, it is possible for Tables VI–17a and VI–17b present net a system to choose treatment As shown by Tables VI–17a and VI– benefits for the four regulatory 17b, net benefits are positive for all four technologies that would address alternatives that were evaluated. multiple contaminants. Therefore, while regulatory alternatives evaluated. With Generally, analysis of net benefits is the enhanced COI (Table VI–17a), net the total cost impact of these drinking used to identify alternatives where water rules is uncertain, it is most likely benefits are highest for the Preferred benefits exceed costs, as well as the Alternative, A3, under the majority of less than the estimated total cost of all alternative that maximizes net benefits. individual rules combined. occurrence distributions and discount However, as with the analysis of rates evaluated. When the traditional incremental net benefits discussed K. What is the Benefit/Cost COI (Table VI–17b) is used, the previously, the usefulness of this Determination for the Proposed Preferred Alternative has the highest net LT2ESWTR? analysis in evaluating regulatory benefits at a three percent discount rate alternatives for the LT2ESWTR is The Agency has determined that the for the two of the occurrence benefits of the proposed LT2ESWTR limited because many benefits from this rule are un-quantified and non- distributions, the Information Collection justify the costs. As discussed in section Rule and ICRSSM, while the least VI.C, the proposed rule provides a large monetized. Analyses of net benefits should consider both quantified and stringent alternative, A4, is highest for reduction in endemic cryptosporidiosis the ICRSSL. At a seven percent discount illness and mortalities. More stringent non-quantified (where possible) benefits and costs. rate, A4 maximizes net benefits under alternatives provide greater reductions all occurrence distributions. but at higher costs. Alternative A1 Also, as noted earlier, the regulatory provides the greatest overall reduction alternatives considered for the Table VI–17a.— Mean Net Benefits by in illnesses and mortalities but the LT2ESWTR vary both in the population Rule Option—Enhanced COI ($millions, incremental benefits between this that experiences benefits and costs (i.e., 2000$)

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47757

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C costs and benefits. For example, EPA cost of the rule per death avoided. This In addition to the net benefits of the calculated the cost of the rule per case cost effectiveness measure is another proposed LT2ESWTR, the Agency used avoided. Table VI–18 shows both the way of examining the benefits and costs several other techniques to compare cost of the rule per illness avoided and of the rule but should not be used to

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 EP11AU03.018 47758 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

compare alternatives because an effectiveness analysis when you Additional information about this alternative with the lowest cost per compare them to both the average cost analysis and other methods of illness/death avoided may not result in of cryptosporidiosis illness ($745 and comparing benefits and costs can be the highest net benefits. With the $245 for the two COI approaches) and found in chapter 8 to the LT2ESWTR exception of alternative A1, the rule the mean value of a death avoided— EA (USEPA 2003a). options look favorable from a cost approximately $7 million dollars.

TABLE VIÐ18.—COST PER ILLNESS OR DEATH AVOIDED

Cost per illness Cost per death avoided ($) avoided ($ mil- Data set Rule alternative lions, 2000$) 3% 7% 3% 7%

A1 ...... 339 244 2.5 1.8 A2 ...... 128 93 0.9 0.7 ICR ...... A3—Preferred ...... 107 78 0.8 0.6 A4 ...... 62 45 0.4 0.3

A1 ...... 1,098 789 8.0 5.7 A2 ...... 356 259 2.5 1.8 ICRSSL ...... A3—Preferred ...... 282 208 1.9 1.4 A4 ...... 165 122 1.1 0.8

A1 ...... 631 453 4.6 3.3 A2 ...... 213 155 1.6 1.1 ICRSSM ...... A3—Preferred ...... 170 125 1.2 0.9 A4 ...... 99 73 0.7 0.5 Source: Chapter 8 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a)

L. Request for Comment State, local, or Tribal governments or requirements concern monitoring communities; activities and compliance tracking. The The Agency requests comment on all (2) Create a serious inconsistency or information collection requirements are aspects of the proposed rule’s economic otherwise interfere with an action taken mandatory (part 141), and the impact analysis. Specifically, EPA seeks or planned by another agency; information collected is not input into the following issues: (3) Materially alter the budgetary confidential. • Both of the methodologies for impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, The estimate of annual average valuing non-fatal cryptosporidiosis and or loan programs or the rights and burden hours for the LT2ESWTR during the use of a real income growth factor obligations of recipients thereof; or the first three years following to adjust these estimates for the years (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues promulgation is 145,854 hours. The 2008 through 2027; arising out of legal mandates, the annual average cost estimate is $3.9 • How can the Agency fully President’s priorities, or the principles million for labor and $9.8 million per incorporate all toolbox options into the set forth in the Executive Order. year for operation and maintenance economic analysis? Pursuant to the terms of Executive including lab costs (which is a purchase • How can the Agency estimate the Order 12866, it has been determined of service). The burden hours per potential benefits from reduced that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory response is 1.47 hours and the cost per epidemic outbreaks of action.’’ As such, this action was response is $138.12. The frequency of cryptosporidiosis? submitted to OMB for review. Changes response (average responses per made in response to OMB suggestions or respondent) is 39, annually. The VII. Statutory and Executive Order recommendations will be documented estimated number of likely respondents Reviews in the public record. is 2,560 (the product of burden hours per response, frequency, and A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory B. Paperwork Reduction Act Planning and Review respondents does not total the annual The information collection average burden hours due to rounding). Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR requirements in this proposed rule have Note that the burden hour estimates for 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency been submitted for approval to the the first 3-year cycle include large must determine whether the regulatory Office of Management and Budget system but not small system monitoring. action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Conversely, burden estimate for the subject to OMB review and the Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The second 3-year cycle will include small requirements of the Executive Order. Information Collection Request (ICR) system monitoring but not large system, The Order defines ‘‘significant document prepared by EPA has been which will have been completed by regulatory action’’ as one that is likely assigned EPA ICR number 2097.01. then. to result in a rule that may: The information collected as a result Burden means the total time, effort, or (1) Have an annual effect on the of this rule will allow the States and financial resources expended by persons economy of $100 million or more or EPA to determine appropriate to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose adversely affect in a material way the requirements for specific systems, and or provide information to or for a economy, a sector of the economy, to evaluate compliance with the rule. Federal agency. This includes the time productivity, competition, jobs, the For the first 3 years after LT2ESWTR needed to review instructions; develop, environment, public health or safety, or promulgation, the major information acquire, install, and utilize technology

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47759

and systems for the purposes of Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since For purposes of assessing the impacts collecting, validating, and verifying OMB is required to make a decision of today’s proposed rule on small information, processing and concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 entities, EPA considered small entities maintaining information, and disclosing days after August 11, 2003, a comment to be public water systems serving and providing information; adjust the to OMB is best assured of having its full 10,000 or fewer persons. This is the cut- existing ways to comply with any effect if OMB receives it by September off level specified by Congress in the previously applicable instructions and 10, 2003. The final rule will respond to 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking requirements; train personnel to be able any OMB or public comments on the Water Act for small system flexibility to respond to a collection of information collection requirements provisions. In accordance with the RFA information; search data sources; contained in this proposal. requirements, EPA proposed using this complete and review the collection of alternative definition in the Federal C. Regulatory Flexibility Act information; and transmit or otherwise Register, (63 FR 7620, February 13, disclose the information. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 1998), requested public comment, An agency may not conduct or generally requires an agency to prepare consulted with the Small Business sponsor, and a person is not required to a regulatory flexibility analysis for any Administration (SBA), and expressed its respond to a collection of information rule subject to notice and comment intention to use the alternative unless it displays a currently valid OMB rulemaking requirements under the definition for all future drinking water control number. The OMB control Administrative Procedure Act or other regulations in the Consumer Confidence numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 statute unless the agency certifies that Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. the rule will not have a significant 19, 1998). As stated in that final rule, To comment on the Agency’s need for economic impact on a substantial the alternative definition is applied to this information, the accuracy of the number of small entities. Small entities this proposed regulation. provided burden estimates, and any include small businesses, small After considering the economic suggested methods for minimizing organizations, and small governmental impacts of today’s proposed rule on respondent burden, including the use of jurisdictions. small entities, I certify that this action automated collection techniques, EPA The RFA provides default definitions will not have a significant economic has established a public docket for this for each type of small entity. It also impact on a substantial number of small rule, which includes this ICR, under authorizes an agency to use alternative entities. We have determined that 274 Docket ID No. OW–2002–0039. Submit definitions for each category of small small systems, which are 2.32% of the any comments related to the ICR for this entity, ‘‘which are appropriate to the 11,820 small systems regulated by the proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See activities of the agency’’ after proposing LT2ESWTR, will experience an impact ADDRESSES section at the beginning of the alternative definition(s) in the of one percent or greater of average this notice for where to submit Federal Register and taking comment. 5 annual revenues; further, 31 systems, comments to EPA. Send comments to U.S.C. secs. 601(3)–(5). In addition to which are 0.26% of the systems OMB at the Office of Information and the above, to establish an alternative regulated by this rule, will experience Regulatory Affairs, Office of small business definition, agencies must an impact of three percent or greater of Management and Budget, 725 17th consult with SBA’s Chief Council for average annual revenues (see Table VII– Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Advocacy. 1).

TABLE VIIÐ1.—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUES FOR SMALL ENTITIES ($2000)

Systems experiencing Systems experiencing Average annual costs of >% their revenues costs of >% of their reve- Number of small estimated nues Entity by system size systems revenuses per (Percent) system ($) Percent of Number of Percent of Number of sustem systems systems systems

A B E F=A*E G H=A*G

Small Governments ...... 5,910 50 2,434,200 2.4 140 0.3 15 Small Businesses ...... 4,846 41 2,391,978 2.4 115 0.3 13 Small Organizations ...... 1,064 9 4,446,165 1.2 13 0.1 1 All Small Entities ...... 11,820 100 2,597,966 2.3 274 0.3 31 Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Data are based on the means of the highest modeled distributions using Information Collection Rule occurrence data set. Costs are discounted at 3 percent, summed to present value, and annualized over 25 years. Source: Chap- ter 7 of the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a).

The LT2ESWTR contains provisions are described in more detail in Chapters discount rates produce lower costs). that will affect systems serving fewer 6 and 7 of the Economic Analysis for the EPA has determined that in each size than 10,000 people that use surface LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). Table VII– category, fewer than 20% of systems water or GWUDI as a source. In order to 2 shows the annual compliance costs of and fewer than 1000 systems will meet the LT2ESWTR requirements, the LT2ESWTR on the small entities by experience an impact of one percent or approximately 1,382 to 2,127 small system size and type based on a three greater of average annual revenues systems would need to make capital percent discount rate (other estimates (USEPA 2003a). improvements. Impacts on small entities based on different data sets and

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47760 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VIIÐ2.—ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED LT2ESWTR BY SYSTEM SIZE AND TYPE [$Millions, 2000$]

System size (population served) System type 1,001Ð 3,301Ð Total <100 101Ð500 501Ð1,000 3,300 10,000

Public owned...... $0.46 $0.88 $0.94 $2.62 $5.57 $10.37 Privately owned...... 1.00 0.71 0.22 0.31 0.36 2.60 All systems...... 1.45 1.59 1.07 2.92 5.93 12.97 Note: Results are based on the mean of the Information Collection Rule Cryptosporidium occurrence distribution. Costs are annualized at a three percent discount rate. Source: Appendix D and Q of the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2003a).

Although this proposed rule will not SDWA requirements. Through the in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and have a significant economic impact on DWSRF, EPA awards capitalization Texas and direct grants to U.S. a substantial number of small entities, grants to States, which in turn can territories and trusts. The CDBG budget EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the provide low-cost loans and other types for fiscal year 2002 totaled over $4.3 impact of this rule on small entities. The of assistance to eligible PWSs. Loans billion. LT2ESWTR contains a number of made under the program can have Although not required by the RFA to provisions to minimize the impact of interest rates between 0 percent and convene a Small Business Advocacy the rule on systems generally, and on market rate and repayment terms of up Review (SBAR) Panel because EPA small systems in particular. The risk- to 20 years. States prioritize funding determined that this proposal would not targeted approach of the LT2ESWTR based on projects that address the most have a significant economic impact on will impose additional treatment serious risks to human health and assist a substantial number of small entities, requirements only on the subset of systems most in need. Congress EPA did convene a panel to obtain systems with the highest vulnerability provided $1.275 billion for the DWSRF advice and recommendations from to Cryptosporidium, as indicated by program in fiscal year 1997, and has representatives of the small entities source water pathogen levels. This provided an additional $3.145 billion potentially subject to this rule’s approach will spare the majority of for the DWSRF program for fiscal years requirements. systems from the cost of installing 1998 through 2001. Before convening the SBAR Panel, additional treatment. Also, development The DWSRF places an emphasis on EPA consulted with a group of 24 small entity stakeholders likely to be impacted of the microbial toolbox under the small and disadvantaged communities. by the LT2ESWTR and who were asked LT2ESWTR will provide both large and States must provide a minimum of 15% to serve as Small Entity Representatives small systems with broad flexibility in of the available funds for loans to small (SERs) after the Panel was convened. selecting cost-effective compliance communities. A State has the option of The small entity stakeholders included options to meet additional treatment providing up to 30% of the grant small system operators, local requirements. awarded to the State to furnish government representatives, and Small systems will monitor for E. coli additional assistance to State-defined representatives of small nonprofit as a screening analysis for source waters disadvantaged communities. This organizations. The small entity with low levels of fecal contamination. assistance can take the form of lower stakeholders were provided with Cryptosporidium monitoring will only interest rates, principal forgiveness, or background information on SDWA and be required of small systems if they negative interest rate loans. The State potential alternatives for the LT2ESWTR exceed the E. coli trigger value. Because may also extend repayment terms of in preparation for teleconferences on E. coli analysis is much cheaper than loans for disadvantaged communities to January 28, 2000, February 25, 2000, Cryptosporidium analysis, the use of E. up to 30 years. A State can set aside up and April 7, 2000. This information coli as a screen will significantly reduce to 2% of the grant to provide technical package included data on preliminary monitoring costs for the majority of assistance to systems serving unit costs for treatment enhancements small systems. In order to allow EPA to communities with populations fewer under consideration. review Cryptosporidium indicator than 10,000. During these three conference calls, relationships in large system monitoring In addition to the DWSRF, money is the information that had been provided data, small systems will not be required available from the Department of to the small entity stakeholders was to initiate their monitoring until large Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service discussed and EPA responded to system monitoring has been completed. (RUS) and Housing and Urban questions and recorded initial This will provide small systems with Development’s Community comments. Following the three calls, the additional time to become familiar with Development Block Grant (CDBG) small entity stakeholders were asked to the rule and to prepare for monitoring program. RUS provides loans, provide input on the potential impacts and other compliance activities. guaranteed loans, and grants to improve, of the rule from their perspective. Seven Funding would be available from repair, or construct water supply and small entity stakeholders provided programs administered by EPA and distribution systems in rural areas and written comments on these materials. other Federal agencies to assist small towns of up to 10,000 people. In fiscal The SBAR Panel convened on April public water systems (PWSs) in year 2002, RUS had over $1.5 billion of 25, 2000. The small entity stakeholders complying with the LT2ESWTR. The available funds for water and comments were provided to the SBAR Drinking Water State Revolving Fund environmental programs. The CDBG Panel when it convened. After a (DWSRF) assists PWSs with financing program includes direct grants to States, teleconference between the SERs and the costs of infrastructure needed to which in turn are awarded to smaller the SBAR Panel on May 25, 2000, the achieve or maintain compliance with communities, rural areas, and colon as SERs were invited to provide additional

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47761

comments on the information provided. EPA has concluded that the proposed SBAR Panel was also encouraged by Seven SERs provided additional schedule for the LT2ESWTR provides recent developments suggesting that UV comments on the rule components. sufficient time for small systems to is a viable, cost-effective means of The SBAR Panel’s report, Final Report achieve compliance. The schedule for fulfilling any additional inactivation of the Small Business Advocacy Review small system monitoring and requirements. Panel on Stage 2 Disinfectants and compliance with additional treatment The SBAR Panel recommended that, Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 requirements lags behind the schedule in developing any additional DBPR) and Long Term 2 Enhanced for large systems. The basis for the inactivation requirements based on a Surface Water Treatment Rule lagging schedule for small systems is targeted approach, EPA carefully (LT2ESWTR) (USEPA 2000f), the SERs that it allows EPA to confirm or refine consider the potential impacts on small comments on the LT2ESWTR, and the the E. coli screening criteria that small systems and attempt to structure the background information provided to the systems will use to reduce monitoring regulatory requirements in a way that SBAR Panel and the SERs are available costs. However, the lagging schedule would minimize burden on this group. for review in the docket for today’s also provides greater time for small The SBAR Panel supported E. coli as an proposal (http://www.epa.gov.edocket/). systems to become knowledgeable about indicator parameter if additional In general, the SERs who were the LT2ESWTR, including the new monitoring is required. The SBAR Panel consulted on the LT2ESWTR were monitoring requirements, and to become further recommended that, among the concerned about the impact of these familiar with innovative technologies, options EPA analyzes, the Agency also proposed rules on small water systems, like UV, that may be used by some small evaluate the option of not imposing any the ability of small systems to acquire systems to meet additional treatment additional Cryptosporidium control the technical and financial capability to requirements. requirements on small systems at this implement requirements while Some SERs emphasized that EPA time, as it considers various options to maintaining flexibility to tailor the needs to maintain an appropriate address microbial concerns. Under this requirements to their needs, and the balance between control of known option, EPA would evaluate the effects limitations of small systems. The SBAR microbial risks through adequate of LT1ESWTR, once implemented, and Panel evaluated information and small- disinfection and for the more uncertain then consider whether to impose entity comments on issues related to the risks that may be associated with DBPs. additional requirements during its next impact of the LT2ESWTR. The SBAR Panel did not foresee any 6-year review of the standard, as potential conflict between rules The LT2ESWTR takes into required by SDWA. regulating control of microbial consideration the recordkeeping and EPA considered these contaminants and those regulating reporting concerns identified by the recommendations and has concluded DBPs. EPA also believes that today’s SBAR Panel and the SERs. The SBAR that available information on the health proposal and the accompanying Panel recommended that EPA evaluate risk associated with Cryptosporidium in proposed Stage 2 DBPR achieve an drinking water warrant moving forward ways to minimize the recordkeeping appropriate balance between microbial and reporting burdens under the rule by with today’s proposal to address higher and DBP risks. The profiling and risk systems. In developing the ensuring that the States have benchmarking requirements described appropriate capacity for rule proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA has in section IV.D of this preamble will implemented the Advisory Committee’s implementation, and that EPA provide ensure that systems maintain protection as much monitoring flexibility as recommendations to minimize burden against pathogens as they make on small systems. Specifically, the risk- possible to small systems. EPA believes treatment changes to control the that the continuity with the IESWTR targeted treatment requirements will formation of DBPs. substantially reduce overall costs for and LT1ESWTR was maintained to the The SBAR Panel considered a wide small systems in comparison to extent possible to ease the transition to range of options and regulatory requiring additional treatment by all the LT2ESWTR, especially for small alternatives for providing small systems, and the use of E. coli screening systems. The LT2ESWTR builds on the businesses with flexibility in complying will allow most small systems to avoid protection afforded under the IESWTR with the LT2ESWTR. The SBAR Panel the cost of Cryptosporidium monitoring. and LT1ESWTR, while minimizing the was concerned with the option of an Consequently, the Agency has impact on small systems by using a risk- across-the-board additional concluded that today’s proposal targeted approach (i.e., source water Cryptosporidium inactivation achieves an appropriate balance monitoring) to identify systems that are requirement because of the potential between public health protection and still at risk from Cryptosporidium high cost to small systems and the exposure. uncertainty regarding the extent to limiting the economic burden imposed The SBAR Panel noted the concern of which implementation of the on small entities. We continue to be interested in the several SERs that flexibility be provided LT1ESWTR will adequately address potential impacts of the proposed rule in the compliance schedule of the rule. Cryptosporidium contamination at small on small entities and welcome SERs commented on the technical and systems. The SBAR Panel noted that, at financial limitations of some small the time, the Stage 2 M–DBP Federal comments on issues related to such systems, the significant learning curve Advisory Committee was exploring a impacts. for operators with limited experience, targeted approach to Cryptosporidium D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the need to continue providing control based on limited monitoring and uninterrupted service as reasons why system assessment, which would 1. Summary of UMRA Requirements additional compliance time may be identify a subset of vulnerable systems Title II of the Unfunded Mandates needed for small systems. The SBAR to provide additional treatment in the Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Panel encouraged EPA to keep these range of 0.5-to 2.5-log reduction. Law 104–4, establishes requirements for limitations in mind in developing the Further, this approach would allow E. Federal agencies to assess the effects of proposed rule and provide as much coli monitoring in lieu of their regulatory actions on State, local, compliance flexibility to small systems Cryptosporidium monitoring as a and Tribal governments and the private as is allowable under SDWA. screening device for small systems. The sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47762 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

EPA generally must prepare a written allows EPA to adopt an alternative other and informing, educating, and advising statement, including a cost-benefit than the least costly, most cost-effective small governments on compliance with analysis, for proposed and final rules or least burdensome alternative if the the regulatory requirements. with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may Administrator publishes with the final 2. Written Statement for Rules With result in expenditures to State, local and rule an explanation why that alternative Federal Mandates of $100 Million or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or was not adopted. More to the private sector, of $100 million or Before EPA establishes any regulatory more in any one year. Before requirements that may significantly or EPA has determined that this rule promulgating an EPA rule for which a uniquely affect small governments, contains a Federal mandate that may written statement is needed, section 205 including Tribal governments, it must result in expenditures of $100 million or of the UMRA generally requires EPA to have developed under section 203 of the more for State, local, and Tribal identify and consider a reasonable UMRA a small government agency plan. governments, in the aggregate, or the number of regulatory alternatives and The plan must provide for notifying private sector in any one year. adopt the least costly, most cost- potentially affected small governments, Accordingly, EPA has prepared under effective or least burdensome alternative enabling officials of affected small section 202 of the UMRA a written that achieves the objectives of the rule. governments to have meaningful and statement which is summarized in this The provisions of section 205 do not timely input in the development of EPA section. Table VII–3 illustrates the apply when they are inconsistent with regulatory proposals with significant annualized public and private costs for applicable law. Moreover, section 205 Federal intergovernmental mandates, the LT2ESWTR.

TABLE VIIÐ3.—PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COSTS OF THE PROPOSED LT2ESWTR

Range of annualized costs (Mil- lion $, 2000$) Percent of 3% Discount 7% Discount total cost rate rate

PWS Costs ...... $45.7Ð69.0 $50.2Ð75.2 62.2Ð62.4 State Costs ...... 0.9Ð1.0 1.2Ð1.2 1.3Ð0.9 Tribal Costs ...... 0.1Ð0.2 0.1Ð0.2 0.1Ð0.1

Total Public Costs ...... 46.7Ð70.1 51.5Ð76.6 63.6Ð63.4 Total Private Costs ...... 26.8Ð40.4 29.4Ð44.1 36.4Ð36.6

Total Costs ...... 73.5Ð110.5 80.9Ð120.7 100.0Ð100.0 Note: The ranges represent the ICRSSL (lowest) and Information Collection Rule (highest) modeled Cryptosporidium occurrence distributions. Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Source: The LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

A more detailed description of this primary drinking water regulation for a benefits associated with the LT2ESWTR. analysis is presented in Economic contaminant if EPA determines that the Details are presented in the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA contaminant may have an adverse effect Analysis for the LT2ESTWR (USEPA 2003a). on the health of persons, occurs in 2003a). For the LT2ESWTR proposal, a. Authorizing legislation. As noted in public water systems with a frequency EPA quantified costs and benefits for section II, today’s proposed rule is and at levels of public health concern, four regulatory alternatives. The four promulgated pursuant to section 1412 and regulation presents a meaningful alternatives are described in section VI. (b)(1)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act opportunity for health risk reduction. Table VII–4 summarizes the range of (SDWA), as amended in 1996, which b. Cost-benefit analysis. Section VI of annual costs and benefits for each directs EPA to promulgate a national this preamble discusses the cost and alternative.

TABLE VIIÐ4.—ANNUAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RULE ALTERNATIVES [$Million]

Enhanced COI Traditional Enahnced COI Tradition COI range of COI range of range of range of Range of Range of Regulatory Alternative annualized annualized annualized annualized annualized annualized benefits (3%) benefits (3%) benefits (7%) benefits (7%) costs (3%) costs (7%)

Alternative A1 ...... $457Ð1,492 $305Ð989 $389Ð1,260 $260Ð845 $361 $388 Alternative A2 ...... 397Ð1,461 268Ð977 338Ð1,243 229Ð834 100Ð134 108Ð145 Alternative A3 ...... (Preferred Alternative) ...... 374Ð1,445 253Ð967 318Ð1,230 216Ð826 73Ð111 81Ð121 Alternative A4 ...... 328Ð1,349 225Ð907 279Ð1,148 192Ð775 37Ð59 41Ð65 Source: The LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

c. Estimates of future compliance in section 202, EPA analyzed future Agency believes that the cost estimates, costs and disproportionate budgetary compliance costs and possible indicated earlier and discussed in more effects. To meet the UMRA requirement disproportionate budgetary effects. The detail in section VI of this preamble,

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47763

accurately characterize future and a discount rate of 3 percent ($81 to implement requirements, and flexibility compliance costs of the proposed rule. $121 million at a 7 percent discount in regulatory requirements and in the In analyzing disproportionate rate). These annualized figures will compliance schedule. SERs also impacts, the Agency considered the remain constant over the 25-year emphasized that EPA needs to balance impact on (1) different regions of the implementation period that was the control of known microbial risks United States, (2) State, local, and Tribal evaluated, while GDP will probably with the risks associated with DBPs. governments, (3) urban, rural and other continue to rise. Thus, LT2ESWTR costs Today’s proposal is responsive to types of communities, and (4) any measures as a percentage of the national these concerns, as stated in section segment of the private sector. This GDP will only decline over time. Costs VII.C. The LT2ESWTR will impose costs analysis is presented in section 7 of will not be highly focused on a for additional treatment on only the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR particular geographic region or sector. fraction of systems identified through (USEPA 2003a). e. Summary of EPA consultation with monitoring as being at higher risk, and EPA has concluded that the State, local, and Tribal governments overall monitoring costs for small LT2ESWTR will not cause a and their concerns. Consistent with the systems will be greatly reduced through disproportionate budgetary effect. This intergovernmental consultation use of the E. coli screening to waive rule imposes the same requirements on provisions of section 204 of UMRA, EPA small systems from Cryptosporidium systems nationally and does not has already initiated consultations with monitoring. The microbial toolbox of disproportionately affect any segment. the governmental entities affected by treatment options will provide This rule will treat similarly situated this rule. A variety of stakeholders, significant flexibility to systems to systems (in terms of size, water quality, including small governments, were identify cost-effective solutions for available data, installed technology, and provided the opportunity for timely and meeting additional Cryptosporidium presence of uncovered finished storage meaningful participation in the treatment requirements. The compliance facilities) in similar (proportionate) regulatory development process. EPA schedule for small systems is delayed in ways, without regard to geographic used these opportunities to notify relation to large systems, which will location, type of community, or segment potentially affected governments of allow small systems additional time to of industry. The LT2ESWTR is a rule regulatory requirements being become knowledgeable about and where requirements are proportionate to considered. prepare to implement the LT2ESWTR. risk. Although some groups may have The Stage 2 M–DBP Federal Advisory The intent of the proposed disinfection differing budgetary effects as a result of Committee included representatives profiling provisions is to ensure that LT2ESWTR, those costs are proportional from State government (Association of when systems make treatment changes to the need for greater information State Drinking Water Administrators, to control DBP formation, they maintain (monitoring) and risk posed (degree of Environmental Commissioners of protection against pathogens. treatment required). The variation in States), local government (National EPA held a meeting on the cost between large and small systems is League of Cities), and Tribes (All Indian LT2ESWTR in February 2001 with due to economies of scale (a larger Pueblo Council (AIPC)). Government representatives of State and local system can distribute cost across more and Tribal representatives on the governments. Representatives of the customers). Regions will have varying Advisory Committee were generally following organizations attended: impacts due to the number of affected concerned with ensuring that drinking Association of State Drinking Water systems. water regulations are adequately Administrators (ASDWA), the National d. Macro-economic effects. Under protective of public health and that any Governors’ Association (NGA), the UMRA section 202, EPA is required to additional public health expenditures National Conference of State estimate the potential macro-economic due to new regulations achieve Legislatures (NCSL), the International effects of the regulation. These types of significant risk reduction. The proposed City/County Management Association effects include those on productivity, LT2ESWTR reflects the consensus (ICMA), the National League of Cities economic growth, full employment, recommendations of the Advisory (NLC), the County Executives of creation of productive jobs, and Committee, as stated in the Agreement America, and health departments. international competitiveness. Macro- in Principle (65 FR 83015, December 29, Representatives asked questions economic effects tend to be measurable 2000). Consequently, EPA believes that regarding how Cryptosporidium gets in nationwide econometric models only the risk-targeted approach for additional into the water, whether EPA would add if the economic impact of the regulation Cryptosporidium treatment laboratory approval for Cryptosporidium reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of requirements and other provisions in to State certification programs, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2000, today’s proposal satisfies the concerns effectiveness of ozone and UV, and the real GDP was $9,224 billion, so a rule of the government and Tribal development of ambient water quality would have to cost at least $23 billion representatives on the Advisory criteria for Cryptosporidium. to have a measurable effect. A regulation Committee. EPA has largely addressed these with a smaller aggregate effect is As described in section VII.C of this questions in this preamble. Section II unlikely to have any measurable impact preamble, the Agency convened a Small characterizes sources of unless it is highly focused on a Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Cryptosporidium. As described in particular geographic region or Panel in accordance with the Regulatory section IV.K, EPA is currently carrying economic sector. Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the out a laboratory approval program for The macro-economic effects on the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Cryptosporidium analyses but expects national economy from the LT2ESWTR Fairness Act to address the concerns of that this will be included in State should not have a measurable effect small entities, including small local laboratory certification programs in the because the total annual costs for the governments specifically. Small entity future. In section IV.C., EPA describes proposed option range from $73 million representatives (SERs) to the SBAR the effectiveness of ozone and UV for to $111 million based on median panel, including representatives of Cryptosporidium inactivation and Cryptosporidium occurrence small local governments, were provides criteria for how these distributions from the ICRSSL and concerned about the cost of the rule, the technologies may be used to comply Information Collection Rule data sets technical capability of small systems to with the treatment requirements in

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47764 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

today’s proposal. The Agency is water storage facilities should account several microbial toolbox options reflect currently exploring the development of for cultural uses by Tribes. comments by the Science Advisory ambient water quality criteria for In response to the concerns expressed Board. In addition, today’s proposal Cryptosporidium, but such criteria are by Tribal representatives, EPA noted gives flexibility to States by allowing not available at this time and are not that the LT2ESWTR proposal is them to award different levels of included in today’s proposal. designed to minimize costs by targeting Cryptosporidium treatment credit to In addition to the Tribal higher risk systems, and includes other their systems based on site-specific representative on the Advisory provisions, described earlier, to reduce demonstrations. Committee, EPA conducted outreach burden. Moreover, the projected benefits With respect to the burden the and consultation with Tribal of the rule substantially exceed costs. LT2ESWTR would place on water representatives on a number of EPA also explained that capital projects systems and States, EPA has, as occasions regarding the LT2ESWTR. related to the rule would be eligible for described previously in this preamble, EPA presented the LT2ESWTR at the Federal funding sources, such as the attempted to minimize overall costs following forums: the 16th Annual Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, under the proposed LT2ESWTR. This is Consumer Conference of the National due to the health risks associated with achieved through risk-targeting of Indian Health Board, which included Cryptosporidium. The LT2ESWTR additional treatment requirements, over 900 representatives of Tribes across Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a) allowing most small systems to avoid the nation; the annual conference of the provides an analysis of the impact of the Cryptosporidium monitoring costs National Tribal Environmental Council, LT2ESWTR on Tribes. EPA has through E. coli screening, and at which over 100 Tribes were identified 67 Tribal water systems that facilitating the use of lower cost represented; and the 1999 EPA/Inter- would be subject to the LT2ESWTR. treatment technologies like UV. Tribal Council of Arizona, which In addition to these direct In summary, EPA has concluded that included representatives from 15 Tribes. consultations with State, local, and the proposed option for the LT2ESWTR EPA also sent the presentation materials Tribal governments, EPA posted a pre- is needed to provide a significant public used in the first two meetings and proposal draft of the LT2ESWTR health benefit by reducing exposure to meeting summaries to over 500 Tribes proposal on an EPA Internet site (http:/ Cryptosporidium. While many public and Tribal organizations. /www.epa.gov/safewater/) in November water systems achieve adequate control Fact sheets describing the 2001. EPA received comments on this of Cryptosporidium, additional requirements of the LT2ESWTR and pre-proposal draft from ASDWA and six treatment should be required for filtered requesting Tribal input were distributed States, several public water systems systems with elevated source water at an annual EPA Tribal meeting in San owned by local governments, as well as pathogen levels and for unfiltered Francisco and at a Native American private water systems, laboratories, and systems. The availability of improved Water Works Association meeting in other stakeholders. Among the concerns analytical methods allows additional Scottsdale, Arizona. EPA also worked raised by commenters representing State treatment requirements to be targeted to through its Regional Indian and local governments were the higher risk systems, and the Coordinators and the National Tribal following: early implementation of development of technologies like UV Operations Committee to raise monitoring by large systems; flexibility makes it feasible for systems to provide awareness of the development of the for States in awarding treatment credits additional treatment. The monetized proposed rule. EPA mailed all Federal to different Cryptosporidium control benefits of today’s proposal significantly Tribes LT2ESWTR fact sheets in technologies; and the added burden of exceed total costs, and EPA believes November 2000. The Tribal the rule on systems and States. there will be substantial unquantified representative to the Advisory EPA has addressed these concerns in benefits as well. Committee also presented the Stage 2 developing the LT2ESWTR proposal. As f. Regulatory alternatives considered. Agreement in Principle prior to described in section IV.J, EPA is As required under section 205 of signature in at least one political forum planning to directly implement the large UMRA, EPA considered several for various Tribes not affiliated with system monitoring requirements that regulatory alternatives to address AIPC. occur during the first 2.5 years after systems at risk for contamination by EPA held a teleconference in January promulgation. The planned approach is microbial pathogens, specifically 2002 with 12 Tribal representatives and similar to that used for the UCMR, including Cryptosporidium. A detailed four Regional Tribal Program including an electronic data reporting discussion of these alternatives can be Coordinators. Prior to the system for storing monitoring results found in section VI of the preamble and teleconference, EPA sent invitations to and tracking compliance. With this also in the Economic Analysis for the all Federal Tribes, along with a fact approach, States will be able to access LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). sheet explaining the LT2ESWTR. data reported by their systems, thereby g. Selection of the least costly, most Through this consultation, Tribal allowing States to exercise oversight of cost-effective, or least burdensome representatives expressed concern about their systems during early alternative that achieves the objectives implementing new regulations without implementation if they chose. However, of the rule. Among the regulatory additional funding sources. However, EPA will take primary responsibility for alternatives considered for the they also stated that the LT2ESWTR providing technical assistance to LT2ESWTR, as described in section VI, would have a benefit, and asserted that systems and assessing compliance with the Agency believes the proposed people served by small systems should monitoring requirements. alternative is the most cost-effective that receive equivalent public health In regard to treatment credit for achieves the objectives of the rule. The protection. Questions were asked Cryptosporidium control technologies, objective of the LT2ESWTR is to reduce regarding the impact of the rule (e.g., the Agency has made substantial efforts risk from Cryptosporidium and other number of Tribal surface water systems) to ensure that the criteria in today’s pathogens in systems where current and the date for finalizing the rule. The proposal are based on the best available regulations do not provide sufficient Tribal representative to the M–DBP data. EPA has worked in partnership protection. Advisory Committee advocated that risk with industry and researchers to gather The Agency evaluated a less costly mitigation plans for uncovered finished information, and proposed criteria for and less burdensome alternative.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47765

However, this alternative would provide power and responsibilities among the to systems and States, balancing the no benefit to several thousand various levels of government.’’ control of microbial risks and DBP risks, consumers who, under the proposed Under Executive Order 13132, EPA funding for implementing new alternative, would receive benefits that may not issue a regulation that has regulations, equal protection for small most likely exceed their costs, based on federalism implications, that imposes systems, and early implementation of Agency estimates. This is illustrated in substantial direct compliance costs, and monitoring by large systems. the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis that is not required by statute, unless EPA has concluded that the proposed (USEPA 2003a). By failing to reduce risk the Federal government provides the LT2ESWTR is needed to reduce the for consumers where additional funds necessary to pay the direct public health risk associated with treatment requirements would be cost- compliance costs incurred by State and Cryptosporidium in drinking water. effective, the less costly alternative does local governments, or EPA consults with Estimated benefits for the rule are not appear to achieve the objectives of State and local officials early in the significantly higher than costs. Further, the LT2ESWTR. process of developing the proposed as described in this section and in The other alternatives considered by regulation. section VII.D.2.e, the Agency believes the Agency achieve the objectives of the EPA has concluded that this proposed that today’s proposal addresses many of rule, but are more costly, more rule may have federalism implications, the concerns expressed by burdensome, and potentially less cost- because it may impose substantial direct representatives of government officials. effective. The proposed alternative compliance costs on State or local Under the proposed LT2ESWTR, targets additional treatment governments, and the Federal expenditures for additional treatment requirements to systems with the government will not provide the funds are targeted to the fraction of systems highest vulnerability to necessary to pay those costs. The with the highest vulnerability to Cryptosporidium, and maximizes net proposed rule may result in Cryptosporidium, thereby minimizing benefits under a broad range of expenditures by State, local, and Tribal burden for the majority of systems that conditions (USEPA 2003a). governments, in the aggregate of $100 will not be required to provide Consequently, the Agency has found the million or more in any one year. Costs additional treatment. The microbial proposed alternative to be the most cost- are estimated to range from $73 to $111 toolbox of compliance options will effective among those that achieve the million at a 3 percent discount rate and provide flexibility to systems in meeting objectives of the rule. $81 to $121 million using a 7 percent additional treatment requirements, and discount rates based on the median States have the flexibility to award 3. Impacts on Small Governments distribution modeled from ICRSSL and treatment credits based on site-specific EPA has determined that this rule Information Collection Rule demonstrations. Disinfection profiling contains no regulatory requirements that Cryptosporidium occurrence data sets. provisions are intended to ensure that might significantly or uniquely affect Accordingly, EPA provides the systems do not reduce microbial small governments. Thus, today’s rule is following federalism summary impact protection as they take steps to reduce not subject to the requirements of statement as required by section 6(b) of exposures to DBPs. section 203 of UMRA. As described in Executive Order 13132. The LT2ESWTR achieves equal public section VII.C, EPA has certified that this EPA consulted with representatives of health protection for small systems. proposed rule will not have a significant State and local officials early in the However, the use of E. coli monitoring economic impact on a substantial process of developing the proposed by small systems as a screening analysis number of small entities. Estimated regulation to permit them to have to determine the need for annual expenditures by small systems meaningful and timely input into its Cryptosporidium monitoring will for the LT2ESWTR range from $7.9 to development. Section VII.D.2.e reduce monitoring costs for most small $13.0 million at a 3% discount rate and describes EPA’s consultation with systems. Capital projects related to the $8.0 to $13.0 million at a 7% discount representatives of State and local rule would be eligible for funding from rate. While the treatment requirements officials. This consultation included the Drinking Water State Revolving of the LT2ESWTR apply uniformly to State and local government Fund, which includes specific funding both small and large public water representatives on the Stage 2 M–DBP for small communities. EPA is planning systems, large systems bear a majority of Federal Advisory Committee, the to support the initial monitoring by the total costs of compliance with the representatives from small local large systems that takes place within the rule. This is due to the fact that large governments to the SBAR panel, a first 2.5 years after promulgation. This systems treat a majority of the drinking meeting with representatives from will substantially reduce the burden on water that originates from surface water ASDWA, NGA, NCSL, ICMA, NLC, the States associated with early sources. County Executives of America, and implementation of monitoring health departments, consultation with E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism requirements. Tribal governments at four meetings, In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, Executive Order 13132, entitled and comments from State and local and consistent with EPA policy to ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, governments on a pre-proposal draft of promote communications between EPA 1999), requires EPA to develop an the LT2ESWTR. and State and local governments, EPA accountable process to ensure Representatives of State and local specifically solicits comment on this ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State officials were generally concerned with proposed rule from State and local and local officials in the development of ensuring that drinking water regulations officials. regulatory policies that have federalism are adequately protective of public implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have health and that any additional F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation federalism implications’’ is defined in regulations achieve significant health and Coordination With Indian Tribal the Executive Order to include benefits in return for required Governments regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct expenditures. They were specifically Executive Order 13175, entitled effects on the States, on the relationship concerned with the burden of the ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with between the national government and proposed rule, both in cost and Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR the States, or on the distribution of technical complexity, giving flexibility 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47766 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

to develop ‘‘an accountable process to regardless of the number of people a Order 12866, and (2) concerns an ensure meaningful and timely input by system is serving, and they recognized environmental health or safety risk that Tribal officials in the development of that the LT2ESWTR would provide a EPA has reason to believe may have a regulatory policies that have Tribal public health benefit. However, Tribal disproportionate effect on children. If implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal representatives were concerned about the regulatory action meets both criteria, implications’’ is defined in the the availability of funding to implement the Agency must evaluate the Executive Order to include regulations the regulation and asked about the environmental health or safety effects of that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on projected impact on Tribes (e.g., number the planned rule on children and one or more Indian tribes, on the of Tribal surface water systems that explain why the planned regulation is relationship between the Federal would be affected). Also, the Tribal preferable to other potentially effective government and the Indian tribes, or on representative to the Federal Advisory and reasonably feasible alternatives the distribution of power and Committee was concerned that risk considered by the Agency. responsibilities between the Federal mitigation plans for uncovered finished This proposed rule is subject to the government and Indian tribes.’’ water storage facilities account for Executive Order because it is an Under Executive Order 13175, EPA cultural uses by Tribes. economically significant regulatory may not issue a regulation that has EPA has concluded that the proposed action as defined in Executive Order Tribal implications, that imposes LT2ESWTR is needed to reduce the risk 12866, and we believe that the substantial direct compliance costs, and associated with Cryptosporidium in environmental health or safety risk that is not required by statute, unless public water systems using surface addressed by this action may have a the Federal government provides the water sources. Projected benefits for disproportionate effect on children. funds necessary to pay the direct today’s proposal are substantially Accordingly, we have evaluated the compliance costs incurred by Tribal greater than costs. Moreover, as environmental health or safety effects of governments, or EPA consults with described in this section and in section Cryptosporidium on children. The Tribal officials early in the process of VII.D.2.e, today’s proposal addresses results of this evaluation are contained developing the proposed regulation and many of the concerns stated by Tribal in Cryptosporidium: Risk for Infants and develops a Tribal summary impact representatives. Children (USEPA 2001d) and described statement. The LT2ESWTR will provide in this section of this preamble. Further, EPA has concluded that this proposed equivalent public health protection to while available information is not rule may have Tribal implications, all system sizes, including Tribal adequate to conduct a quantitative risk because it may impose substantial direct systems. By targeting additional assessment specifically on children, compliance costs on Tribal treatment requirements to higher risk EPA has assessed the risk associated governments, and the Federal systems, the LT2ESWTR will minimize with Cryptosporidium in drinking water government will not provide the funds overall burden in comparison with for the general population, including necessary to pay those costs. EPA has requiring additional treatment by all children. This assessment is described identified 67 Tribal water systems systems. In addition, the provision in in the Economic Analysis for the serving a total population of 78,956 that the proposal allowing E. coli screening LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a) and is may be subject to the LT2ESWTR. They to determine if Cryptosporidium summarized in section VI of this will bear an estimated total annualized monitoring is necessary will reduce preamble. Copies of these documents cost of $135,974 at a 3 percent discount monitoring costs for many small Tribal and supporting information are rate ($138,910 at 7 percent) to systems. (EPA notes that 66 of the 67 available in the public docket for implement this rule as proposed. Tribal systems identified by the Agency today’s proposal. Estimated mean annualized cost per as subject to the LT2ESWTR are small Cryptosporidiosis in children is system ranges from $792 to $23,979 at systems.) Due to the health risks similar to adult disease (USEPA 2001d). a 3 percent discount rate ($844 to associated with Cryptosporidium, Diarrhea is the most common symptom. $26,194 at 7 percent) depending on capital expenditures needed for Other common symptoms in otherwise system size (see section 7 of the compliance with the rule will be eligible healthy (i.e., immunocompetent) LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA for Federal funding sources, specifically children include anorexia, vomiting, 2003a) for details). Accordingly, EPA the Drinking Water State Revolving abdominal pain, fever, dehydration and provides the following Tribal summary Fund. EPA is developing guidance that weight loss. impact statement as required by section will address consideration of Tribal The risk of illness and death due to 5(b) of Executive Order 13175. cultural uses of uncovered finished cryptosporidiosis depends on several EPA consulted with representatives of water storage facilities. factors, including age, nutrition, Tribal officials early in the process of In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, exposure, genetic variability, disease developing this regulation to permit and consistent with EPA policy to and the immune status of the them to have meaningful and timely promote communications between EPA individual. Mortality resulting from input into its development. Section and Tribal governments, EPA diarrhea generally occurs at a greater VII.D.2.e describes EPA’s outreach and specifically solicits additional comment rate among the very young and elderly consultation with Tribes, which on this proposed rule from Tribal (Gerba et al., 1996). During the 1993 included presentations on the officials. Milwaukee drinking water outbreak, LT2ESWTR at four Tribal conferences associated mortalities in children were and meetings, mailing fact sheets and G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of reported. Also, children with laboratory- presentation materials regarding the Children from Environmental Health confirmed cryptosporidiosis were more proposal to Tribes on several occasions, and Safety Risks likely to have an underlying disease that and a teleconference with Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of altered their immune status (Cicirello et representatives of Tribal officials to Children from Environmental Health al., 1997). In that study, the observed comment on the proposed rule. Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, association between increasing age of As discussed in section VII.D.2.e, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: children and increased numbers of Tribal representatives stated that (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically laboratory-confirmed cryptosporidiosis protection of public health is important significant’’ as defined under Executive suggested to the authors that the data

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47767

are consistent with increased tap water (mean 16.5 days) after diarrhea H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That consumption of older children. cessation (Tangerman et al., 1991). Significantly Affect Energy Supply, However, due to data limitations, this While Cryptosporidium may have a Distribution, or Use observation could not be adequately disproportionate effect on children, This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy analyzed. Asymptomatic infection, available data are not adequate to action’’ as defined in Executive Order especially in underdeveloped distinctly assess the health risk for 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations communities, can have a substantial children resulting from That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, effect on childhood growth (Bern et al., Cryptosporidium-contaminated drinking Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 2002). water. In assessing risk to children 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to Cryptosporidiosis appears to be more when evaluating regulatory alternatives have a significant adverse effect on the prevalent in populations, such as for the LT2ESWTR, EPA assumed the supply, distribution, or use of energy. children, that may not have established same risk for children as for the This determination is based on the immunity against the disease and may population as a whole. following analysis. be in greater contact with Section VI of this preamble presents The first consideration is whether the environmentally contaminated surfaces the regulatory alternatives that EPA LT2ESWTR would adversely affect the (DuPont et al., 1995). In the United evaluated for the proposed LT2ESWTR. supply of energy. The LT2ESWTR does States, children aged one to four years Among the four alternatives the Agency not regulate power generation, either are more likely than adults to have the considered, three involved a risk- directly or indirectly. The public and disease. The most recent reported data targeting approach in which additional private utilities that the LT2ESWTR on cryptosporidiosis shows the Cryptosporidium treatment regulates do not, as a rule, generate occurrence rate (for the year 1999) is requirements are based on source water power. Further, the cost increases borne higher in children ages one to four (3.03 monitoring results. A fourth alternative by customers of water utilities as a incidence rate per 100,000) than in any involved additional treatment result of the LT2ESWTR are a low adult age group (CDC, 2001). Evidence requirements for all systems. percentage of the total cost of water, from blood sera antibodies collected The alternative requiring additional except for a very few small systems that from children during the 1993 treatment by all systems was not might install advanced technologies and Milwaukee outbreak suggest that selected because of concerns about then need to spread that cost over a children had greater levels of feasibility and because it imposed costs narrow customer base. Therefore, the Cryptosporidium infection than but provided few benefits to systems customers that are power generation predicted for the general community with high quality source water (i.e., utilities are unlikely to face any (based on the random-digit dialing relatively low Cryptosporidium risk). significant effects as a result of the telephone survey method) (McDonald et The three risk-targeting alternatives LT2ESWTR. In sum, the LT2ESWTR al., 2001). were evaluated based on several factors, does not regulate the supply of energy, Data indicate a lower incidence of including costs, benefits, net benefits, does not generally regulate the utilities cryptosporidiosis infection during the feasibility of implementation, and other that supply energy, and is unlikely to first year of life. This is attributed to specific impacts (e.g., impacts on small affect significantly the customer base of breast-fed infants consuming less tap systems or sensitive subpopulations). energy suppliers. Thus, the LT2ESWTR water and, hence, having less exposure would not translate into adverse effects The proposed alternative was to Cryptosporidium, as well as the on the supply of energy. possibility that mothers confer short recommended by the M–DBP Federal The second consideration is whether term immunity to their children. For Advisory Committee and selected by the LT2ESWTR would adversely affect example, in a survey of over 30,000 EPA as the Preferred Regulatory the distribution of energy. The stool sample analyses from different Alternative because it was deemed LT2ESWTR does not regulate any aspect patients in the United Kingdom, the one feasible and provides significant public of energy distribution. The utilities that to five year age group suffered a much health benefits in terms of avoided are regulated by the LT2ESWTR already higher infection rate than individuals illnesses and deaths. EPA’s analysis of have electrical service. As derived later less than one year of age. For children benefits and costs indicates that the in this section, the proposed rule is under one year of age, those older than proposed alternative ranks highly projected to increase peak electricity six months of age showed a higher rate among those evaluated with respect to demand at water utilities by only 0.02 of infection than individuals aged less maximizing net benefits, as shown in percent. Therefore, EPA estimates that than six months (Casemore, 1990). the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis the existing connections are adequate Similarly, in the U.S., of 2,566 reported (USEPA 2003a). This document is and that the LT2ESWTR has no Cryptosporidium illnesses in 1999, 525 available in the docket for this action. discernable adverse effect on energy occurred in ages one to four (incidence The result of the LT2ESWTR will be distribution. rate of 3.03 per 100,000) compared with a reduction in the risk of illness for the The third consideration is whether 58 cases in infants under one year entire population, including children. the LT2ESWTR would adversely affect (incidence rate of 1.42 per 100,000) Because available evidence indicates the use of energy. Because some (CDC, 2001). that children may be more vulnerable to drinking water utilities are expected to An infected child may spread the cryptosporidiosis than the rest of the add treatment technologies that use disease to other children or family population, the LT2ESWTR may, electrical power, this potential impact is members (Heijbel et al., 1987, Osewe et therefore, result in greater risk reduction evaluated in more detail. The analyses al., 1996). Millard et al. (1994) for children than for the general that underlay the estimation of costs for documented greater household population. the LT2ESWTR are national in scope secondary transmission of The public is invited to submit or and do not identify specific plants or cryptosporidiosis from children than identify peer-reviewed studies and data, utilities that may install treatment in from adults to household and other of which EPA may not be aware, that response to the rule. As a result, no close contacts. Children continued to assessed results of early life exposure to analysis of the effect on specific energy shed oocysts for more than two weeks Cryptosporidium. suppliers is possible with the available

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47768 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

data. The approach used to estimate the addition or upgrade necessitated by the national total. No electricity use is impact of energy use, therefore, focuses LT2ESWTR is provided. An estimate of subtracted to account for the on national-level impacts. The analysis plant-level energy use is derived by technologies that may be replaced by estimates the additional energy use due dividing the total energy cost per plant new technologies, resulting in a to the LT2ESWTR, and compares that to for a range of flows by an average conservative estimate of the increase in the national levels of power generation national cost of electricity of $0.076/ energy use. Results of the analysis are in terms of average and peak loads. kWh (USDOE EIA, 2002). These shown in Table VII–5 for each of the The first step in the analysis is to calculations are shown in detail in modeled Cryptosporidium occurrence estimate the energy used by the Chapter 7 of the Economic Analysis for distributions. The results range from an technologies expected to be installed as the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). The incremental national annual energy a result of the LT2ESWTR. Energy use energy use per plant for each flow range usage of 0.12 million megawatt-hours is not directly stated in Technologies and technology is then multiplied by (mW) for the modeled Information and Costs for Control of Microbial the number of plants predicted to install Contaminants and Disinfection By- each technology in a given flow range. Collection Rule occurrence distribution Products (USEPA 2003c), but the annual The energy requirements for each flow to 0.07 million mW for the modeled cost of energy for each technology range are then added to produce a ICRSSL occurrence distribution.

TABLE VIIÐ5.—TOTAL INCREASED ANNUAL NATIONAL ENERGY USAGE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LT2ESWTR

ICR ICRSSL ICRSSM Total annual Total annual Total annual Technology Plants select- energy re- Plants select- energy re- Plants select- energy re- ing technology quired ing technology quired ing technology quired (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr)

AB CD EF CIO2 ...... 77 343,297 61 268,861 70 312,036 UV ...... 998 86,827,218 490 52,212,046 632 64,515,863 O3 (0.5 log) ...... 26 12,524,670 19 10,328,359 21 11,467,703 O3 (1.0 log) ...... 24 12,456,132 12 6,119,824 21 10,759,696 O3 (2.0 log) ...... 9 7,324,561 0 35,259 2 1,787,144 MF/UF ...... 10 5,691,144 8 4,507,577 5 2,790,401 Bag Filters ...... 1,545 1,631,873 1,236 1,306,067 1,441 1,522,243 Cartridge Filters ...... 190 76,793 17 6,254 52 19,686

Total ...... 2,878 126,875,687 1,844 74,784,249 2,244 93,174,772 Source: The LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003a).

To determine if the additional energy consumption by 15 percent, or peak incremental power requirement of required for systems to comply with the approximately 120,000 mW (USDOE 30 mW nationwide is not likely to rule would have a significant adverse EIA 2002). Assuming around-the-clock significantly change the energy supply, effect on the use of energy, the numbers operation of water treatment plants, the distribution, or use in any given area. in Table VII–5 are compared to the total energy requirement can be divided Considering this analysis, EPA has national production figures for by 8,760 hours per year to obtain an concluded that LT2ESWTR is not likely electricity. According to the U.S. average power demand of 15 mW for the to have a significant adverse effect on Department of Energy’s Information modeled Information Collection Rule the supply, distribution, or use of Administration, electricity producers occurrence distribution. A more energy. generated 3,800 million mW of detailed derivation of this value is I. National Technology Transfer and electricity in 2001 (USDOE EIA, 2002). shown in Appendix P of the Economic Advancement Act Therefore, even using the highest Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA assumed energy use for the LT2ESWTR, 2003a). Assuming that power demand is Section 12(d) of the National the rule when fully implemented would proportional to water flow through the Technology Transfer and Advancement result in only a 0.003 percent increase plant, and that peak flow can be as high Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104– in annual average energy use. as twice the average daily flow during 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), In addition to average energy use, the the summer months, about 30 mW directs EPA to use voluntary consensus impact at times of peak power demand could be needed for treatment standards in its regulatory activities is important. To examine whether technologies installed to comply with unless to do so would be inconsistent increased energy usage might the LT2ESWTR. This is only 0.024 with applicable law or otherwise significantly affect the capacity margins percent of the capacity margin available impractical. Voluntary consensus of energy suppliers, their peak season at peak use. standards are technical standards (e.g., generating capacity reserve was Although EPA recognizes that not all material specifications, test methods, compared to an estimate of peak areas have a 15 percent capacity margin sampling procedures, and business incremental power demand by water and that this margin varies across practices) that are developed or adopted utilities. regions and through time, this analysis by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Both energy use and water use are reflects the effect of the rule on national The NTTAA directs EPA to provide highest in the summer months, so the energy supply, distribution, or use. Congress, through OMB, explanations most significant effects on supply would While certain areas, notably California, when the Agency decides not to use be seen then. In the summer of 2001, have experienced shortfalls in available and applicable voluntary U.S. generation capacity exceeded generating capacity in the recent past, a consensus standards.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47769

The proposed rulemaking involves consult with stakeholders representing a source. Consequently, this rule provides technical standards. EPA proposes to variety of economic and ethnic health protection from pathogen use several voluntary consensus backgrounds. These are: (1) The overall exposure equally to all income and standards (VCS) methods for nature of the rule, and (2) the convening minority groups served by surface water enumerating E. coli in surface waters. of a stakeholder meeting specifically to and GWUDI systems. These methods are listed in section address environmental justice issues. K. Consultations with the Science IV.K.2, Table IV–37, and were The Agency built on the efforts Advisory Board, National Drinking developed or adopted by the following conducted during the development of Water Advisory Council, and the organizations: American Public Health the IESWTR to comply with Executive Secretary of Health and Human Services Association in Standard Methods for the Order 12898. On March 12, 1998, the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Agency held a stakeholder meeting to In accordance with sections 1412 (d) 20th, 19th, and 18th Editions, the address various components of pending and (e) of SDWA, the Agency has American Society of Testing Materials drinking water regulations and how consulted with the Science Advisory in Annual Book of ASTM Standards— they might impact sensitive Board (SAB), the National Drinking Water and Environmental Technology, subpopulations, minority populations, Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), and and the Association of Analytical and low-income populations. This will consult with the Secretary of Health Chemists in Official Methods of meeting was a continuation of and Human Services regarding the Analysis of AOAC International, 16th stakeholder meetings that started in proposed LT2ESWTR during the public Edition. These methods are available in 1995 to obtain input on the Agency’s comment period. EPA charged the SAB the docket for today’s proposal. EPA has Drinking Water Programs. Topics panel with reviewing the following concluded that these methods have the discussed included treatment aspects of the LT2ESWTR proposal: • The analysis of Cryptosporidium necessary sensitivity and specificity to techniques, costs and benefits, data occurrence, as described in Occurrence meet the data quality objectives of the quality, health effects, and the and Exposure Assessment for the LT2ESWTR. regulatory process. Participants were The Agency conducted a search to LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003b); national, State, Tribal, municipal, and • The pre- and post-LT2ESWTR identify potentially applicable voluntary individual stakeholders. EPA conducted consensus standards for analysis of Cryptosporidium risk assessment, as the meeting by video conference call described in Economic Analysis for the Cryptosporidium. However, we between eleven cities. The major identified no such standards. Therefore, LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a); and objectives for the March 12, 1998, • EPA proposes to use the following The treatment credits for the meeting were the following: following four microbial toolbox methods for Cryptosporidium analysis: • Method 1622: ‘‘Cryptosporidium in Solicit ideas from stakeholders on components: raw water off-stream Water by Filtration/IMS/FA’’ (EPA–821- known issues concerning current storage, pre-sedimentation, lime drinking water regulatory efforts; softening, and lower finished water R–01–026, April 2001) (USEPA 2001e) • and Method 1623: ‘‘Cryptosporidium Identify key areas of concern to turbidity (described in section IV.C of stakeholders; and this preamble). and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/ • FA’’ (EPA 821-R–01–025, April 2001) Receive suggestions from EPA met with the SAB to discuss the (USEPA 2001f). stakeholders concerning ways to LT2ESWTR on June 13, 2001 EPA welcomes comments on this increase representation of communities (Washington, DC), September 25–26, aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, in OGWDW regulatory efforts. 2001 (teleconference), and December specifically, invites the public to In addition, EPA developed a plain- 10–12, 2001 (Los Angeles, CA). Written identify additional potentially English guide for this meeting to assist comments from the December 2001 applicable voluntary consensus stakeholders in understanding the meeting of the SAB addressing the standards, and to explain why such multiple and sometimes complex issues occurrence analysis and risk assessment standards should be used in this surrounding drinking water regulations. were generally supportive. EPA has regulation. The LT2ESWTR and other drinking responded to the SAB’s water regulations promulgated or under recommendations for Cryptosporidium J. Executive Order 12898: Federal development are expected to have a occurrence analysis in the current draft Actions To Address Environmental positive effect on human health of Occurrence and Exposure Assessment Justice in Minority Populations or Low- regardless of the social or economic for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003b), and Income Populations status of a specific population. The EPA has addressed the SAB’s comments Executive Order 12898 establishes a LT2ESWTR serves to provide a similar on risk assessment in the current draft Federal policy for incorporating level of drinking water protection to all of Economic Analysis for the environmental justice into Federal groups. Where water systems have high LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a). Comments agency missions by directing agencies to Cryptosporidium levels, they must treat from the SAB on the microbial toolbox identify and address disproportionately their water to achieve a specified level components and the Agency’s responses high and adverse human health or of protection. Further, to the extent that to those comments are described in environmental effects of its programs, levels of Cryptosporidium in drinking section IV.C of this preamble. policies, and activities on minority and water might be disproportionately high EPA met with the NDWAC on low-income populations. The Agency among minority or low-income November 8, 2001, in Washington, DC, has considered environmental justice populations (which is unknown), the to discuss the LT2ESWTR proposal. related issues concerning the potential LT2ESWTR will work to remove those EPA specifically requested comments impacts of this action and consulted differences. Thus, the LT2ESWTR meets from the NDWAC on the regulatory with minority and low-income the intent of Federal policy requiring approach taken in the proposed stakeholders. incorporation of environmental justice microbial toolbox (e.g., proposal of Two aspects of the LT2ESWTR into Federal agency missions. specific design and implementation comply with the order that requires the The LT2ESWTR applies uniformly to criteria for treatment credits). The Agency to consider environmental CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs that Council was generally supportive of justice issues in the rulemaking and to use surface water or GWUDI as their EPA establishing criteria for awarding

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47770 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

treatment credit to toolbox components, Committee on Control of Water Quality in Sites, United States, 2000. MMWR. but recommended that EPA provide Transmission and Distribution Systems. J. 50(13):241–246. flexibility for States to address system AWWA. June, pg. 313–8. CEC (Clancy Environmental Consultants). specific situations. EPA believes that the AWWA, USEPA, AWWARF, AMWA, 2002. UV Disinfection of Cryptosporidium ASDWA, and NAWC. 2001. Partnership for and MS2 coliphage in Catskill-Delaware demonstration of performance credit, Safe Water, Phase IV Procedures and Water. Report to Hazen and Sawyer. described in section IV.C.17, provides Application Package. August. Chalmers, R., K. Elwin, A. Thomas, and D. this flexibility by allowing States to Barwick, R.S., D.A. Levy, G.F. Craun, M.J. Joynson. 2002. Infection with unusual award higher or lower levels of Beach, and R.L. Calderon. 2000. types of Cryptosporidium is not restricted treatment credit for microbial toolbox Surveillance for waterborne-disease to immunocompromised patients. J. components based on site specific outbreaks—United States, 1997–1998. Infectious Disease. 185:270–1. conditions. Minutes of the NDWAC and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Chappell, C., P. Okhuysen, C. Sterling, C. 49(SS04):1–35. SAB meetings are in the docket for Wang, W. Jakubowski and H. Dupont. Battigelli, D. and M. Sobsey. 1993. The 1999. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium today’s proposal. inactivation of Hepatitis A virus, parvum in healthy adults with pre-existing L. Plain Language poliovirus, and coliphage MS2 by lime anti-C. Parvum serum immunoglobulin G. softening and chlorine/monochloramine Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 60:157–164. Executive Order 12866 encourages disinfection. Proceedings of the Water Ciardelli, C. 1996a. Giardia and Federal agencies to write rules in plain Quality Technology Conference of the Cryptosporidium challenge of the HIF–14 language. EPA invites comments on American Water Works Association, vessel and PP-D–1 cartridges. Analytical how to make this proposed rule easier Denver, CO. Services, Inc., Williston, VT. to understand. For example: Has EPA Bergmire-Sweat, D., K. Wilson, L. Marengo, Ciardelli, C. 1996b. Giardia and Y. Lee, W. MacKenzie, J. Morgan, K. Von Cryptosporidium challenge of the HUR– organized the material to suit Alt, T. Bennett, V. Tsang, and B. Furness. commenters’ needs? Are the 170–HP filter. Analytical Services, Inc., 1999. Cryptosporidiosis in Brush Creek: Williston, VT. requirements in the rule clearly stated? Describing the epidemiology and causes of Cicirello, H., K. Kehl, D. Addiss, M. Chusid, Does the rule contain technical language a large outbreak in Texas. Proceedings, R. Glass, J. Davis, and P. Havens. 1997. or jargon that is not clear? Would a International Conference on Emerging Cryptosporidiosis in children during a different format (grouping and ordering Infectious Diseases, Milwaukee, WI, massive waterborne outbreak in of sections, use of headings, paragraphs) American Water Works Association, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Clinical, laboratory Denver, Colorado. and epidemiologic findings. Epidemiol. make the rule easier to understand? Bern, C., Y. Ortega, W. Checkley, J. Roberts, Infect. 119 (1): 53–60. Could EPA improve clarity by adding A. Lescano, L. Cabrera, M. Verastegui, E. Clancy Environmental Consultants. 2002. tables, lists, or diagrams? What else Black, C. Sterling, and H. Gilman. 2002. CWRWS MPA, Giardia, and could EPA do to make the rule easier to Epidemiologic differences between Cryptosporidium results, July-Oct. Draft cyclosporiasis and cryptosporidiosis in understand? report. Peruvian children. Emerging Infectious VIII. References Diseases. 8:6:581–5. Clancy, J., M. Marshall, and J. Dyksen. 1997. Bertolucci, G., G. Gilli, E. Carraro, D. Giacosa, Innovative electrotechnologies for Aboytes R., F.A. Abrams, W.E. McElroy, C. inactivation of Cryptosporidium. Abstract, Rheinecker, G.D. DiGiovanni, R. Seeny, M. and M. Puppo. 1998. Influence of raw water storage on Giardia, Cryptosporidium International Symposium on Waterborne LeChevallier, and R. Kozik. 2002. Cryptosporidium. March 2–5, 1997. Continuous monitoring for detection of and nematodes. Wat. Sci. Technol. 37:2:261–7. Newport Beach, CA. infectious Cryptosporidium parvum Clancy, J., Z. Bukhari, T. Hargy, M. Thomas, oocysts in drinking water. Abstracts of the Boller, M. 1993. Filter mechanisms in roughing filters. Aqua. 42:3. J. Bolton, B. Dussert. 1998. Inactivation of 102nd General Meeting of the American Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts Using Society for Microbiology, Salt Lake City, Bukhari, Z., T. Hargy, J. Bolton, B. Dussert, and J. Clancy. 1999. Medium-pressure UV Medium-Pressure Ultraviolet Light in UT, May 19–22. Bench and Pilot Scale Studies. Proceedings Adham, S., J. Jacangelo, and J. Laine. 1995. for oocyst inactivation. J. AWWA. 91:3:86– 1998 American Water Works Association Low pressure membranes: assessing 94. Water Quality Technology Conference, San integrity. J. AWWA. 83:3:62. Burlingame, G., M. Pickel, and J. Roman. Diego, CA , November 1–4: Adham, S., P. Gagliado, D. Smith, D. Ross, K. 1998. Practical applications of turbidity Clancy, J., Z. Bukhari, T. Hargy, J. Bolton, B. Gramith, and R. Trussell. 1998. Monitoring monitoring. J. AWWA. 90:8:57–69. of reverse osmosis for virus rejection. Campbell, A., L. Robertson, M. Snowball, and Dussert, and M. Marhsall. 2000. Using UV Proceedings of the Water Quality H. Smith. 1995. Inactivation of oocysts of to inactivate Cryptosporidium. J. AWWA. Technology Conference of the American Cryptosporidium parvum by ultraviolet 92:9:97–104. Water Works Association, Denver, CO. irradiation. Wat. Res. 29:11:2583–6. Clancy, J., T. Hargy, D. Battigelli, M. APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Campbell, A. and P. Wallis. 2002. The effect Marshall, D. Korich, and W. Nicholson. Examination of Water and Wastewater; of UV irradiation on human derived 2002. Susceptibility of Multiple Strains of 18th Edition. American Public Health Giardia lamblia cysts. Wat. Res. 36:4:963– C. parvum to UV Light. Published by the Association, Washington D.C. 9. American Water Works Association Arora, H., M. LeChevallier, R. Aboytes, E. Casemore, D. 1990. Epidemiological aspects Research Foundation, Denver, CO. Bouwer, C. O’Melia, W. Ball, W. Weiss, of human cryptosporidiosis. Epidemiol. Clark, R., M. Sivagensan, E. Rice, and J. Chen. and T. Speth. 2000. Full-scale evaluation of Infect. 104:1–28. 2002a. Development of a Ct equation for riverbank filtration at three Midwest water CDC. 1993. Surveillance for Waterborne- the inactivation of Cryptosporidium treatment plants. Proceedings of the Water Disease Outbreaks—United States, 1991– oocysts with ozone. Wat. Res. 36: 3141– Quality Technology Conference, Salt Lake 1992. MMWR. 42/SS–5:1–22. 3149. City, Utah, American Water Works CDC. 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne- Clark, R., M. Sivagensan, E. Rice, and J. Chen. Association, Denver, Colorado. Disease Outbreaks—United States, 1993– 2002b. Development of a Ct equation for ASTM. 2001. Standard test method for on- 1994. MMWR. 45/SS–1:1–33. the inactivation of Cryptosporidium line measurement of turbidity below 5 CDC. 1998. Surveillance for Waterborne- oocysts with chlorine dioxide. Wat. Res. NTU in water. D–6698–01. Disease Outbreaks—United States, 1995– (in press). ASTM. 2003. Standard test method for 1996. MMWR. 47/SS–5:1–33. Collins, M., J. Cole, C. Westerund, and D. determination of turbidity below 5 NTU in CDC. 2000. Surveillance for Waterborne- Paris. 1994. Assessing roughing filtration static mode. D–6855–03. Disease Outbreaks—United States, 1997– design variables. Water Supply. 12:1–2. AWWA Committee. 1983. Deterioration of 1998. MMWR. 49/SS–4:1–36. Collins, M., P. Dwyer, A. Margolin, and S. water quality in large distribution CDC. 2001. Preliminary FoodNet Data on the Hogan. 1996. Assessment of MS2 reservoirs (open reservoirs). AWWA Incidence of Foodborne Illnesses-Selected bacteriophage virus, Giardia cyst, and

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47771

Cryptosporidium oocyst removal by hollow Parvum oocyst challenge of Aria Septra CB Lakes Instrument Method 2, GLI, filber microfiltration (polysulfone) filter module with respect to filter Milwaukee, WI. 8pp. membranes. Proceedings AWWA membrane bubble point and pressure-hold Gregory, R. and T. Zabel. 1990. Membrance Conference, Reno, NV. integrity test data. University of New Sedimentation and Flotation in Water Connell, K, C. Rodgers, H. Shank-Givens, J. Hampshire, Durham, NH. Quality and Treatment: A Handbook of Scheller, M. Pope, and K. Miller. 2000. Edzwald, J. and M. Kelly. 1998. Control of Community Water Supplies. F.W. Building a better protozoa data set. J. Cryptosporidium from reservoirs to Pontious, ed. American Water Works AWWA. 92(10):30–43. clarifiers to filters. Wat. Sci. Technol. Assoc. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Cornwell, D. and M. LeChevallier (2002). 37(2):1–8. 427–444. Treatment options for removal of Giardia, Embrey, M. 1999. Adenovirus in drinking Haas, C.N., C.S. Crockett, J.B. Rose, C.P. Cryptosporidium, and other contaminants water, literature summary. Final report. Gerba and A.M. Fazil. 1996. Assessing the in recycled backwash water. American Prepared by The George Washington Risk Posed by Oocystsin Drinking Water. J. Water Works Association Research University School of Public Health and AWWA. 88:9:131–136. Foundation, Denver, CO. Health Services, Department of Hall T., J. Pressdee, and E. Carrington. 1994. Corso, P., M. Kramer, K. Blair, D. Addiss, J. Environmental and Occupational Health, Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts by Davis, A. Haddix. 2003. The cost of illness Washington, DC. water treatment processes. Report No. associated with the massive waterborne Emelko, M., P. Huck, and R. Slawson. 1999. FR0457, Foundation for Water Research, outbreak of Cryptosporidium infections in Design and Operational Strategies for Bucks, UK. 1993 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Emerging Optimizing Cryptosporidium Removal by Hancock, C., J. Rose, and M. Callahan. 1998. Infectious Diseases. 9:4:426–31. Filters. Proceedings of 1999 Water Quality Crypto and Giardia in U.S. groundwater. J. Craik, S., G. Finch, J. Bolton, and M. Technology Conference, American Water AWWA. 90(3):58–61. Belosevic, 2000. Inactivation of Giardia Works Association, Denver, CO. Harrington W., A. Krupnick, and W. muris cysts using medium-pressure Emelko, M., P. Huck, and I. Douglas, and J. Spofford. 1985. The benefits of preventing ultraviolet radiation in filtered drinking van den Oever. 2000. Cryptosporidium and an outbreak of giardiasis due to drinking water. Wat. Res. 34:18:4325–32. Microsphere Removal During Low water contamination. Resources for the Craik, S., D. Weldon, G. Finch, J. Bolton, and Turbidity End-of-Run and Early Future Report. M. Belosevic. 2001. Inactivation of Breakthrough Filtration. Proceeding Of Harrington, G., H. Chen, A. Harris, I. Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts using Water Quality Technology Conference, Xagoraraki, D. Battigelli, and J. Standridge. medium- and low-pressure ultraviolet American Water Works Association, 2001. Removal of Emerging Waterborne radiation. Wat. Res. 35:1387–98 Denver, CO. Pathogens. American Water Works Craun, F., and R. Calderon. 1996. Microbial Enriquez, C. and C. Greba. 1999. Evaluation Association Research Foundation, Denver, risks in groundwater systems: of the Osmonics Water Purification Filters CO. Epidemiology of waterborne outbreaks. FGF, FAP and SXE in their Ability to Hart, V., C. Johnson, and R. Letterman. 1992. Under the Microscope: Examining Remove Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts. An analysis of low-level turbidity microbes in groundwater. Proceedings of Final Report. University of Arizona, measurements. J. AWWA. 84(12):40–45. the Groundwater Foundation’s 12th Tuscon, AZ. Harter, T., S. Wagner and E. Atwill. 2000. Annual Fall Symposium, Boston. Fayer, R., and B. Ungar. 1986. Colloid transport and filtration of September. Cryptosporidium spp. and Cryptosporidium parvum in sandy soils Craun, G., S. Hubbs, F. Frost, R. Calderon, cryptosporidiosis. Microbial Review. and aquifer sediments. Environ. Sci. and S. Via. 1998. Waterborne outbreaks of 50(4):458–483. Technol. 34:62–70. cryptosporidiosis. J. AWWA. 90(9):81–91. Fogel, D., J. Isaac-Renton, R. Guasparini, W. Havelaar, A., M. van Olphen, and J. Schijven. Current, W., L. Reese, N. Ernst, J. Bailey, M. Moorehead, and J. Ongerth. 1993. 1995. Removal and inactivation of viruses Heyman, and W. Weistein. 1983. Human Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by by drinking water treatment processes cryptosporidiosis in immunocompotent slow sand filtration. J. AWWA. 85:11:77– under full scale conditions, Wat. Sci. and immunodeficient persons: studies of 84. Technol. 31:55062. an outbreak and experimental Fox, K., N. Dugan, R. Miltner, D. Lytle, D. Hayes, S., E. Rice, M. Ware, and F. Schaefer, transmission. New England Journal of Williams, C. Parrett, C. Feld, J. Owens, E. III. 2003. Low pressure ultraviolet studies Medicine. 308(21):1252–7. Rice, and C. Johnson. 1998. Comparative for inactivation of Giardia muris cysts. Current, W. 1986. Cryptosproridium: Its removal of Cryptosporidium and surrogates Journal of Applied Microbiology. 94:54–59. biology and potential for environmental in a low flow pilot plant system. Heijbel, H., K. Slaine, B. Seigel, P. Wall, S. transmission. Crit. Rev. in Env. Control. Proceedings of the Water Quality McNabb, W. Gibbons, and G. Istre. 1987. 17:1:21–51. Technology Conference, American Water Outbreak of diarrhea in a day care center Drozd, C. and J. Schartzbrod. 1997. Removal Works Association, Denver, CO. with spread to household members: The of Cryptosporidium from river water by Gerba, C., J. Rose, and C. Haas. 1996. role of Cryptosporidium. Pediatr. Infect. crossflow microfiltration: a pilot scale Sensitive populations: who is at the Dis. J. 6(6):532–535. study. Wat. Sci. and Tech. 35(11–12):391– greatest risk? International Journal of Food Hirata, T. and A. Hashimoto. 1998. 5. Microbiology: 30(1–2), 10pp. Experimental assessment of the efficacy of Dugan, N., K. Fox, R. Miltner, D. Lytle, D. Geldreich, E. 1990. Microbiological Quality, microfiltration and ultrafiltration for Williams, C. Parrett, C. Feld, and J. Owens. Control in Distribution Systems In: Water Cryptosporidium removal. Wat. Sci. Tech. 1999. Control of Cryptosporidium oocysts Quality and Treatment 4th Edition. FW 38(12):103–7. by steady-state conventional treatment. Pontius, ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, Hoxie, N., J. Davis, J. Vergeront, R. Nashold, Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental NY. and K. Blair. 1997. Cryptosporidiosis- Protection Agency 6th National Drinking Goodrich, J., S. Li, and B. Lykins. 1995. Cost associated mortality following a massive Water and Wastewater Treatment and Performance Evaluations of waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Technology Transfer Workshop, Kansas Alternative Filtration Technologies for Wisconsin. Amer. J. Publ. Health. City, MO, August 2–4. Small Communities. Proceedings of the 87(12):2032–2035. Dugan, N., K. Fox, J. Owens, and R. Miltner. Annual Conference of the American Water Huck, P.M., B. Coffey, C. O’Melia, and M. 2001. Controlling Cryptosporidium oocysts Works Association, Denver, CO. Emelko. 2000. Removal of using conventional treatment. J. AWWA. Graczyk, T.K. Cranfield, M.R., Fayer, R. and Cryptosporidium by Filtration Under 93:12::64–76. Anderson, M.S. 1996. Viability and Conditions of Process Challenge. DuPont, H., C. Chappell, C. Sterling, P. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum Proceedings from the Water Quality Okhuysen, J. Rose, and W. Jakubowski. Oocysts are Retained Upon Intestinal Technology Conference of the American 1995. The Infectivity of Cryptosporidium Passage Through a Refractory Avian Host. Water Works Association, Denver, CO. parvum in healthy volunteers. New Eng. J. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jacangelo, J., S. Adham and J. Laine. 1995. Med. 332(13):855–859. 62(9):3234–3237. Mechanism of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Dwyer, P., S. Heffron, M. Arenberg, and R. Great Lakes Instruments, 1992. Analytical and MS2 virus removal by MF and UF. J. Collins. 2001. High level Cryptosporidium Method for Turbidity Measurement: Great AWWA 87(9):107–21.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47772 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Juranek, D. 1995. Cryptosporidiosis: sources Cryptosporidium removal. J. AWWA. Wasserwerke im Rheineinzugsgebiet, of infection and guidelines for prevention. 89(5):90. Amsterdam. Clinical Infectious Diseases: 21(1). Li, H., G. Finch, D. Smith, and M. Belosevic. Medema, G., and J. Schijven. 2001. Modeling Kashinkunti, R., D. Metz, K. Linden, M. 2001. Sequential Disinfection Design the sewage discharge and dispersion of Sobsey, M. Moran, and A. Samuelson. Criteria for Inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in surface 2002. Microbial Inactivation Strategies for Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Drinking water. Wat. Res. 35(18):4307–16. the Future: UV, Chlorine, and DBPs. Water. American Water Works Association Messner, M., C. Chappell, and P. Okhuysen. Proceedings of the American Water Works Research Foundation, Denver, CO. 2001. Risk assessment for Association Water Quality Technology Linden, K., G. Shin, G. Faubert, W. Cairns, Cryptosporidium: A hierarchical Bayesian Conference, Seattle, WA, Nov. 10–14. and M. Sobsey. 2002. UV disinfection of analysis of human dose-response data. Kato, S., M. Jenkins, W. Ghiorse, E. Fogarty, Giardia lamblia in water. Environ. Sci. Wat. Res. 35(16):3934–3940. and D. Bowman. 2001. Inactivation of Technol. 36(11):2519–2522. Messner, M. 2003. Estimating lot variability Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in field Logsdon, G., M. Frey, T. Stefanich, S. (Chlorine dioxide CT table). USEPA soil. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Johnson, D. Feely, J. Rose, and M. Sobsey. Report. April 30, 2003. Health. 32(2):183–9. 1994. The removal and disinfection Millard, P., K. Gensheimer, D. Addiss, D. Katsumata, T., D. Hosea, I. Ranuh, S. Uga, T. efficiency of lime softening processes for Sosin, G. Beckett, A. Houck-Jankoski, and Yanagi, and S. Kohno. 2000. Short report: Giardia and viruses. American Water A. Hudson. 1994. An outbreak of possible Cryptosporidium muris infection Works Association Research Foundation, cryptosporidiosis from fresh-pressed apple in humans. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. Denver, CO. cider. JAMA. 272:1592–1596. 62:1:70–2. Long, W.R. 1983. Evaluation of Cartridge Mofidi, A., E. Meyer, P. Wallis, C. Chou, B. Kelley, M., P. Warrier, J. Brokaw, K. Barrett, Filters for the Removal of Giardia lamblia Meyer, S. Ramalingam, and B. Coffey. and S. Komisar. 1995. A study of two U.S. Cyst Models from Drinking Water Systems. 2002. The effect of UV light on the Army installation drinking water sources Journal of Environmental Health. inactivation of Giardia lamblia and Giardia and treatment systems for the removal of 45(5):220. muris cysts as determined by animal Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Proceedings Lykins, B., J. Adams, J. Goodrich, and R. infectivity assay. Wat. Res. 36(8):2098– of the Annual Conference of the American Clark. 1994. Meeting federal regulations 2108. Water Works Association, Denver, CO. with MF/UF—EPA ongoing projects. Morgan-Ryan, U., A. Fall, L. Ward, N. Ketelaars, H., G. Medema, L. van Breemen, D. Microfiltration II Conference. San Diego, Hijjawi, I. Sulaiman, R. Fayer, R. Van der Kooij, P. Nobel, and P. Nuhn. CA. November 12–13. Thompson, M. Olson, A. Lal, and L. Xiao. 1995. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium MacKenzie, W.R. and N.J. Hoxie, M.E. 2002. Cryptosporidium hominis n. sp. Oocysts and Giardia Cysts in the River Proctor, M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, D.E. (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporidiidae) from Meuse and removal in the Biesbosch Peterson, J.J. Kazmierczak, D.A. Addiss, Homo sapiens. Jounal of Eukaryotic Reservoirs. Aqua. 44:108–111. K.R. Fox, J.B. Rose, and J.P. Davis. 1994. A Microbiology. 49:6:443–440. Landis, H., J. Thompson, J. Robinson, and E. massive outbreak of Cryptosporidium Muller T.B., F.J. Frost, G.F. Craun, and R.L. Bltachley. 2000. Inactivation responses of infection transmitted through the public Calderon. 2001. Serological Responses to Cryptosporidium parvum to UV radiation water supply. New England Journal of Cryptosporidium Infection. Letters to the and gamma radiation. Proceedings AWWA Medicine 331(3): 161–167. Editor. Infection and Immunity. 69:3. Water Quality Technical Conference, Salt Malley, J., J. Shaw, and J. Ropp. 1995. Najm, I., J. Rosen, S. Via, and J. Sobrinho. Lake City, UT, November 5–9. Evaluation of the by-products produced by 2002. Quantifying the Contribution of LeChevallier, M., W. Norton, and R. Lee. the treatment of groundwaters with Experimental and Analytical Errors to the 1991. Giardia and Cryptosporidium spp. in ultraviolet radiation. American Water Overall Data Scatter Observed During the filtered drinking water supplies. Appl. Works Association Research Foundation, Inactivation of Cryptosporidium with Environ. Microbial. 57(9):2617–2621. Denver, CO. Ozone. Draft report. July 23. LeChevallier, M. and W. Norton. 1992. Mazounie, P., F. Bernazeau, and P. Alla. Nieminski, E. and J. Ongerth. 1995. Examining relationships between particle 2000. Removal of Cryptosporidium by High Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by counts and Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Rate Contact Filtration: The Performance of conventional treatment and direct turbidity. J. AWWA. 84(120):52–60. the Prospect Water Filtration Plant During filtration. J. AWWA 87(9):96–106. LeChevallier, M. and W. Norton. 1995. the Sydney Water Crisis. Water Science Nieminski, E. and W. Bellamy. 2000. Giardia and Cryptosporidium in raw and and Technology. 41(7):93–101. Application of Surrogate Measures to finished water. J. AWWA. 87(9):54–68. McDonald, A., W. MacKenzie, D. Addiss, M. Improve Treatment Plant Performance. LeChevallier, M., W. Norton, and T. Gradus, G. Linke, E. Zembrowski, M. Hurd, American Water Works Association Atherholt. 1997. Protozoa in open M. Arroweed, P. Lammie, and J. Priest. Research Foundation, Denver, CO. reservoirs. J. AWWA. 89(9):84–96. 2001. Cryptosporidium parvum-specific NSF International. 2001a. Environmental LeChevallier, M.W., G. D. Di Giovanni, J.L. antibody responses among children technology verification report, physical Clancy, Z. Bukhari, S. Bukhari, J.S. Rosen, residing in Milwaukee during the 1993 removal of Giardia- and Cryptosporidium- J. Sobrinho, M.M. Frey. 2003. Comparison waterborne outbreak. Jour. Infectious sized particles in drinking water: Rosedale of Method 1623 and Cell Culture-PCR for Diseases 183:1373–1379. Products, Inc. Bag and Cartridge Filter Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. in McTigue, N., M. LeChevallier, H. Arora, and System Model GFS–302P2–150S-ESBB. Source Waters. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. J. Clancy. 1998. National assessment of (01/08/PEADW395), Ann Arbor, MI. 69:2:971–979. particle removal by filtration. American NSF International. 2001b. Environmental Lederberg, J. Editor. 1992. Encyclopedia of Water Works Association Research technology verification report, physical Microbiology. Vol 2. Academic Press, Inc. Foundation, Denver, CO. removal of Giardia- and Cryptosporidium- New York. Enteroviruses. pp. 69–75. Medema, G., M. Bahar, and F. Schets. 1997. sized particles in drinking water: Lapoint Leland, D., J. McAnulty, W. Keene, and G. Survival of Cryptosporidium parvum, Industries Aqua-Rite Potable Water Stevens. 1993. A cryptosporidiosis Escherichia Coli, Faecal Enterococci, and Filtration System. (01/08/PEADW395), outbreak in a filtered-water supply. J. Clostridium perfringens in river water: Ann Arbor, MI. AWWA. 85(6):34–42. Influence of temperature and NSF International. 2002a. Proposed Letterman R., C. Johnson, S. Viswanathan, autochthonous microorganisms. Wat. Sci. Modification to ETV Protocol for and J. Dwarakanathan. 2001. A study of Technol. 35(11–12):249–252. Equipment Verification Testing for low level turbidity measurements. Medema, G., M. Juhasz-Hoterman, and J. Physical Removal of Microbiological and Published by the American Water Works Luitjen. 2000. Removal of micro-organisms Particulate Contaminants, Test Plan for Association Research Foundation, Denver, by bank filtration in a gravel-sand soil. Membrane Filtration. Ann Arbor, MI. CO. Proceedings of the International Riverbank NSF International. 2002b. Environmental Li, S., J. Goodrich, J. Owens, G. Willeke, F. Filtration Conference, November 2–4, Technology Verification Protocol for Schaefer and R. Clark. 1997. Reliability of Dusseldorf, W. Julich and J. Schubert, eds., Equipment Verification Testing for surrogates for determining Internationale Arbeitgemeinschaft der Physical Removal of Microbiological and

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47773

Particulate Contaminants. (40CFR35.6450), transport through an alluvial gravel Schaub, S., H. Hargett, M. Schmidt and W. Ann Arbor, MI. aquifer. Ground Water. 36:112–122. Burrows. 1993. Reverse osmosis water Okhuysen, P.C., C.L. Chappell, C.R. Sterling, Patania, N., Jacangelo, J., Cummings, L., purification unit: Efficacy of cartridge W. Jakubowski, and H.L. DuPont. 1998. Wilczak, A., Riley, K., and Oppenheimer, filters for removal of bacteria and Susceptibility and Serologic Response of J. 1995. Optimization of Filtration for Cyst protozoan cysts when RO elements are Healthy Adults to Reinfection with Removal. AWWARF. Denver, CO. 178pp. bypassed. U.S. Army Biomedical Research Cryptosporidium parvum. American Patania, N., P. Mazounie, F. Bernazeau, G. and Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Society for Microbiology. 66:2:441–443. Maclean, and P. Alla. 1999. Removal of Frederick, MD. Okhuysen, P.C., C.L. Chappell, J.H. Crabb, Cryptosporidium by contact filtration: The Scheller, J, K. Connell, H. Shank-Givens, and C.R. Sterling, and H.L. DuPont. 1999. Sydney experience. Proceedings of the C. Rodgers. 2002. Design, Implementation, Virulence of three distinct Annual Conference of the American Water and Results of USEPA’s 70-utility ICR Cryptosporidium parvum isolates for Works Association, Denver, CO. Laboratory Spiking Program. Information healthy adults. Journal of Infectious Payment, P. and E. Franco. 1993. Clostridium Collection Rule Data Analysis. McGuire, Diseases. 180:4:1275–1281. perfringens and somatic coliphages as M, J. McLain, and A. Obolensky, eds. Ong, C., D. Eisler, A. Alikhani, V. Fung, J. indicators of the efficiency of drinking Schijven, J., W. Hoogenboezem, P. Nobel, G. Tomblin, W. Bowie, and J. Isaac-Renton. water treatment for viruses and protozoan Medema and A. Stakelbeek. 1998. 2002. Novel Cryptosporidium genotypes in cysts. Appl. Environ. Micro. 59(8):2418– Reduction of FRNA-bacteriophages and sporadic cryptosporidiosis cases: first 2424. faecal indicator bacteria by dune report of human infections with a cervine Peldszus, S., R. Souza, J. Bolton, B. Dussert, infiltration and estimation of sticking genotype. Emerg. Infect. Diseases 8:3:263– F. Smith, and S. Andrews. 2000. Impact of efficiencies. Wat. Sci. Technol. 38:127– 268. medium pressure UV-disinfection on the 131. Ongerth, J., 1989. Giardia cyst concentration formation of low molecular weight organic Schuler, P. and M. Ghosh. 1990. in river water. J. AWWA. 81(9):81–86. by-products and nitrite, and the reduction Diatomaceous earth filtration of cysts and Ongerth, J. and J. Pecoraro. 1995. Removing of bromate. Proceedings, Water Quality other particulates using chemical Cryptosporidium using multimedia filters. Technology Conference of the American additives. J. AWWA 82(12):67–75. J. AWWA. 87(12):83–89. Water Works Association, Denver, CO. Schuler, P. and M. Ghosh. 1991. Slow sand Ongerth, J. and P. Hutton. 1997. DE filtration Pluntz, J. 1974. Health aspects of uncovered filtration of cysts and other particulates. to remove Cryptosporidium. J. AWWA. reservoirs. J. AWWA. August, pg. 432–7. Proceedings of the annual conference of 89(12):39–46. Pope, M., M. Bussen, M. Feige, L. Shadix, S. the American Water Works Association, Ongerth, J. and P. Hutton. 2001. Testing of Gonder, C. Rodgers, Y. Chambers, J. Pulz, Denver, CO. diatomaceous earth filtration for removal of K. Miller, K. Connell, and J. Standridge. Sethi V., P. Patnaik, P. Biswas, R. Clark, and Cryptosporidium oocysts. J. AWWA. 2003. Assessment of the effects of holding E. Rice. 1997. Evaluation of optical 93(12): 54–63. time and temperature on E. coli densities detection methods for waterborne Oppenheimer J., E. Aieta, R. Trussell, J. in surface water samples. Appl. Environ. suspensions, J. AWWA. 89(2):98–112. Jacangelo, and N. Najim. 2000. Evaluation Micro. (submitted). Sharpless, C. and K. Linden. 2001 UV of Cryptosporidium inactivation in natural Qian S., M. Donnelly, D. Schmelling, M. photolysis of nitrate: Effects of natural waters. American Water Works Association Messner, K. Linden, and C. Cotton. 2003 organic matter and dissolved inorganic Research Foundation, Denver, CO. Ultraviolet light inactivation of carbon and implications for UV water Oppenheimer, J., T. Gillogly, G. Stolarik, and Cryptosporidium and Giardia in drinking disinfection. Environ. Sci. Technol. R. Ward. 2002. Comparing the efficiency of water: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Environ. 35(14):2949–1955. low and medium pressure UV light for Sci. Technol. (submitted). Shin, G., K. Linden, M. Arrowood, and M. inactivating Giardia muris and Rennecker J., B. Marinas, J. Owens and E. Sobsey. 2001. Low-Pressure UV Cryptosporidium parvum in waters with Rice. 1999. Inactivation of Inactivation and DNA Repair Potential of low and high levels of turbidity. Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts with Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts. Appl. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of ozone. Wat. Res. 33(11):2481–2488. Environ. Microbiol. 67(7):3029–3032. the American Water Works Association, Rice, E., K. Fox, R. Miltner, D. Lytle, and C. Silverman, G., L. Nagy, and B. Olson. 1983. Denver, CO. Johnson. 1996. Evaluating Plant Variations in particulate matter, algae, and Osewe, P, D. Addis, K. Blair, A. Hightower, Performance with Endospores. J. AWWA. bacteria in an uncovered finished-drinking- M. Kamb, and J. Davis. 1996. 88(9):122–130. water reservoir. J. AWWA. 75(4):191–5. Cryptosporidiosis in Wisconsin: A case- Rice, E. 2002. Nebraska aerobic spore and Sivaganesan, M. 2003. Estimating lot control study of post-outbreak discharge results, Dec. 2001–Nov. 2002, variability for development of ozone CT transmission. Epidemiol. Infect. 117:297– unpublished data. table. USEPA Report. February 24, 2003. 304. Roessler, N. 1998. Control of Solo-Gabriele, H. and S. Neumeister. 1996. Owen, C.A., J.S. Taylor, C. Robert, and C.R. Cryptosporidium in bottled water using U.S. outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis. J. Reiss. 1999. Microbial Challenge of cartridge filtration systems. Filtration & AWWA. 88:76–86. Integrated Membrane System Large Scale Separation. 35(1):37–39. Sommer, R., S. Appelt, W. Pribil, and T. Pilot Plants Treating a Highly Organic Rose, J. 1997. Environmental ecology of Slifko. 2001. UV Irradiation in a Standard Surface Water. Proceedings of the Water Cryptosporidium and public health Laboratory Batch Apparatus (Wavelength Quality Technology Conference of the implications. Annual Rev. Public Health. 253.7 nm). Draft Report. American Water Works Association, 18:135–61. Spano, F. L. Putignani, A. Crisanti, P. Tampa, FL. Ruffell K., J. Rennecker, and B. Marinas. Sallicandro, U. Morgan, S. Le Blanco, L. Owens J., R. Miltner, T. Slifko, and J. Rose. 2000. Inactivation of Cryptosporidium Tchack, S. Tzipori, and G. Widmer. 1998. 1999. In vitro excystation and infectivity in parvum oocysts with chlorine dioxide. Multilocus genotype analysis of mice and cell culture to assess chlorine Wat. Res. 34(3):868–876. Cryptosporidium parvum isolates drom dioxide inactivation of Cryptosporidium Sadar, M. 1999. Turbidimeter Instrument different hosts and geographical origins. J. oocysts, in Proceedings of the Water Comparison: Low-level Sample Clinical Microbiol. 36:11:3255–3259. Quality Technology Conference of the Measurements Technical Information States, S., K. Stadterman, L. Ammon, p. American Water Works Association, Series. Hach Company. ap/dp 4/99 1ed Vogel, J. Baldizar, D. Wright, L. Conley, Denver, CO. rev1 D90.5 Lit No. 7063. and J. Sykora. 1997. Protozoa in river Owens J., R. Miltner, E. Rice, C. Johnson, D. Sattar, S., C. Chauret, V. Springthorpe, D. water: sources, occurrence, and treatment. Dahling, F. Schaefer, and H. Shukairy Battigelli, M. Abbaszadegan, and M. J. AWWA. 89:(9)74–83. 2000. Pilot-scale ozone inactivation of LeChevallier. 1999. Giardia cyst and Symons, J., L. Bradley, Jr., and T. Cleveland. Cryptosporidium and other Cryptosporidium oocyst survival in 2000. The drinking water dictionary. microorganisms in natural water. Ozone watersheds and factors affecting American Water Works Association, Sci. Eng. 22:5:501–517. inactivation. American Water Works Denver, CO. Pang, L., M. Close and M. Noonan. 1998. Association Research Foundation, Denver, Tangerman, R., S. Gordon, P. Wiesner, and L. Rhodamine WT and Bacillus subtilis CO. Kreckmanet. 1991. An outbreak of

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47774 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

cryptosporidiosis in a day-care center in USEPA. 1998e. Water Supply Performance Application, Implementation and Georgia, American Jour. of Epidemiology. Evaluation Study #41. National Exposure Regulatory Issues. EPA 815–C–01–001. 133:471–476. Research Laboratory. Office of Research USEPA. 2001i. Guidelines Establishing Test Timms, S., J. Slade, and C. Fricker. 1995. and Development. Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Removal of Cryptosporidium by slow sand USEPA. 1998f. Revisions to State Primacy Analytical Methods for Biological filtration. Wat. Sci. Technol. 31(5–6):81– Requirements To Implement Safe Drinking Pollutants in Ambient Water; Proposed 84. Water Act Amendments; Final Rule. 63 FR Rule. Federal Register. August 30, 2001. Trimboli, P., J. Lozier, and W. Johnson. 1999. 23361; April 28, 1998. USEPA. 2002a. National Primary Drinking Demonstrating the integrity of a full scale USEPA. 1999a. Method 1622: Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced microfiltration plant using a Bacillus spore Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/ Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. challenge test. Proceedings of the IMS/FA. EPA–821–R–99–001. Federal Register. January 14, 2002. 67 FR American Water Works Association USEPA. 1999b. Method 1623: 1812. EPA 815–Z–02–001. Membrane Technology Conference, Long Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by USEPA. 2002b. Process for Designing a Beach, CA. Filtration/IMS/FA. EPA–821–R–99–006. Watershed Initiative. 67 FR 36172, May 23, USEPA. 1986. Design Manual, Municipal USEPA. 1999c. Revisions to the Unregulated 2002. Wastewater Disinfection. EPA/626/1–86/ Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for USEPA. 2002c. Laboratory Quality Assurance 021. Public Water Systems. 64 FR 50556; Evaluation Program for Analysis of USEPA. 1989a. National Primary Drinking September 17, 1999. Cryptosporidium Under the Safe Drinking Water Regulations; Filtration, Disinfection; USEPA. 1999d. Disinfection Profiling and Water Act; Agency Information Collection: Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, Viruses, Benchmarking Guidance Manual. EPA Proposed Collection; Comment Request. Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria; 815–R–99–013. Federal Register: March 4, 2002. 67 FR Final Rule. Part II. Federal Register, USEPA. 1999e. Uncovered Finished Water 9731. 54:124:27486. (June 29, 1989). Reservoirs Guidance Manual. EPA 815-R– USEPA. 2003a. Economic Analysis for the USEPA. 1989b. National Interim Primary 99–011. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Drinking Water Regulations; Total Coliform USEPA. 2000a. Stage 2 Microbial and Treatment Rule Proposal. Prepared by The Rule; Final Rule. Part II. Federal Register, Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Cadmus Group USEPA. 2003b. Occurrence 54:124:27544. (June 29, 1989). Committee Agreement in Principle. 65 FR and Exposure Assessment for the Long USEPA. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting 83015; December 29, 2000. Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Priorities and Strategies for Environmental USEPA. 2000b. National Primary Drinking Rule Proposal. Prepared by The Cadmus Protection. USEPA Science Advisory Board Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced Group. (A–101), Washington, DC. Report No. Surface Water Treatment Rule; Proposed USEPA. 2003c. Technologies and Costs for Rule. 65 FR 19046; April 10, 2000. SAB–EC–90–021 (September). Control of Microbial Pathogens and USEPA. 2000c. U.S. Environmental USEPA. 1991. Optimizing Water Treatment Disinfection Byproducts. Prepared by the Protection Agency. Guidelines for Plant Performance Using the Composite Cadmus Group and Malcolm Pirnie. Preparing Economic Analyses. Correction Program. EPA 625–6–91–027. USEPA. 2003d. Ultraviolet Disinfection Washington, DC. EPA 240–R–00–003, USEPA. 1993. EPA Method 180.1. Guidance Manual. June 2003 Draft. September 2000. Nephelometric Method. EPA 600/R–93– USEPA. 2000d. National Primary Drinking Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Malcolm 100. Water Regulations: Public Notification Pirnie, and Carollo Engineers. USEPA. 1994. National Primary Drinking Rule; Final Rule. 65 FR 25982; May 4, USEPA. 2003e. Membrane Filtration Water Regulations; Enhanced Surface 2000. Guidance Manual. June 2003 Draft. Water Treatment Requirements. 59 FR USEPA. 2000e. SAB Report from the Prepared by the Cadmus Group and 38832; July 29, 1994. Environmental Economics Advisory Malcolm Pirnie. USEPA. 1996a. National Interim Primary Committee (EEAC) on EPA’s White Paper USEPA. 2003f. Long Term 2 Enhanced Drinking Water Regulations; Monitoring ‘‘Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Requirements for Public Drinking Water Reduction’’. EPA–SAB–EEAC–00–013. July Guidance Manual. June 2003 Draft. Supplies; Final Rule. 61 FR 24354; May 14, 27. Prepared by The Cadmus Group. 1996. USEPA. 2000f. Final Report of the Small USEPA. 2003g. Source Water Monitoring USEPA. 1996b. ICR Microbial Laboratory Business Advocacy Review Panel on Stage Guidance Manual for Public Water System Manual. EPA 600/R–95/178. April 1996. 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection under the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface USEPA. 1997a. National Primary Drinking Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) and Long Water Treatment Rule. June 2003 Draft. Water Regulations: Interim Enhanced Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Prepared by Dyncorp. Surface Water Treatment Rule Notice of Rule (LT2ESWTR). June 23, 2000. USEPA. 2003h. Microbial Laboratory Manual Data Availability; Proposed Rule. 62 FR USEPA. 2001a. National Primary Drinking for the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface 59486, November 3, 1997. Water; Filter Backwash Recycling Rule; Water Treatment Rule. June 2003 Draft. USEPA. 1997b. Technologies and Costs for Final Rule. 66 FR 31086; June 8, 2001. Prepared by Dyncorp. the Microbial Recommendations of the EPA–815–Z–01–001. USEPA. 2003i. Comparison of Method 1623 MDBP Advisory Committee; Final Draft. USEPA. 2001b. Cryptosporidium: Human Recoveries Using Two Protozoa Matrix Prepared for the Office of Ground Water Health Criteria Document. EPA–822–R–01– Spiking Procedures and the IDEXX Filta- and Drinking Water, Washington, DC by 008. March 2001. MaxTM and Pall Gelman EnvirochekTM HV Science Applications International USEPA. 2001c. Cryptosporidium: Drinking Filters. Draft Report. February 2003. Corporation, McLean, VA. 185 pp. Water Advisory. EPA–822–R–01–009. USEPA 2003j. Revised Method 1622: USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking March 2001. Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/ Water Regulations; Interim Enhanced USEPA. 2001d. Cryptosporidium: Risks for IMS/FA. Draft for Comment. June 2003. Surface Water Treatment Rule. 63 FR Infants and Children. February 23, 2001. USEPA. 2003k. Revised Method 1623: 69477, December 16, 1998. USEPA. 2001e. Method 1622: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking ‘‘Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/ Filtration/IMS/FA. Draft for Comment. Water Regulations; Stage 1 Disinfectants IMS/FA’’ EPA–821–R–01–026, April 2001. June 2003. and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. 63 FR USEPA. 2001f. Method 1623: Van Breemen, L., H. Ketelaars, W. 69389; December 16, 1998. ‘‘Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Hoogenboezem, and G. Medema. 1998. USEPA. 1998c. Cryptosporidium and Giardia Filtration/IMS/FA’’ EPA 821–R–01–025, Storage reservoirs—a first barrier for Occurrence Assessment for the Interim April 2001. pathogenic micro-organisms in The Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. USEPA. 2001g. Pre-proposal Draft Preamble: Netherlands. Water Science and EPA 815–B–98–005. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Technology. 37(2):253–260. USEPA. 1998d. Regulatory Impact Analysis Treatment. November 27, 2001. Wang, J., R. Song, and S. Hubbs. 2001. for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water USEPA. 2001h. Low-Pressure Membrane Particle removal through riverbank Treatment Rule. EPA–815–R–98–003. Filtration for Pathogen Removal: filtration process, in W. Julich and J.

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47775

Schubert, eds., Proceedings of the of Federal Regulations is proposed to be Lake/reservoir refers to a natural or Internation Riverbank Filtration amended as follows: man made basin or hollow on the Conference, November 2–4, 2000, Earth’s surface in which water collects Dusseldorf, Germany, Internationale PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY or is stored that may or may not have Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwork im DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS Rheineinzugsgebiet. a current or single direction of flow. Wegelin, M., M. Boller, and R. Schertenleib. 1. The authority citation for Part 141 * * * * * 1987. Particle Removal by Horizontal-Flow continues to read as follows: Roughing Filtration. Aqua. 35(2): 115–125. Membrane filtration is a pressure- Wegelin, M. 1988. Rouging gravel filters for Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, driven or vacuum-driven separation suspended solids removal. Slow Sand 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, process in which particulate matter Filtration: Recent Developments in Water 300j–9, and 300j–11. larger than 1 µm is rejected by an Treatment Technology, N.J.D. Graham (Ed.) Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, UK: 103– 2. Section 141.2 is amended by engineered barrier primarily through a 122. adding, in alphabetical order, size exclusion mechanism, and which West, T., P. Daniel, P. Meyerhofer, A. definitions for Bag filters, Bank has a measurable removal efficiency of DeGraca, S. Leonard, and C. Gerba. 1994. filtration, Cartridge filters, Flowing a target organism that can be verified Evaluation of Cryptosporidium Removal stream, Lake/reservoir, Membrane through the application of a direct through High-Rate Filtration. Proceedings, filtration, Off-stream raw water storage, integrity test. This definition includes Annual Conference of the American Water Plant intake, Presedimentation, and Works Association, Denver, CO. the common membrane technologies of Willocks, L., A. Crampin, L. Milne, C. Seng, Two-stage lime softening to read as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), M. Susman, R. Gair, M. Moulsdale, S. follows: nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis Shafi, R. Wall, R. Wiggins, and N. § 141.2 Definitions. (RO). Lightfoot. 1998. A large outbreak of cryptosporidiosis associated with a public * * * * * * * * * * water supply from a deep chalk borehole. Bag filters are pressure-driven Off-stream raw water storage refers to Communicable Disease and Public Health. separation devices that remove an impoundment in which water is 1(4):239–43. particulate matter larger than 1 µm stored prior to treatment and from Yates, R., K. Scott, J. Green, J. Bruno, and R. De Leon. 1998. Using Aerobic Spores to using an engineered porous filtration which outflow is controlled. Evaluate Treatment Plant Performance. media through either surface or depth * * * * * Proceedings, Annual Conference of the filtration. Bag filters are typically American Water Works Association, constructed of a non-rigid, fabric Plant intake refers to the works or Denver, CO. filtration media housed in a pressure structures at the head of a conduit Zheng, M., S. Andrews, and J. Bolton. 1999. vessel in which the direction of flow is through which water is diverted from a Impacts of medium-pressure UV on THM from the inside of the bag to outside. source (e.g., river or lake) into the and HAA formation in pre-UV chlorinated treatment plant. drinking water. Proceedings, Water Quality Bank filtration is a water treatment Technology Conference of the American process that uses a pumping well to * * * * * Water Works Association, Denver, CO. recover surface water that has naturally Presedimentation is a preliminary infiltrated into ground water through a unit process used to remove gravel, sand List of Subjects river bed or bank(s). Infiltration is and other particulate material from the typically enhanced by the hydraulic 40 CFR Part 141 source water through settling before it gradient imposed by a nearby pumping Environmental protection, Chemicals, water supply or other well(s). enters the main treatment plant. Indians-lands, Intergovernmental * * * * * relations, Radiation protection, * * * * * Reporting and recordkeeping Cartridge filters are pressure-driven Two-stage lime softening refers to a requirements, Water supply. separation devices that remove process for the removal of hardness by particulate matter larger than 1 µm the addition of lime and consisting of 40 CFR Part 142 using an engineered porous filtration two distinct unit clarification processes Environmental protection, media through either surface or depth in series prior to filtration. Administrative practice and procedure, filtration. Cartridge filters are typically * * * * * Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation constructed as rigid or semi-rigid, self- protection, Reporting and recordkeeping supporting filter elements housed in 3. Appendix A to Subpart Q of part requirements, Water supply. pressure vessels in which flow is from 141 is amended in section I, Part A by adding entry number 10: Dated: July 11, 2003. the outside of the cartridge to the inside. Linda J. Fisher, * * * * * Subpart Q—Public Notification of Acting Administrator. Flowing stream is a course of running Drinking Water Violations. For the reasons set forth in the water flowing in a definite channel. preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code * * * * *

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring and testing procedure violations Contaminant Tier of public Tier of public notice required Citation notice required Citation

I. Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) 3: A. Microbiological Contaminants

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47776 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1— Continued

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring and testing procedure violations Contaminant Tier of public Tier of public notice required Citation notice required Citation

******* 10. LT2ESWTR violations ...... 2 141.720Ð141.729 ...... 3 141.701Ð141.707; 141.711Ð 141.713; 141.730

******* 1Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., reporting violations and failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports) do not require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primary agency. Primary agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized under ¤ 141.202(a) and ¤ 141.203(a). 2 MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT—Treatment technique 3 The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include violations of MCL, MRDL, treatment technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.

4. Part 141 is amended by adding a 141.724 Requirements for uncovered Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity new subpart W to read as follows: finished water storage facilities. sampling and comply with the Subpart W—Enhanced Filtration and Requirements for Microbial Toolbox treatment requirements in § 141.720. Disinfection for Cryptosporidium Components (c) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 141.725 Source toolbox components. people that currently provide filtration General Requirements 141.726 Pre-filtration treatment toolbox or that are unfiltered and required to 141.700 Applicability. components. install filtration must conduct source 141.701 General requirements. 141.727 Treatment performance toolbox water monitoring consisting of E. coli components. sampling or sampling of an alternative Source Water Monitoring Requirements 141.728 Additional filtration toolbox 141.702 Source water monitoring. components. indicator approved by the State. If the 141.703 Sampling schedules. 141.729 Inactivation toolbox components. annual mean concentration of E. coli 141.704 Sampling locations. exceeds the levels specified in Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 141.705 Analytical methods. § 141.702(b), or if the level of a State- 141.706 Requirements for use of an 141.730 Reporting requirements. approved alternate indicator exceeds a approved laboratory. 141.731 Recordkeeping requirements. State-approved alternative indicator 141.707 Reporting source water monitoring trigger level, systems must conduct results. Subpart W—Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection for Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium monitoring to 141.708 Previously collected data. complete the source water monitoring 141.709 Bin classification for filtered requirements and comply with the systems. General Requirements treatment requirements in § 141.720. § 141.700 Applicability. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking (d) Systems that are unfiltered and Requirements The requirements of this subpart meet all the filtration avoidance criteria 141.710 [Reserved] apply to all subpart H systems. Failure of § 141.71 must conduct source water 141.711 Determination of systems required to comply with any requirement of this monitoring consisting of to profile. subpart is a violation and requires Cryptosporidium sampling and comply 141.712 Schedule for disinfection profiling public notification. with the treatment requirements in requirements. 141.713 Developing a profile. § 141.701 General requirements. § 141.721. 141.714 Requirements when making a (a) All subpart H systems, including (e) Systems must comply with the significant change in disinfection wholesale systems, must characterize requirements in this subpart based on practice. their source water to determine what (if the schedule in the following table, Treatment Technique Requirements any) additional treatment is necessary except that systems are not required to for Cryptosporidium, unless they meet conduct source water monitoring if they 141.720 Treatment requirements for filtered the criteria in either paragraph (f) or (g) meet the criteria in paragraph (f) of this systems. section for systems that currently 141.721 Treatment requirements for of this section. unfiltered systems. (b) Systems serving at least 10,000 provide filtration or that are unfiltered 141.722 Microbial toolbox options for people that currently provide filtration and required to install filtration or meeting Cryptosporidium treatment or that are unfiltered and required to paragraph (g) of this section for systems requirements. install filtration must conduct source that are unfiltered and meet all the 141.723 [Reserved] water monitoring that includes filtration avoidance criteria of § 141.71:

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47777

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE

Systems that are . . . Must perform . . .a,b And comply by . . .

(1) Subpart H systems serving (i) 24 months of source water monitoring for Submitting a monthly report to EPA no later than ≥10,000 people that currently Cryptosporidium, E. coli and turbidity at least ten days after the end of the first month following provide filtration or that are once each month beginning no later than [Date 6 the month when the sample is taken. unfiltered and required to install Months After Date of Publication of Final Rule in filtration. the Federal Register]. (ii) Treatment technique implementation, if nec- Installing treatment and complying with the treat- essary. ment technique no later than [Date 72 Months After Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Fed- eral Register] c. (2) Subpart H systems serving (i) 24 months of source water monitoring for Submitting a monthly report to EPA no later than ≥10,000 people that are Cryptosporidium at least once each month begin- ten days after the end of the first month following unfiltered and meet the filtration ning no later than [Date 6 Months After Date of the month when the sample is taken. avoidance criteria of ¤ 141.71. Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. (ii) Treatment technique implementation, if nec- Installing treatment and complying with the treat- essary. ment technique no later than [Date 72 Months After Date of Publication of Final rule in the Fed- eral Register] c. (3) Subpart H systems serving 12 months of source water monitoring for E. coli at Submitting a monthly report to the State no later <10,000 people that currently least once every two weeks beginning no later than ten days after the end of the first month fol- provide filtration or that are than [Date 30 Months After Date of Publication of lowing the month when the sample is taken. unfiltered and required to install Final Rule in the Federal Register]. filtration and are not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium based on E. coli or other indi- cator monitoring results d. (4) Subpart H systems serving (i) 12 months of source water monitoring for E. coli Submitting a monthly report to the State no later <10,000 people that currently at least once every two weeks beginning no later than ten days after the end of the first month fol- provide filtration or that are than [Date 30 Months After Date of Publication of lowing the month when the sample is taken. unfiltered and required to install Final Rule in the Federal Register] and 12 filtration and must perform months of source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium monitoring Cryptosporidium at least twice each month begin- based on E. coli or other indi- ning no later than [Date 48 Months After Date of cator monitoring results d. Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. (ii) Treatment technique implementation, if nec- Installing treatment and complying with the treat- essary. ment technique no later than [Date 102 Months After Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Fed- eral Register] c. (5) Subpart H systems serving (i) 12 months of source water monitoring for Submitting a monthly report to the State no later <10,000 people that are Cryptosporidium at least twice each month begin- than ten days after the end of the first month fol- unfiltered and meet the filtration ning no later than [Date 48 Months After Date of lowing the month when the sample is taken. avoidance criteria of ¤ 141.71. Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. (ii) Treatment technique implementation, if nec- Installing treatment and complying with the treat- essary. ment technique no later than [Date 102 Months After Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Fed- eral Register] c. a Any sampling performed more frequently than required must be evenly distributed over the sampling period. b Systems may use data that meet the requirements in ¤ 141.708 collected prior to the monitoring start date to substitute for an equivalent number of months at the end of the monitoring period. c States may allow up to an additional two years for complying with the treatment technique requirement for systems making capital improve- ments. d See ¤ 141.702(b) to determine if Cryptosporidium monitoring is required.

(f) Systems that currently provide treatment for Cryptosporidium by the the system is otherwise required to filtration or that are unfiltered and applicable date in paragraph (e) of this submit a sampling schedule for required to install filtration are not section. monitoring under § 141.703. Systems required to conduct source water (g) Systems that are unfiltered and must install and operate technologies to monitoring under this subpart if the meet all the filtration avoidance criteria provide a total of at least 3 log system currently provides or will of § 141.71 are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium inactivation by the provide a total of at least 5.5 log of source water monitoring under this applicable date in paragraph (e) of this treatment for Cryptosporidium, subpart if the system currently provides section. equivalent to meeting the treatment or will provide a total of at least 3 log (h) Systems must comply with the requirements of Bin 4 in § 141.720. Cryptosporidium inactivation, uncovered finished water storage Systems must notify the State not later equivalent to meeting the treatment facility requirements in § 141.724 no than the date the system is otherwise requirements for unfiltered systems later than [Date 36 Months After Date of required to submit a sampling schedule with a mean Cryptosporidium Publication of Final Rule in the Federal for monitoring under § 141.703 and concentration of greater than 0.01 Register]. must install and operate technologies to oocysts/L in § 141.721. Systems must provide a total of at least 5.5 log of notify the State not later than the date

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47778 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Source Water Monitoring Requirements source water monitoring no later than the alternative sampling date with the [Date 138 Months After Date of analytical results. § 141.702 Source water monitoring. Publication of Final Rule in the Federal (d) Systems that are unable to report (a) Systems must conduct initial Register] and, if required to monitor for a valid Cryptosporidium analytical source water monitoring as specified in Cryptosporidium under paragraph (b) of result for a scheduled sampling date due § 141.701(b) through (f). this section, must begin to failure to comply with the analytical (b) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 Cryptosporidium monitoring no later method requirements, including the people that provide filtration or that are than [Date 156 Months After Date of quality control requirements in unfiltered and required to install Publication of Final Rule in the Federal § 141.705, must collect a replacement filtration must perform Cryptosporidium Register]. sample within 14 days of being notified monitoring in accordance with (3) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 by the laboratory or the State that a § 141.701(e) if they meet any of the people that are unfiltered and meet the result cannot be reported for that date criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) filtration avoidance requirements of and must submit an explanation for the of this section. § 141.71 must begin a second round of replacement sample with the analytical (1) For systems using lake/reservoir source water monitoring no later than results. sources, an annual mean E. coli [Date 156 Months After Date of § 141.704 Sampling locations. concentration greater than 10 E. coli/100 Publication of Final Rule in the Federal mL, based on monitoring conducted Register]. (a) Unless specified otherwise in this under this section, unless the State section, systems required to sample approves an alternative indicator trigger. § 141.703 Sampling schedules. under §§ 141.701 through 141.702 must (2) For systems using flowing stream (a) Systems required to sample under collect source water samples from the sources, an annual mean E. coli §§141.701 through 141.702 must plant intake prior to any treatment. concentration greater than 50 E. coli/100 submit a sampling schedule that Where treatment is applied in an intake mL, based on monitoring conducted specifies the calendar dates that all pipe such that sampling in the pipe under this section, unless the State required samples will be taken. prior to treatment is not feasible, approves an alternative indicator trigger. (1) Systems serving at least 10,000 systems must collect samples as close to (3) If the State approves an alternative people must submit their sampling the intake as is feasible, at a similar to the indicator trigger in paragraph schedule for initial source water depth and distance from shore. (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, an annual monitoring to EPA electronically at (b) Presedimentation. Systems using a concentration that exceeds a State- [insert Internet address] no later than presedimentation basin must collect approved trigger level, including an [Date 3 Months After Date of Publication source water samples after the alternative E. coli level, based on of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. presedimentation basin but before any monitoring conducted under this (2) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 other treatment. Use of section. people that are filtered or that are presedimentation basins during (4) The system does not conduct E. unfiltered and required to install monitoring must be consistent with coli or other State-approved indicator filtration must submit a sampling routine operational practice and the monitoring as specified in § 141.701(e). schedule for initial source water State may place reporting requirements (c) Systems may submit monitoring of E. coli or an alternative to verify operational practices. Systems Cryptosporidium data collected prior to State-approved indicator to the State no collecting samples after a the monitoring start date to meet the later than [Date 27 Months After Date of presedimentation basin may not receive initial source water monitoring Publication of Final Rule in the Federal credit for the presedimentation basin requirements of paragraphs (a) through Register]. under § 141.726(a). (b) of this section. Systems may also use (3) Filtered systems serving fewer (c) Raw water off-stream storage. Cryptosporidium data collected prior to than 10,000 people that are required to Systems using an off-stream raw water the monitoring start date to substitute conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring storage reservoir must collect source for an equivalent number of months at and unfiltered systems serving fewer water samples after the off-stream the end of the monitoring period. All than 10,000 people must submit a storage reservoir. Use of off-stream data submitted under this paragraph sampling schedule for initial source storage during monitoring must be must meet the requirements in water Cryptosporidium monitoring to consistent with routine operational § 141.708. the State no later than [Date 45 Months practice and the State may place (d) Systems must conduct a second After Date of Publication of Final Rule reporting requirements to verify round of source water monitoring in in the Federal Register]. operational practices. accordance with the requirements in (4) Systems must submit a sampling (d) Bank filtration. The required § 141.701(b) through (e) of this section, schedule for the second round of source sampling location for systems using beginning no later than the dates water monitoring to the State no later bank filtration differs depending on specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through than 3 months prior to the date the whether the bank filtered water is (3) of this section, unless they meet the system is required to begin the second treated by subsequent filtration for criteria in either paragraph § 141.701(f) round of monitoring under § 141.702(d). compliance with § 141.173(b) or or (g). (b) Systems must collect samples § 141.552(a), as applicable. (1) Systems that serve at least 10,000 within two days of the dates indicated (1) Systems using bank filtered water people must begin a second round of in their sampling schedule. that is treated by subsequent filtration source water monitoring no later than (c) If extreme conditions or situations for compliance with § 141.173(b) or [Date 108 Months After Date of exist that may pose danger to the sample § 141.552(a), as applicable, must collect Publication of Final Rule in the Federal collector, or which are unforeseen or source water samples from the well (i.e., Register]. cannot be avoided and which cause the after bank filtration), but before any (2) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 system to be unable to sample in the other treatment. Use of bank filtration people that provide filtration or that are required time frame, the system must during monitoring must be consistent unfiltered and required to install sample as close to the required date as with routine operational practice and filtration must begin a second round of feasible and submit an explanation for the State may place reporting

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47779

requirements to verify operational source in the total plant flow at the time (ii) If the volume of the MS sample is practices. Systems collecting samples the sample is collected. greater than 10 L, the system is after a bank filtration process may not (ii) Analyze samples from each source permitted to filter all but 10 L of the MS receive credit for the bank filtration separately as specified in § 141.705, and sample in the field, and ship the filtered under § 141.726(c). calculate a weighted average of the sample and the remaining 10 L of source (2) Systems using bank filtration as an analysis results for each sampling date. water to the laboratory. In this case, the alternative filtration demonstration to The weighted average must be laboratory must spike the remaining 10 meet their Cryptosporidium removal calculated by multiplying the analysis L of water and filter it through the filter requirements under § 141.173(b) or result for each source by the fraction the used to collect the balance of the sample § 141.552(a), as applicable, must collect source contributed to total plant flow at in the field. source water samples in the surface the time the sample was collected, and (3) Each sample batch must meet the water (i.e., prior to bank filtration). then summing these values. quality control criteria for the methods (3) Systems using a ground water listed in paragraph (a) of this section. source under the direct influence of § 141.705 Analytical methods. Flow cytometer-counted spiking surface water that meet all the criteria (a) Cryptosporidium. Systems must suspensions must be used for MS for avoiding filtration in § 141.71 and use Method 1622 Cryptosporidium in samples and ongoing precision and that do not provide filtration treatment Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, EPA 821– recovery (OPR) samples; recovery for must collect source water samples from R–01–026, April 2001, or Method 1623 OPR samples must be 11% to 100%; for the ground water (e.g., the well). Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water each method blank, oocysts must not be (e) Multiple sources. Systems with by Filtration/IMS/FA, EPA 821–R–01– detected. plants that use multiple water sources at 025, April 2001, for Cryptosporidium the same time, including multiple (4) Total Cryptosporidium oocysts as analysis. surface water sources and blended detected by fluorescein isothiocyanate surface water and ground water sources, (1) Systems are required to analyze at (FITC) must be reported as determined must collect samples as specified in least a 10 L sample or a packed pellet by the color (apple green or alternative volume of at least 2 mL as generated by stain color approved under § 141.706(a) paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. µ The use of multiple sources during the methods listed in paragraph (a) of for the laboratory), size (4–6 m) and monitoring must be consistent with this section. Systems unable to process shape (round to oval). This total routine operational practice and the a 10 L sample must analyze as much includes all of the oocysts identified, State may place reporting requirements sample volume as can be filtered by two less any atypical organisms identified filters approved by EPA for the methods by FITC, differential interference to verify operational practices. ′ (1) If a sampling tap is available listed in paragraph (a) of this section, up contrast (DIC) or 4 ,6-diamindino-2- where the sources are combined prior to to a packed pellet volume of 2 mL. phenylindole (DAPI), including those treatment, the sample must be collected (2)(i) Matrix spikes (MS) samples as possessing spikes, stalks, appendages, from the tap. required by the methods in paragraph pores, one or two large nuclei filling the (2) If there is not a sampling tap (a) of this section must be spiked and cell, red fluorescing chloroplasts, where the sources are combined prior to filtered by a laboratory approved for crystals, and spores. treatment, systems must collect samples Cryptosporidium analysis under (b) E. coli. Systems must use the at each source near the intake on the § 141.706. The volume of the MS sample following methods listed in this same day and must follow either must be within 10 percent of the volume paragraph for enumeration of E. coli in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this of the unspiked sample that is collected source water (table will be replaced section for sample analysis. at the same time, and the samples must with CFR cite from Guidelines (i) Composite samples from each be collected by splitting the sample Establishing Test Procedures for the source into one sample prior to analysis. stream or collecting the samples Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical In the composite, the volume of sample sequentially. The MS sample and the Methods for Biological Pollutants in from each source must be weighted associated unspiked sample must be Ambient Water when finalized— according to the proportion of the analyzed by the same procedure. expected 2003):

METHODS FOR E. coli ENUMERATION 1

VCSB methods 1 Technique Method EPA Standard meth- ods ASTM AOAC

Most Probable Number (MPN) LTB, ECÐMUG ...... 9221B.1/9221F ONPGÐMUG ...... 9223B ...... 991.15 ONPGÐMUG ...... 9223B Membrane Filter (MF) ...... mFC‰NAÐMUG ...... 9222D/9222G ENDO‰NAÐMUG ...... 9222B/9222G mTEC agar ...... 1103.1 ...... 9213D D5392Ð93 Modified mTEC agar ...... Modified 1103.1 MI agar ...... EPAÐ600ÐRÐ013 m-ColiBlue24 broth 1 Tests must be conducted in a format that provides organism enumeration.

(1) The time from sample collection to hours. Systems must maintain samples (c) Turbidity. Systems must use initiation of analysis may not exceed 24 between 0°C and 10°C during transit. methods for turbidity measurement (2) [Reserved] approved in § 141.74.

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47780 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

§ 141.706 Requirements for use of an (ii) For samples in which less than 10 (4) Samples met the conditions for approved laboratory. L is filtered or less than 100% of the sampling location specified in (a) Cryptosporidium. Systems must sample volume is examined, systems § 141.704. The system must report the have Cryptosporidium samples analyzed must also report the number of filters use of bank filtration, presedimentation, by a laboratory that has passed a quality used and the packed pellet volume. and raw water off-stream storage during assurance evaluation under EPA’s (iii) For samples in which less than sampling. Laboratory Quality Assurance 100% of sample volume is examined, (5) For each sample, the laboratory Evaluation Program for Analysis of systems must also report the volume of analyzed at least 10 L of sample or at Cryptosporidium in Water or a resuspended concentrate and volume of least 2 mL of packed pellet or as much laboratory that has been certified for this resuspension processed through volume as could be filtered by 2 filters Cryptosporidium analysis by an immunomagnetic separation. approved by EPA for the methods listed equivalent State laboratory certification (2) Systems must report the following in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, up to program. data elements for each E. coli analysis: a packed pellet volume of 2 mL. (b) E. coli. Any laboratory certified by (i) PWS ID (c) The system must submit a letter to the EPA, the National Environmental (ii) Facility ID EPA concurrent with the submission of Laboratory Accreditation Conference or (iii) Sample collection point previously collected data certifying that the State for total coliform or fecal (iv) Sample collection date the data meet the conditions in coliform analysis in source water under (v) Analytical method number paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. § 141.74 is deemed approved for E. coli (vi) Method type (1) The reported Cryptosporidium analysis under this subpart when the (vii) Source type analysis results include all results laboratory uses the same technique for (viii) E. coli/100 mL generated by the system during the time E. coli that the laboratory uses for source (ix) Turbidity (Systems serving fewer period beginning with the first reported water in § 141.74. than 10,000 people that are not result and ending with the final (c) Turbidity. Measurements of required to monitor for turbidity reported result. This applies to samples turbidity must be made by a party under § 141.701(c) are not required to that were collected from the sampling approved by the State. report turbidity with their E. coli location specified for source water results.) monitoring under this subpart, not § 141.707 Reporting source water spiked, and analyzed using the monitoring results. § 141.708 Previously collected data. laboratory’s routine process for the (a) All systems serving at least 10,000 (a) Systems may comply with the analytical methods listed in paragraph people must submit the results of all initial monitoring requirements of (a)(1) of this section. initial source water monitoring required § 141.702(a) using Cryptosporidium data (2) The samples were representative under § 141.702(a) to EPA electronically collected before the system is required of a plant’s source water(s) and the at [insert Internet address]. Systems that to begin monitoring if the system meets source water(s) have not changed. do not have the ability to submit data the conditions in paragraphs (b) through (d) For each sample, the system must electronically may use an alternative (h) of this section and EPA notifies the report the data elements in format approved by EPA. system that the data are acceptable. § 141.707(e)(1). (b) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 (b) To be accepted, previously (e) The laboratory or laboratories that people must submit the results of all collected Cryptosporidium data must generated the data must submit a letter initial source water monitoring required meet the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) to EPA concurrent with the submission under § 141.702(a)–(b) to the State. of previously collected data certifying (c) All systems must submit the through (5) of this section. (1) Samples were analyzed by that the quality control criteria specified results from the second round of source in the methods listed in paragraph (b)(1) water monitoring required under laboratories using one of the analytical methods in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through of this section were met for each sample § 141.702(d) to the State. batch associated with the previously (d) Source water monitoring analysis (iv) of this section. collected data. Alternatively, the results must be submitted not later than (i) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium laboratory may provide bench sheets ten days after the end of first month and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/ and sample examination report forms following the month when the sample is FA, 2001, EPA–821–R–01–025. for each field, matrix spike, IPR, OPR, collected. The submission must include (ii) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in and method blank sample associated the applicable information in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, 2001, EPA– 821–R–01–026. with the previously collected data. paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. (f) If a system has at least two years (e)(1) Systems must report the (iii) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium of Cryptosporidium data collected following data elements for each and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/ before [Date of Publication of Final Rule Cryptosporidium analysis: FA, 1999, EPA–821–R–99–006. (iv) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in in the Federal Register] and the system (i) PWS ID Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, 1999, EPA– intends to use these data to comply with (ii) Facility ID the initial source water monitoring (iii) Sample collection point 821–R–99–001. (iv) Sample collection date (2) Samples were collected no less required under § 141.702(a) in lieu of (v) Sample type (field or matrix spike) frequently than each calendar month on conducting new monitoring, the system (vi) Sample volume filtered (L), to a regular schedule, beginning no earlier must submit to EPA, no later than [Date nearest 1⁄4 L than January 1999. 2 Months After Date of Publication of (vii) Was 100% of filtered volume (3) Samples were collected in equal Final Rule in the Federal Register], the examined intervals of time over the entire previously collected data and the (viii) Number of oocysts counted collection period (e.g., weekly, supporting information specified in this (i) For matrix spike samples, systems monthly). Sample collection interval section. EPA will notify the system by must also report the sample volume may vary for the conditions specified in [Date 4 Months After Date of Publication spiked and estimated number of oocysts § 141.703(c) and (d) if the system of Final Rule in the Federal Register] as spiked. These data are not required for provides documentation of the to whether the data are acceptable. If field samples. condition. EPA does not notify the system that the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47781

submitted data are acceptable, the additional initial source water requirements of § 141.708, and system must carry out initial source monitoring in order to base its following the procedures in paragraphs water as specified in §§141.701 through determination of average (b)(1) through (3) of this section. 141.707 until EPA notifies the system Cryptosporidium concentration under (b)(1) For systems that collect a total that it has at least two years of § 141.709 or § 141.721 on more than two of at least 48 samples, the acceptable data. years of monitoring data, the system Cryptosporidium bin concentration is (g) If a system has fewer than two must submit to EPA, no later than [Date equal to the arithmetic mean of all years of Cryptosporidium data collected 8 Months After Date of Publication of sample concentrations. before [Date of Publication of Final Rule Final Rule in the Federal Register], the (2) For systems that serve at least in the Federal Register] and the system previously collected data and the 10,000 people and collect a total of at intends to use these data to meet, in supporting information specified in this least 24 samples, but not more than 47 part, the initial source water monitoring section. The system must carry out samples, the Cryptosporidium bin required under § 141.702(a), the system initial source water monitoring concentration is equal to the highest must submit to EPA, no later than [Date according to the requirements in arithmetic mean of all sample 8 Months After Date of Publication of §§141.701 through 141.707 until EPA concentrations in any 12 consecutive Final Rule in the Federal Register], the notifies the system that it has at least months during which Cryptosporidium previously collected data and the two years of acceptable data. samples were collected. supporting information specified in this section. The system must carry out § 141.709 Bin classification for filtered (3) For systems that serve fewer than initial source water monitoring systems. 10,000 people and take at least 24 according to the requirements in (a) Following completion of the initial samples, the Cryptosporidium bin §§ 141.701 through 141.707 until EPA source water monitoring required under concentration is equal to the arithmetic notifies the system that it has at least § 141.702(a), filtered systems and mean of all sample concentrations. two years of acceptable data. unfiltered systems that are required to (c) Filtered systems and unfiltered (h) If a system has two or more years install filtration must calculate their systems that are required to install of previously collected data and the initial Cryptosporidium bin filtration must determine their initial system intends to use these data to concentration using the bin classification from the following comply with the initial source water Cryptosporidium results reported under table and using the Cryptosporidium bin monitoring required under § 141.702(a), § 141.702(a), along with any previously concentration calculated under but the system also intends to carry out collected data that satisfy the paragraph (a) of this section:

BIN CLASSIFICATION TABLE FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS

The bin 1 classifica- For systems that are: With a Cryptosporidium bin concentration of . . . tion is ...

* * * required to monitor for Cryptosporidium under ¤¤ 141.701 Cryptosporidium < 0.075 oocyst/L ...... Bin 1 to 141.702. 0.075 oocysts/L ≤Cryptosporidium < 1.0 oocysts/L ...... Bin 2 1.0 oocysts/L ≤ Cryptosporidium < 3.0 oocysts/L ...... Bin 3 Cryptosporidium ≥ 3.0 oocysts/L ...... Bin 4 * * * serving fewer than 10,000 people and NOT required to NA ...... Bin 1 monitor for Cryptosporidium under ¤ 142.702(b). 1 Based on calculations in paragraph (a) or (d) of this section, as applicable.

(d) Following completion of the 4 under § 141.720 by the date applicable systems serving fewer than 10,000 second round of source water under § 141.701(e). people that do not have at least 5.5 log monitoring required under § 141.702(d), Disinfection Profiling and of Cryptosporidium treatment, filtered systems and unfiltered systems Benchmarking Requirements equivalent to compliance with Bin 4 in that are required to install filtration § 141.720, in place prior to the date must recalculate their Cryptosporidium § 141.710 [Reserved]. when the system is required to begin bin concentration using the profiling in § 141.712 are required to Cryptosporidium results reported under § 141.711 Determination of systems required to profile. develop Giardia lamblia and virus § 141.702(d) and following the disinfection profiles if any of the criteria procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (a) Subpart H of this part community in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this (3) of this section. Systems must then and nontransient noncommunity water section apply. determine their bin classification a systems serving at least 10,000 people second time using this Cryptosporidium that do not have at least 5.5 log of (1) TTHM levels in the distribution bin concentration and the table in Cryptosporidium treatment, equivalent system are at least 0.064 mg/L as a paragraph (c) of this section. to compliance with Bin 4 in § 141.720, locational running annual average (e) Any filtered system or unfiltered in place prior to the date when the (LRAA) at any monitoring site. Systems system that is required to install system is required to begin profiling in must base their TTHM LRAA filtration that fails to complete the § 141.712 are required to develop calculation on data collected for monitoring requirements of §§141.701 Giardia lamblia and virus disinfection compliance under subpart L of this part through 141.707 or choses not to profiles. after [Date of Publication of Final Rule monitor pursuant to § 141.701(f) must (b) Subpart H community and in the Federal Register], or as meet the treatment requirements for Bin nontransient noncommunity water determined by the State.

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47782 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

(2) HAA5 levels in the distribution Publication of Final Rule in the Federal profile(s) meets the requirements of system are at least 0.048 mg/L as an Register], or as determined by the State. § 141.713(c). LRAA at any monitoring site. Systems (3) The system is required to monitor for Cryptosporidium under § 141.701(c). § 141.712 Schedule for disinfection must base their HAA5 LRAA calculation profiling requirements. on data collected for compliance under (c) In lieu of developing a new profile, subpart L of this part after [Date of systems may use the profile(s) (a) Systems must comply with the developed under § 141.172 or following schedule in the table in this §§141.530 through 141.536 if the paragraph:

SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED DISINFECTION PROFILING MILESTONES 1

Date Subpart H systems serving fewer than 10,000 people Activity Subpart H systems serving at least 10,000 people Required to monitor for Not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium

1. Report TTHM and HAA5 LRAA NA ...... NA ...... [Date 42 Months After Date of Pub- results to State. lication of Final Rule in the Fed- eral Register]. 2. Begin disinfection profiling 1,2 .. [Date 24 Months After Date of [Date 54 Months After Date of Pub- [Date 42 Months After Date of Pub- Publication of Final Rule in the lication of Final Rule in the Fed- lication of Final Rule in the Fed- Federal Register]. eral Register]. eral Register] if required 3. 3. Complete disinfection profiling [Date 36 Months After Date of [Date 66 Months After Date of Pub- [Date 54 Months After Date of Pub- based on at least one year of Publication of Final Rule in the lication of Final Rule in the Fed- lication of Final Rule in the Fed- data. Federal Register]. eral Register]. eral Register] if required 3. 1 Systems with at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment in place are not required to do disinfection profiling. 2 Systems may use existing operational data and profiles as described in ¤ 141.713(c). 3 Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to conduct disinfection profiling if they are not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium and if their TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs do not exceed the levels specified in ¤ 141.711(b).

(b) [Reserved] (2) For systems using chlorine, the pH has neither made a significant change to of the disinfected water must be its treatment practice nor changed § 141.713 Developing a profile. measured at each chlorine residual sources since the profile was developed. (a) Systems required to develop disinfectant concentration sampling Systems that have not developed a virus disinfection profiles under § 141.711 point during peak hourly flow or at an profile under § 141.172 or §§ 141.530 must follow the requirements of this alternative location approved by the through 141.536 must develop a virus section. Systems must monitor at least State. profile using the same monitoring data weekly for a period of 12 consecutive (3) The disinfectant contact time(s) (T) on which the Giardia lamblia profile is months to determeine the total log must be determined during peak hourly based. inactivation for Giardia lamblia and flow. (d) Systems must calculate the total viruses. Systems must determine log (4) The residual disinfectant inactivation ratio for Giardia lamblia as inactivation for Giardia lamblia through concentration(s) (C) of the water before specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through the entire plant, based on CT99.9 values or at the first customer and prior to each (3) of this section. in Tables 1.1 through 1.6, 2.1 and 3.1 of additional point of disinfection must be (1) Systems using only one point of § 141.74(b) as applicable. Systems must measured during peak hourly flow. disinfectant application may determine determine log inactivation for viruses (c) In lieu of conducting new the total inactivation ratio for the through the entire treatment plant based monitoring under paragraph (b) of this disinfection segment based on either of on a protocol approved by the State. section, systems may elect to meet the the methods in paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) (b) Systems with a single point of requirements of paragrphs (c)(1) or (2) of of this section. disinfectant application prior to the this section. (i) Determine one inactivation ratio entrance to the distribution system must (1) Systems that have at least 12 (CTcalc/CT99.9) before or at the first conduct the monitoring in paragraphs consecutive months of existing customer during peak hourly flow. (b)(1) through (4) of this section. operational data that are substantially (ii) Determine successive CTcalc/ Systems with more than one point of equivalent to data collected under the CT99.9 values, representing sequential disinfectant application must conduct provisions of paragraph (b) of this inactivation ratios, between the point of the monitoring in paragraphs (b)(1) section may use these data to develop disinfectant application and a point through (4) of this section for each disinfection profiles as specified in this before or at the first customer during disinfection segment. Systems must section if the system has neither made peak hourly flow. The system must monitor the parameters necessary to a significant change to its treatment calculate the total inactivation ratio by determine the total inactivation ratio, practice nor changed sources since the determining (CTcalc/CT99.9) for each using analytical methods in § 141.74(a). data were collected. Systems using sequence and then adding the (CTcalc/ (1) For systems using a disinfectant existing operational data may develop CT99.9) values together to determine (S other than UV, the temperature of the disinfection profiles for a period of up (CTcalc/CT99.9)). disinfected water must be measured at to three years. (2) Systems using more than one point each residual disinfectant concentration (2) Systems may use disinfection of disinfectant application before the sampling point during peak hourly flow profile(s) developed under § 141.172 or first customer must determine the CT or at an alternative location approved by §§ 141.530 through 141.536 in lieu of value of each disinfection segment the State. developing a new profile if the system immediately prior to the next point of

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47783

disinfectant application, or for the final practice are defined in paragraphs (a)(1) values (for systems with more than one segment, before or at the first customer, through (4) of this section. year of profiling data) of Giardia lamblia during peak hourly flow. The (CTcalc/ (1) Changes to the point of and virus log inactivation in each year CT99.9) value of each segment and disinfection; of profiling data. (S(CTcalc/CT99.9)) must be calculated (2) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used (6) Systems must submit the using the method in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) in the treatment plant; information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) (3) Changes to the disinfection of this section. through (iii) of this section when (3) The system must determine the process; and (4) Any other modification identified notifying the State that they are total logs of inactivation by multiplying by the State. planning to make a significant change in the value calculated in paragraph (d)(1) (5) Systems must use the procedures disinfection practice. or (d)(2) of this section by 3.0. specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) (i) A description of the proposed (4) Systems must calculate the log of of this section to calculate a disinfection change. inactivation for viruses using a protocol benchmark. (ii) The disinfection profile and approved by the State. (i) For the year of profiling data benchmark for Giardia lamblia and (5) Systems must retain the collected and calculated under viruses determined under §§ 141.713 disinfection profile data in graphic § 141.713, or for each year with profiles and 141.714. form, as a spreadsheet, or in some other covering more than one year, systems (iii) An analysis of how the proposed format acceptable to the State for review must determine the lowest mean change will affect the current level of as part of sanitary surveys conducted by monthly level of both Giardia lamblia disinfection. the State. and virus inactivation. Systems must determine the mean Giardia lamblia and Treatment Technique Requirements § 141.714 Requirements when making a virus inactivation for each calendar significant change in disinfection practice. § 141.720 Treatment requirements for month for each year of profiling data by filtered systems. (a) A system that is required to dividing the sum of daily or weekly develop a disinfection profile under the Giardia lamblia and virus log (a) Filtered systems or systems that provisions of this subpart and that plans inactivation by the number of values are unfiltered and required to install to make a significant change to its calculated for that month. filtration must provide the level of disinfection practice must calculate a (ii) The disinfection benchmark is the treatment for Cryptosporidium specified disinfection benchmark and must notify lowest monthly mean value (for systems in this paragraph, based on their bin the State prior to making such a change. with one year of profiling data) or the classification as determined under Significant changes to disinfection mean of the lowest monthly mean § 141.709 and their existing treatment:

And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with subpart H, P, and T of this section (as applicable), then the additional treatment requirements are . . . If the system bin classifica- tion is . . . Conventional filtration treatment (including soft- Direct filtration Slow sand or diatoma- Alternative filtration tech- ening) ceous earth filtration nologies

(1) Bin 1 ...... No additional treatment ..... No additional treatment ..... No additional treatment ..... No additional treatment (2) Bin 2 ...... 1 log treatment ...... 1.5 log treatment ...... 1 log treatment ...... (1) (3) Bin 3 ...... 2 log treatment ...... 2.5 log treatment ...... 2 log treatment ...... (2) (4) Bin 4 ...... 2.5 log treatment ...... 3 log treatment ...... 2.5 log treatment ...... (3) 1 As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0 log. 2 As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0 log. 3 As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5 log.

(b) Filtered systems must use one, or meet all filtration avoidance criteria of Cryptosporidium inactivation a combination, of the management and § 141.71 must calculate the arithmetic requirements of this section. treatment options listed in § 141.722, mean of all Cryptosporidium sample (1) Unfiltered systems that use termed the microbial toolbox, to meet concentrations reported under chlorine dioxide or ozone and fail to the additional Cryptosporidium § 141.702(a), along with any previously achieve the Cryptosporidium log treatment requirements identified for collected data that satisfy the inactivation required in paragraph (b)(1) each bin in paragraph (a) of this section. requirements of § 141.708, and must or (2) of this section, as applicable, on (c) Systems classified in Bin 3 and Bin meet the treatment requirements in more than one day in the calendar 4 must achieve at least 1 log of the paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as month are in violation of the treatment additional treatment required under applicable, based on this concentration. technique requirement. paragraph (a) of this section using either (b)(1) Unfiltered systems with a mean (2) Unfiltered systems that use UV one or a combination of the following: Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.01 light and fail to achieve the bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge oocysts/L or less must provide at least Cryptosporidium log inactivation filters, chlorine dioxide, membranes, 2 log Cryptosporidium inactivation. required in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this ozone, and/or UV as specified in (2) Unfiltered systems with a mean section, as applicable, in at least 95% of § 141.722. Cryptosporidium concentration of the water that is delivered to the public greater than 0.01 oocysts/L must during each calendar month, based on § 141.721 Treatment requirements for provide at least 3 log Cryptosporidium monitoring required under paragraph unfiltered systems. inactivation. § 141.729(d)(4), are in violation of the (a) Following completion of the initial (c) Unfiltered systems must use treatment technique requirement. source water monitoring required under chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV as (d) Unfiltered systems must meet the § 141.702(a), unfiltered systems that specified in § 141.722 to meet the combined Cryptosporidium, Giardia

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47784 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

lamblia, and virus inactivation all Cryptosporidium sample paragraph (b)(2) of this section by the requirements of this section and concentrations reported under date applicable under § 141.701(e). § 141.72(a) using a minimum of two § 141.702(d) and must meet the disinfectants, and each disinfectant § 141.722 Microbial toolbox options for treatment requirements in paragraph meeting Cryptosporidium treatment must separately achieve the total (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as requirements. inactivation required for either applicable, based on this concentration. Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, or (a) To meet the additional viruses. (f) Any unfiltered system that meets Cryptosporidium treatment (e) Following completion of the all filtration avoidance criteria of requirements of §§141.720 and second round of source water § 141.71 and fails to complete the 141.721, systems must use microbial monitoring required under § 141.702(d), monitoring requirements of §§141.701 toolbox options listed in this follwing unfiltered systems that meet all through 141.707 or choses not to table that are designed, implemented, filtration avoidance criteria of § 141.71 monitor pursuant to § 141.701(g) must and operated in accordance with the must calculate the arithmetic mean of meet the treatment requirements of requirements of this subpart.

MICROBIAL TOOLBOX: OPTIONS, CREDITS AND CRITERIA

Toolbox option Proposed Cryptosporidium treatment credit with design and implementation criteria

Source Toolbox Components

(1) Watershed control program ...... 0.5 log credit for State approved program comprising EPA specified elements. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.725(a). (2) Alternative source/intake man- Bin classification based on concurrent Cryptosporidium monitoring. No presumptive credit. Specific criteria agement. are in ¤ 141.725(b).

Pre-Filtration Toolbox Components

(3) Presedimentation basin with co- 0.5 log credit for new basins with continuous operation and coagulant addition. No presumptive credit for agulation. basins existing when monitoring is required under ¤ 141.702. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.726(a). (4) Two-stage lime softening ...... 0.5 log credit for two-stage softening with coagulant addition. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.726(b). (5) Bank filtration ...... 0.5 log credit for 25 foot setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 foot setback. No presumptive credit for bank filtration existing when monitoring is required under ¤ 141.704(d)(1). Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.726(c).

Treatment Performance Toolbox Components

(6) Combined filter performance ..... 0.5 log credit for combined filter effluent turbidity ≤ 0.15 NTU in 95% of samples each month. Specific cri- teria are in ¤ 141.727(a). (7) Individual filter performance ...... 1.0 log credit for individual filter effluent turbidity ≤0.1 NTU in 95% of daily maximum samples each month and no filter >0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.727(b). (8) Demonstration of performance .. Credit based on a demonstration to the State through State approved protocol. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.727(c).

Additional Filtration Toolbox Components

(9) Bag filters ...... 1 log credit with demonstration of at least 2 log removal efficiency in challenge test; Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.728(a). (10) Cartridge filters ...... 2 log credit with demonstration of at least 3 log removal efficiency in challenge test; Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.728(a). (11) Membrane filtration ...... Log removal credit up to the lower value of the removal efficiency demonstrated during the challenge test or verified by the direct integrity test applied to the system. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.728(b). (12) Second stage filtration ...... 0.5 log credit for a second separate filtration stage in treatment process following coagulation. Specific cri- teria are in ¤ 141.728(c). (13) Slow sand filers ...... 2.5 log credit for second separate filtration process. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.728(d).

Inactivation Toolbox Components

(14) Chlorine dioxide ...... Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with CT table. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.729(b). (15) Ozone ...... Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with CT table. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.729(c). (16) UV ...... Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with UV dose table. Specific criteria are in ¤ 141.729(d).

(b) Failure to comply with the with the conditions of one of the inactivation using a protocol approved requirements of this section in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this by the State. accordance with the schedule in section for each facility no later than the (3) Systems must have a State- § 141.701(e) is a treatment technique date specified in § 141.701(h). approved risk mitigation plan for the violation. (1) Systems must cover any uncovered uncovered finished water storage § 141.723 [Reserved] finished water storage facility. facility that addresses physical access and site security, surface water runoff, § 141.724 Requirements for uncovered (2) Systems must treat the discharge animal and bird waste, and ongoing finished water storage facilities. from the uncovered finished water water quality assessment, and includes (a) Systems using uncovered finished storage facility to the distribution a schedule for plan implementation. water storage facilities must comply system to achieve at least 4 log virus Systems must implement the risk

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47785

mitigation plan approved by the State. Cryptosporidium contamination control program and for a continuation Systems must submit risk mitigation identified during the vulnerability of the 0.5 log removal credit for a plans to the State for approval no later analysis. The analysis of control subsequent approval period. The than [Date 24 Months After Date of measures must address their relative request must be provided to the State at Publication of Final Rule in the Federal effectiveness in reducing least six months before the current Register]. Cryptosporidium loading to the source approval period expires or by a date (b) Failure to comply with the water and their feasability and previously determined by the State. The requirements of this section in sustainability. request must include a summary of accordance with the schedule in (iii) A plan that establishes goals and activities and issues identified during § 141.701(h) is a treatment technique defines and prioritizes specific actions the previous approval period and a violation. to reduce source water Cryptosporidium revised plan that addresses activities for levels. The plan must explain how the the next approval period, including any Requirements for Microbial Toolbox actions are expected to contribute to new actual or potential sources of Components specific goals, identify watershed Cryptosporidium contamination and § 141.725 Source toolbox components. partners and their role(s), identify details of any proposed or expected resource requirements and (a) Watershed control program. changes from the existing State- commitments, and include a schedule (1) Systems that intend to qualify for approved program. The plan must for plan implementation. address goals, prioritize specific actions a 0.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium (4) Initial State approval of a removal for a watershed control to reduce source water watershed control plan and its Cryptosporidium, explain how actions program must notify the State no later associated 0.5 log Cryptosporidium than one year after completing the are expected to contribute to achieving removal credit is valid until the system goals, identify partners and their role(s), source water monitoring requirements completes the second round of resource requirements and of § 141.702(b) that they intend to Cryptosporidium monitoring required commitments, and the schedule for plan develop a watershed control program under § 141.702(d). Systems must implementation. and to submit it for State approval. complete the actions in paragraphs (iv) The annual status reports, (2) Systems must submit a proposed (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section to watershed control plan and annual initial watershed control plan and a maintain State approval and the 0.5 log watershed sanitary surveys must be request for plan approval and 0.5 log credit. made available to the public upon Cryptosporidium removal credit to the (i) Submit an annual watershed request. These documents must be in a State no later than two years after control program status report to the plain language style and include criteria completing the source water monitoring State by a date determined by the State. by which to evaluate the success of the requirements of § 141.702(b). Based on a The annual watershed control program program in achieving plan goals. If review of the initial proposed watershed status report must describe the system’s approved by the State, the system may control plan, the State may approve, implementation of the approved plan withhold portions of the annual status reject, or conditionally approve the and assess the adequacy of the plan to report, watershed control plan, and plan. If the plan is approved, or if the meet its goals. It must explain how the watershed sanitary survey based on system agrees to implement the State’s system is addressing any shortcomings security considerations. conditions for approval, the system is in plan implementation, including those (5) Unfiltered systems may not claim awarded a 0.5 log credit for previously identified by the State or as credit for Cryptosporidium removal Cryptosporidium removal to apply the result of the watershed survey under this option. against additional treatment conducted under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of (b) Alternative source. (1) If approved requirements. this section. If it becomes necessary by the State, a system may be classified (3) The application to the State for during implementation to make in a bin under § 141.709 based on initial program approval must include substantial changes in its approved monitoring that is conducted elements in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through watershed control program, the system concurrently with source water (iii) of this section. must notify the State and provide a monitoring under § 141.701 and reflects (i) An analysis of the vulnerability of rationale prior to making any such a different intake location (either in the each source to Cryptosporidium. The changes. If any change is likely to same source or for an alternate source) vulnerability analysis must address the reduce the level of source water or a different procedure for managing watershed upstream of the drinking protection, the system must also include the timing or level of withdrawal from water intake and must include the the actions it will take to mitigate the the source. following: a characterization of the effects in its notification. (2) Sampling and analysis of watershed hydrology, identification of (ii) Conduct an annual watershed Cryptosporidium in the concurrent an ‘‘area of influence’’ (the area to be sanitary survey and submit the survey round of monitoring must conform to considered in future watershed surveys) report to the State for approval. The the requirements for monitoring outside of which there is no significant survey must be conducted according to conducted under this subpart to probability of Cryptosporidium or fecal State guidelines and by persons determine bin classification. Systems contamination affecting the drinking approved by the State to conduct must submit the results of all water intake, identification of both watershed surveys. The survey must monitoring to the State, along with potential and actual sources of encompass the area of the watershed supporting information documenting Cryptosporidium contamination, the that was identified in the State- the operating conditions under which relative impact of the sources of approved watershed control plan as the the samples were collected. Cryptosporidium contamination on the area of influence and, at a minimum, (3) If the State classifies the system in system’s source water quality, and an assess the priority activities identified a bin based on monitoring that reflects estimate of the seasonal variability of in the plan and identify any significant a different intake location or a different such contamination. new sources of Cryptosporidium. procedure for managing the timing or (ii) An analysis of control measures (iii) Submit to the State a request for level of withdrawal from the source, the that could mitigate the sources of review and re-approval of the watershed system must relocate the intake or use

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47786 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

the intake management strategy, as plant is eligible for either a 0.5 or a 1.0 boundary or 100 year flood elevation applicable, no later than the applicable log Cryptosporidium removal credit boundary as delineated on Federal date for treatment technique towards the requirements of this subpart Emergency Management Agency implementation in § 141.701. The State if it meets the design criteria specified (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate maps. If may specify reporting requirements to in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this the floodway boundary or 100 year verify operational practices. section and the monitoring and flood elevation boundary is not reporting criteria of paragraph (c)(6) of delineated, systems must determine the § 141.726 Pre-filtration treatment toolbox this section. Wells with a ground water floodway or 100 year flood elevation components. flow path of at least 25 feet are eligible boundary using methods substantially (a) Presedimentation. New for 0.5 log removal credit; wells with a equilvalent to those used in preparing presedimentation basins that meet the ground water flow path of at least 50 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate maps. For criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) feet are eligible for 1.0 log removal horizontal wells, the ground water flow of this section are eligible for 0.5 log credit. The ground water flow path must path is the closest measured distance Cryptosporidium removal credit. be determined as specified in paragraph from the bed of the river under normal Systems with presedimentation basins (c)(5) of this section. flow conditions to the closest horizontal existing when the system is required to (1) Only horizontal and vertical wells well lateral intake. conduct monitoring under § 141.702(a) are eligible for bank filtration removal (6) Turbidity measurements must be may not claim this credit and, during credit. performed on representative samples periods when the basins are in use, (2) Only wells in granular aquifers are from each wellhead at least every four must collect samples after the basins for eligible for bank filtration removal hours that the bank filtration is in the purpose of determining bin credit. Granular aquifers are those operation. Continuous turbidity classification under § 141.709. comprised of sand, clay, silt, rock monitoring at each wellhead may be (1) The presedimentation basin must fragments, pebbles or larger particles, used if the system validates the be in continuous operation and must and minor cement. The aquifer material continuous measurement for accuracy treat all of the flow reaching the must be unconsolidated as on a regular basis using a protocol treatment plant. demonstrated by the aquifer approved by the State. If the monthly (2) The system must continuously add characterization specified in paragraph average of daily maximum turbidity a coagulant to the presedimentation (c)(3) of this section, unless the system values at any well exceeds 1 NTU, the basin. meets the conditions of paragraph (c)(4) system must report this finding to the (3) Presedimentation basin influent of this section. Wells located in State within 30 days. In addition, within and effluent turbidity must be measured consolidated aquifers, fractured 30 days of the exceedance, the system at least once per day or more frequently bedrock, karst limestone, and gravel must conduct an assessment to as determined by the State. aquifers are not eligible for bank determine the cause of the high (4) The system must demonstrate on filtration removal credit. turbidity levels and submit that a monthly basis at least 0.5 log (3) A system seeking removal credit assessment to the State for a reduction of influent turbidity through for bank filtration must characterize the determination of whether any the presedimentation process in at least aquifer at the well site to determine previously allowed credit is still 11 of the 12 previous consecutive aquifer properties. The aquifer appropriate. months. characterization must include the (7) Systems with bank filtration that (i) The monthly demonstration of collection of relatively undisturbed serves as pretreatment to a filtration turbidity reduction must be based on continuous core samples from the plant and that exists when the system is the mean of daily turbidity readings surface to a depth at least equal to the required to conduct monitoring under collected under paragraph (a)(3) of this bottom of the well screen. The § 141.702(a) may not claim this credit. section and calculated as follows: recovered core length must be at least 90 During periods when the bank filtration log10(monthly mean of daily influent percent of the total projected depth to is in use, systems must collect samples turbidity)—log10(monthly mean of daily the well screen, and each sampled after the bank filtration for the purpose effluent turbidity). interval must be a composite of no more of determining bin classification under (ii) If the presedimentation process than 2 feet in length. A well is eligible § 141.709. has not been in operation for 12 months, for removal credit if at least 90 percent the system must verify on a monthly of the composited intervals from the § 141.727 Treatment performance toolbox basis at least 0.5 log reduction of aquifer contain at least 10 percent fine components. influent turbidity through the grained material, which is defined as (a) Combined filter performance. presedimentation process, calculated as grains less than 1.0 mm in diameter. Systems using conventional filtration specified in this paragraph, for at least (4) Wells constructed in partially treatment or direct filtration treatment all but any one of the months of consolidated granular aquifers are may claim an additional 0.5 log operation. eligible for removal credit if approved Cryptosporidium removal credit for any (b) Two-stage lime softening. Systems by the State based on a demonstraton by month at each plant that demonstrates that operate a two-stage lime softening the system that the aquifer provides that combined filter effluent (CFE) plant are eligible for an additional 0.5 sufficient natural filtration. The turbidity levels are less than or equal to log Cryptosporidium removal credit if demonstration must include a 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the there is a second clarification step characterization of the extent of measurements taken each month, based between the primary clarifier and cementation and fractures present in the on sample measurements collected filter(s) that is operated continuously. aquifer. under §§141.73,141.173(a) and Both clarifiers must treat all of the plant (5) For vertical wells, the ground 141.551. Systems may not claim credit flow and a coagulant, which may be water flow path is the measured under this paragraph and paragraph (b) excess lime or magnesium hydroxide, horizontal distance from the edge of the in the same month. must be present in both clarifiers. surface water body to the well. This (b) Individual filter performance. (c) Bank filtration. New bank filtration horzontal distance to the surface water Systems using conventional filtration that serves as pretreatment to a filtration must be determined using the floodway treatment or direct filtration treatment

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47787

may claim an additional 1.0 log requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) (7) Each filter evaluated must be Cryptosporidium removal credit for any through (a)(9) of this section. challenged with the challenge month at each plant that meets both the (1) To receive a 1 log Cryptosporidium particulate during three periods over the individual filter effluent (IFE) turbidity removal credit for a bag filter, the filter filtration cycle: within two hours of requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and must demonstrate a removal efficiency start-up after a new bag or cartridge (2) of this section, based on monitoring of 2 log or greater for Cryptosporidium. filter has been installed; when the conducted under §§141.174(a) and To receive a 2 log Cryptosporidium pressure drop is between 45 and 55 141.560. removal credit for a cartridge filter, the percent of the terminal pressure drop; (1) IFE turbidity must be less than 0.1 filter must demonstrate a removal and at the end of the run after the NTU in at least 95% of the maximum efficiency of 3 log or greater for pressure drop has reached 100 percent daily values recorded at each filter in Cryptosporidium. Removal efficiency of the terminal pressure drop. each month, excluding the 15 minute must be demonstrated through (8) Removal efficiency of a bag or period following return to service from challenge testing conducted according cartridge filter must be determined from a filter backwash. to the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) the results of the challenge test and (2) No individual filter may have a through (a)(9) of this section. The State expressed in terms of log removal values measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU may accept data from challenge testing using the following equation: in two consecutive measurements taken conducted prior to [Date of Publication LRV = LOG10(Cf)¥LOG10(Cp) 15 minutes apart. of Final Rule in the Federal Register] in where LRV = log removal value (c)(1) Demonstration of performance. lieu of additional testing if the prior demonstrated during challenge testing; Systems may demonstrate to the State, testing was consistent with the criteria C = the feed concentration used during specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through f through the use of State-approved the challenge test; and Cp = the filtrate protocols, that a plant, or unit process (a)(9) of this section. concentration observed during the of a plant, achieves a mean (2) Challenge testing must be challenge test. In applying this equation, Cryptosporidium removal efficiency performed on full-scale bag or cartridge the same units must be used for the feed greater than any presumptive credit filters that are identical in material and and filtrate concentrations. If the specified under § 141.720 or §§141.725 construction to the filters proposed for challenge particulate is not detected in use in full-scale treatment facilities for through 141.728. Systems are eligible the filtrate, then the term Cp must be set for an increased Cryptosporidium removal of Cryptosporidium. equal to the detection limit. An LRV removal credit if the State determines (3) Challenge testing must be must be calculated for each filter that the plant or process can reliably conducted using Cryptosporidium evaluated during the testing. achieve such a removal efficiency on a oocysts or a surrogate that is removed (9) If fewer than 20 filters are tested, continuing basis and the State provides no more efficiently than the removal efficiency for the filtration written notification of its determination Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism device must be set equal to the lowest to the system. States may establish or surrogate used during challenge of the representative LRVs among the ongoing monitoring and/or performance testing is referred to as the challenge filters tested. If 20 or more filters are requirements the State determines are particulate. The concentration of the tested, then removal efficiency of the necessary to demonstrate the greater challenge particulate must be filtration device must be set equal to the credit and may require the system to determined using a method capable of 10th percentile of the representative report operational data on a monthly discreetly quantifying the specific LRVs among the various filters tested. basis to verify that conditions under organism or surrogate used in the test; The percentile is defined by (i/(n+1)) which the demonstration of gross measurements such as turbidity where i is the rank of n individual data performance was awarded are may not be used. points ordered lowest to highest. If maintained during routine operations. If (4) The maximum feed water necessary, the system may calculate the the State determines that a plant, or unit concentration that can be used during a 10th percentile using linear process of a plant, achieves an average challenge test must be based on the interpolation. Cryptosporidium removal efficiency less detection limit of the challenge (10) If a previously tested bag or than any presumptive credit specified particulate in the filtrate (i.e., filtrate cartidge filter is modified in a manner under § 141.720 or §§141.725 through detection limit) and must be calculated that could change the removal efficiency 141.728, the State may assign the lower using the equation in either paragraph of the filter, addition challenge testing credit to the plant or unit process. (a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this section as to demonstrate the removal efficiency of (2) Systems may not claim applicable. the modified filter must be conducted presumptive credit for any toolbox box (i) For cartridge filters: Maximum and submitted to the State. × 4 × component in §§141.726, 141.727(a) Feed Concentration = 3.16 10 (b) Membrane filtration. (1) Systems and (b), or 141.728 if that component is (Filtrate Detection Limit). using a membrane filtration process, also included in the demonstration of (ii) For bag filters: Maximum Feed including a membrane cartridge filter × 3 × performance credit. Concentration = 3.16 10 (Filtrate that meets the definition of membrane Detection Limit). filtration and the integrity testing § 141.728 Additional filtration toolbox (5) Challenge testing must be requirements of this subpart, are eligible components. conducted at the maximum design flow for a Cryptosporidium removal credit (a) Bag and cartridge filters. Systems rate for the filter as specified by the equal to the lower value of paragraph are eligible for a 1 log Cryptosporidium manufacturer. (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1) (ii) of this section: removal credit for bag filters and a 2 log (6) Each filter evaluated must be (i) The removal efficiency Cryptosporidium removal credit for tested for a duration sufficient to reach demonstrated during challenge testing cartridge filters by meeting the criteria 100 percent of the terminal pressure conducted under the conditions in in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of drop, which establishes the maximum paragraph (b)(2) of this section. this section. The request to the State for pressure drop under which the filter (ii) The maximum removal efficiency this credit must include the results of may be used to comply with the that can be verified through direct challenge testing that meets the requirements of this subpart. integrity testing used with the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47788 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

membrane filtration process under the of filtrate in backwashing or cleaning the requirements described in conditions in paragraph (b)(3) of this operations. paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(vi) of section. (v) Removal efficiency of a membrane this section. (2) Challenge Testing. The membrane module during challenge testing must (i) The direct integrity test must be used by the system must undergo be determined as a log removal using independently applied to each challenge testing to evaluate removal the following equation: membrane unit in service. A membrane efficiency, and the system must submit LRV = LOG10(Cf) ¥ LOG10(Cp) unit is a group of membrane modules the results of challenge testing to the where LRV = log removal value that share common valving that allows State. Challenge testing must be demonstrated during challenge testing; the unit to be isolated from the rest of conducted according to the criteria in C = the feed concentration used during the system for the purpose of integrity f testing or maintenance. paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(vii) of the challenge test; and Cp = the filtrate this section. The State may accept data (ii) The direct integrity method must concentration observed during the µ from challenge testing conducted prior challenge test. Equivalent units must be have a resolution of 3 m or less, where to [Date of Publication of Final Rule in used for the feed and filtrate resolution is defined as the smallest leak the Federal Register] in lieu of concentrations. If the challenge size that contributes to a response from additional testing if the prior testing was particulate is not detected in the filtrate, the direct integrity test. (iii) The system must demonstrate consistent with the criteria in the term Cp is set equal to the detection paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2) (vii) limit. An LRV must be calculated for that the direct integrity test can verify of this section. each membrane module evaluated the log removal credit awarded to the (i) Challenge testing must be during the test. membrane filtration process by the State conducted on either a full-scale (vi) The removal efficiency of a using the approach in either paragraph membrane module, identical in material membrane filtration process (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this and construction to the membrane demonstrated during challenge testing section as applicable based on the type modules used in the system’s treatment must be expressed as a log removal of direct integrity test. (A) For direct integrity tests that use facility, or a smaller-scale membrane value (LRVC-Test). If fewer than 20 an applied pressure or vacuum, the module, identical in material and modules are tested, then LRVC-Test is similar in construction to the full-scale equal to the lowest of the representative maximum log removal value that can be module. LRVs among the applicable modules verified by the test must be calculated (ii) Challenge testing must be tested. If 20 or more modules are tested, according to the following equation: × conducted using Cryptosporidium then LRVC-Test is equal to the 10th LRVDIT = LOG10(Qp /(VCF Qbreach))

oocysts or a surrogate that is removed percentile of the representative LRVs where LRVDIT = maximum log removal no more efficiently than among the applicable modules tested. value that can be verified by a direct Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism The percentile is defined by (i/(n+1)) integrity test; Qp = total design filtrate or surrogate used during challenge where i is the rank of n individual data flow from the membrane unit; Qbreach = testing is referred to as the challenge points ordered lowest to highest. If flow of water from an integrity breach particulate. The concentration of the necessary, the 10th percentile may be associated with the smallest integrity challenge particulate must be calculated using linear interpolation. test response that can be reliably determined using a method capable of (vii) The challenge test must establish measured, and VCF = volumetric discretely quantifying the specific a quality control release value (QCRV) concentration factor. The volumetric challenge particulate used in the test; for a non-destructive performance test concentration factor is the ratio of the gross measurements such as turbidity that demonstrates the Cryptosporidium suspended solids concentration on the may not be used. removal capability of the membrane high pressure side of the membrane (iii) The maximum feed water filtration process. This performance test relative to that in the feed water. concentration that can be used during a must be applied to each production (B) For direct integrity tests that use challenge test is based on the detection membrane module used by the system a particulate or molecular marker, the limit of the challenge particulate in the that did not undergo a challenge test in maximum log removal value that can be filtrate and must be determined order to verify Cryptosporidium removal verified by the test must be calculated according to the following equation: capability. Production modules that do according to the following equation: not meet the established QCRV are not LRV = LOG (C )¥LOG (C ) Maximum Feed Concentration = eligible for the removal credit DIT 10 f 10 p 3.16×106 × (Filtrate Detection Limit) demonstrated during the challenge test. where LRVDIT = maximum log removal (iv) Challenge testing must be (viii) If a previously tested membrane value that can be verified by a direct conducted under representative is modified in a manner that could integrity test; Cf = the typical feed hydraulic conditions at the maximum change the removal efficiency of the concentration of the marker used in the design flux and maximum design membrane or the applicability of the test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration process recovery specified by the non-destructive performance test and of the marker from an integral manufacture for the membrane module. associated QCRV, addition challenge membrane unit. Flux is defined as the rate of flow per testing to demonstrate the removal (iv) Systems must establish a control unit of membrane area. Recovery is efficiency of, and determine a new limit for the direct integrity test that is defined as the ratio of filtrate volume QCRV for, the modified membrane must indicative of an integral membrane unit produced by a membrane to feed water be conducted and submitted to the capable of meeting the removal credit volume applied to a membrane over the State. awarded by the State. course of an uninterrupted operating (3) Direct integrity testing. Systems (v) If the result of a direct integrity cycle. An operating cycle is bounded by must conduct direct integrity testing in test is outside the control limit two consecutive backwash or cleaning a manner that demonstrates a removal established under paragraphs (b)(3)(i) events. For the purpose of challenge efficiency equal to or greater than the through (b)(3)(iv) of this section, the testing in this section, recovery does not removal credit awarded to the membrane unit must be removed from consider losses that occur due to the use membrane filtration process and meets service. A direct integrity test must be

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47789

conducted to verify any repairs, and the for a period greater than 15 minutes (i.e., treated by both processes and no membrane unit may be returned to two consecutive 15-minute readings disinfectant residual is present in the service only if the direct integrity test is above 0.15 NTU), direct integrity testing influent water to the slow sand filtration within the established control limit. must be performed on the associated process. (vi) Direct integrity testing must be membrane units as specified in conducted on each membrane unit at a paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(v) of § 141.729 Inactivation toolbox components. frequency of not less than once each day this section. that the membrane unit is in operation. (v) If indirect integrity monitoring (a) Calculation of CT values. (1) CT is (4) Indirect integrity monitoring. includes a State-approved alternative the product of the disinfectant contact Systems must conduct continuous parameter and if the alternative time (T, in minutes) and disinfectant indirect integrity monitoring on each parameter exceeds a State-approved concentration (C, in milligrams per membrane unit according to the criteria control limit for a period greater than 15 liter). Systems must calculate CT at least in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) minutes, direct integrity testing must be once each day, with both C and T of this section. A system that performed on the associated membrane measured during peak hourly flow as implements continuous direct integrity units as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) specified in §§ 141.74(a) and 141.74(b). testing of membrane units in accordance through (b)(3)(v) of this section. (2) Systems with several disinfection with the criteria in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) (c) Second stage filtration. Systems segments (a segment is defined as a through (b)(3)(v) of this section is not are eligible for an additional 0.5 log treatment unit process with a subject to the requirements for Cryptosporidium removal credit if they measurable disinfectant residual level continuous indirect integrity have a separate second stage filtration and a liquid volume) in sequence along monitoring. process consisting of rapid sand, dual the treatment train, may calculate the (i) Unless the State approves an media, GAC, or other fine grain media CT for each disinfection segment and alternative parameter, continuous in a separate stage following rapid sand use the sum of the Cryptosporidium log indirect integrity monitoring must or dual media filtration. To be eligible inactivation values achieved through include continuous filtrate turbidity for this credit, the first stage of filtration the plant. monitoring. must be preceded by a coagulation step (b) CT values for chlorine dioxide. (1) (ii) Continuous monitoring must be and both filtration stages must treat Systems using chlorine dioxide must conducted at a frequency of no less than 100% of the flow. A cap, such as GAC, calculate CT in accordance with once every 15 minutes. on a single stage of filtration is not § 141.729(a). (iii) Continuous monitoring must be eligible for this credit. (2) Unless the State approves separately conducted on each (d) Slow sand filtration. Systems may alternative CT values for a system under membrane unit. claim a 2.5 log Cryptosporidium paragraph (b)(3) of this section, systems (iv) If indirect integrity monitoring removal credit for a slow sand filtration must use the following table to includes turbidity and if the filtrate process that follows another separate determine Cryptosporidium log turbidity readings are above 0.15 NTU filtration process if all the flow is inactivation credit:

CT VALUES FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY CHLORINE DIOXIDE

Water Temperature, ° C 1 Log credit <=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25

0.5 ...... 319 305 279 256 214 180 138 89 58 38 1.0 ...... 637 610 558 511 429 360 277 179 116 75 1.5 ...... 956 915 838 767 643 539 415 268 174 113 2.0 ...... 1275 1220 1117 1023 858 719 553 357 232 150 2.5 ...... 1594 1525 1396 1278 1072 899 691 447 289 188 3.0 ...... 1912 1830 1675 1534 1286 1079 830 536 347 226 1 CT values between the indicated temperatures may be determined by interpolation.

(3) Systems may conduct a site- values determined from the site-specific (2) Unless the State approves specific inactivation study to determine study and the method of calculation alternative CT values for a system under the CT values necessary to meet a must be approved by the State. paragraph (c)(3) of this section, systems specified Cryptosporidium log (c) CT values for ozone. (1) Systems must use the following table to inactivation level, using a State- using ozone must calculate CT in determine Cryptosporidium log approved protocol. The alternative CT accordance with § 141.729(a). inactivation credit:

CT VALUES FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY OZONE

Water Temperature, °C1 1 Log credit <=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25

0.5 ...... 12 12 10 9.5 7.9 6.5 4.9 3.1 2.0 1.2 1.0 ...... 24 23 21 19 16 13 9.9 6.2 3.9 2.5 1.5 ...... 36 35 31 29 24 20 15 9.3 5.9 3.7 2.0 ...... 48 46 42 38 32 26 20 12 7.8 4.9 2.5 ...... 60 58 52 48 40 33 25 16 9.8 6.2

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47790 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

CT VALUES FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY OZONE—Continued

Water Temperature, °C1 1 Log credit <=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25

3.0 ...... 72 69 63 57 47 39 30 19 12 7.4 1 CT values between the indicated temperatures may be determined by interpolation

(3) Systems may conduct a site- Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and table to UV reactors with other lamp specific inactivation study to determine viruses. The allowable inactivation types through reactor validation testing the CT values necessary to meet a credit for each pathogen must be based (i.e., performance demonstration) as specified Cryptosporidium log on the UV dose delivered by the described in paragraph (d)(3) of this inactivation level, using a State- system’s UV reactors in relation to the section. The UV dose values in this approved protocol. The alternative CT UV dose table in paragraph (d)(2) of this table are applicable only to post-filter values determined from the site-specific section. application of UV in systems that filter study and the method of calculation (2) UV dose table. The log credits under subpart H of this part and to given in this UV dose table are for UV must be approved by the State. unfiltered systems meeting the filtration (d) Ultraviolet light. (1) Systems may light at a wavelength of 254 nm as avoidance criteria in subparts H, P, and claim credit for ultraviolet (UV) produced by a low pressure mercury processes for inactivation of vapor lamp. Systems may apply this T of this part:

UV DOSE TABLE FOR Cryptosporidium, GIARDIA LAMBLIA, AND VIRUS INACTIVATION CREDIT

Cryptosporidium Giardia lamblia Virus UV dose Log credit UV Dose (mJ/ UV dose (mJ/ (mJ/cm 2) cm 2) cm 2)

0.5 ...... 1.6 1.5 39 1.0 ...... 2.5 2.1 58 1.5 ...... 3.9 3.0 79 2.0 ...... 5.8 5.2 100 2.5 ...... 8.5 7.7 121 3.0 ...... 12 11 143 3.5 ...... NA NA 163 4.0 ...... NA NA 186

(3) Reactor validation testing. For a (ii) Validation testing must include reporting source water monitoring system to receive inactivation credit for the following: full scale testing of a results under § 141.707 unless they a UV reactor, the reactor must undergo reactor that conforms uniformly to the notify the State that they will not the validation testing in paragraphs UV reactors used by the system; and conduct source water monitoring due to (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this section, inactivation of a test microorganism meeting the criteria of § 141.701(f) or (g). unless the State approves an alternative whose dose response characteristics (b) Systems using uncovered finished approach. The validation testing must have been quantified with a low water storage facilities must notify the demonstrate the operating conditions pressure mercury vapor lamp. State of the use of each facility no later under which the reactor can deliver the (4) Reactor monitoring. Systems must than [Date 24 Months After Date of monitor their UV reactors to UV dose required in paragraph (d)(2) of Publication of Final Rule in the Federal demonstrate that they are operating this section. Register]. within the range of conditions that were (i) Validation testing of UV reactors validated by the testing described in (c) Filtered systems and unfiltered must determine a range of operating paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this systems that are required to install conditions that can be monitored by the section to achieve the required UV dose filtration must report their system and under which the reactor in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Cryptosporidium bin classification, as delivers the required UV dose. At a Systems must monitor for UV intensity determined under using the procedures minimum, these operating conditions as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, in § 141.709, to the State by the must include flow rate, UV intensity as and lamp outage and for any other applicable dates in paragraph (c)(1) or measured by a UV sensor, and UV lamp parameters required by the State. (2) of this section. status. The validated operating Systems must verify the calibration of (1) Systems that serve at least 10,000 conditions determined by this testing UV sensors and must recalibrate sensors people must report their initial bin must account for the following: UV in accordance with a protocol approved classification no later than [Date 36 absorbance of the water; lamp fouling by the State. Months After Date of Publication of and aging; measurement uncertainty of Reporting and Recordkeeping Final Rule in the Federal Register] and on-line sensors; UV dose distributions Requirements must report their bin classification arising from the velocity profiles determined using results from the through the reactor; failure of UV lamps § 141.730 Reporting requirements. second round of source water or other critical system components; (a) Systems must follow the monitoring no later than [Date 138 and inlet and outlet piping or channel requirements for reporting sampling Months After Date of Publication of configurations of the UV reactor. schedules under § 141.703 and for Final Rule in the Federal Register].

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47791

(2) Systems that serve fewer than (1) Systems that serve at least 10,000 Cryptosporidium concentration 10,000 people must report their initial people must report their initial mean determined using results from the bin classification no later than [Date 66 Cryptosporidium concentration no later second round of source water Months After Date of Publication of than [Date 36 Months After Date of monitoring no later than [Date 174 Final Rule in the Federal Register] and Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Months After Date of Publication of must report their bin classification Register] and must report their mean Final Rule in the Federal Register]. determined using results from the Cryptosporidium concentration second round of source water determined using results from the (e) Systems must report to the State in monitoring no later than [Date 174 second round of source water accordance with the following table in Months After Date of Publication of monitoring no later than [Date 138 this paragraph for any toolbox options Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Months After Date of Publication of used to comply with the (d) Unfiltered systems that meet all Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Cryptosporidium treatment technique filtration avoidance criteria of § 141.71 (2) Systems that serve fewer than requirements under § 141.720 or must report their mean Cryptosporidium 10,000 people must report their initial § 141.721. The State may place concentration, as determined under mean Cryptosporidium concentration no additional reporting requirements it § 141.721, to the State by the applicable later than [Date 66 Months After Date of determines to be necessary to verify dates in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this Publication of Final Rule in the Federal operation in accordance with required section. Register] and must report their mean criteria for all toolbox options:

MICROBIAL TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1 —sys- On the following schedule1—sys- Toolbox option Systems must submit the fol- On the following schedule lowing information tems serving ≥ 10,000 people tems serving < 10,000 people

(1) Watershed control program (i) Notify State of intention to de- No later than [Date 48 Months No later than [Date 78 Months (WCP). velop WCP. After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- ister]. ister]. (ii) Submit initial WCP plan to No later than [Date 60 Months No later than [Date 90 Months State. After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- ister]. ister]. (iii) Annual report and State-ap- By a date determined by the By a date determined by the proved watershed survey report. State, every 12 months, begin- State, every 12 months, begin- ning on [Date 84 Months After ning on [Date 114 Months After Date of Publication of Final Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Rule in the Federal Register]. (iv) Request for re-approval and Six months prior to the end of the Six months prior to the end of the report on the previous approval current approval period or by a current approval period or by a period. date previously determined by date previously determined by the State. the State. (2) Bank filtration ...... (i) Initial demonstration of the fol- Initial demonstration no later than Initial demonstration no later than lowing: unconsolidated, pre- [Date 72 Months after Date of [Date 102 Months after Date of dominantly sandy aquifer and Publication of Final Rule in the Publication of Final Rule in the setback distance of at least 25 Federal Register]. Federal Register]. ft. (0.5 log credit) or 50 ft. (1.0 log credit). (ii) If monthly average of daily Report within 30 days following Report within 30 days following max turbidity is greater than 1 the month in which the moni- the month in which the moni- NTU then system must report toring was conducted, begin- toring was conducted, begin- result and submit an assess- ning on [Date 72 Months After ning on [Date 102 Months After ment of the cause. Date of Publication of Final Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Rule in the Federal Register]. (3) Presedimentation...... Monthly verification of the fol- Monthly reporting within 10 days Monthly reporting within 10 days lowing; Continuous basin oper- following the month in which following the month in which ation; treatment of 100% of the the monitoring was conducted, the monitoring was conducted, flow; continuous addition of a beginning on [Date 72 Months beginning on [Date 102 Months coagulant; and at least 0.5 log After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of removal of influent turbidity Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- based on the monthly mean of ister]. ister]. daily turbidity readings for 11 of the 12 previous months. (4) Two-sage lime softening...... Monthly verification of the fol- Monthly reporting within 10 days Monthly reporting within 10 days lowing: Continuous operation of following the month in which following the month in which a second clarification step be- the monitoring was conducted, the monitoring was conducted, tween the primary clarifier and beginning on [Date 72 Months beginning on [Date 102 Months filter; continuous presence of a After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of coagulant in both primary and Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- secondary clarifiers; and both ister]. ister]. clarifiers treated 100% of the plant flow.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47792 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

MICROBIAL TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Systems must submit the fol- On the following schedule1 —sys- On the following schedule1—sys- Toolbox option lowing information tems serving ≥ 10,000 people tems serving < 10,000 people

(5) Combined filter performance .... Monthly verification of combined Monthly reporting within 10 days Monthly reporting within 10 days filter effluent (CFE) turbidity lev- following the month in which following the month in which els less than or equal to 0.15 the monitoring was conducted, the monitoring was conducted, NTU in at least 95 percent of beginning on [Date 72 Months beginning on [Date 102 Months the 4 hour CFE measurements After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of taken each month. Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- ister]. ister]. (6) Individual filter performance..... Monthly verification of the fol- Monthly reporting within 10 days Monthly reporting within 10 days lowing: Individual filter effluent following the month in which following the month in which (IFE) turbidity levels less than the monitoring was conducted, the monitoring was conducted, or equal to 0.1 NTU in at least beginning on [Date 72 Months beginning on [Date 102 Months 95 percent of all daily maximum After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of IFE measurements taken each Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- month (excluding 15 min period ister]. ister]. following start-up after back- wash); and no individual filter greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive readings 15 min- utes apart. (7) Membrane filtration...... (i) Results of verification testing No later than [Date 72 Months No later than [Date 102 Months demonstrating the following: After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of Removal efficiency established Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- through challenge testing that ister]. ister]. meets criteria in this subpart; and integrity testing and associ- ated baseline. (ii) Monthly report summarizing all Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the direct integrity tests above the month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was control limit and, if applicable, conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 any indirect integrity monitoring Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- results triggering direct integrity tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal testing and the corrective action Register]. Register]. that was taken. (8) Bag filters and cartridge filters (i) Demonstration that the fol- No later than [Date 72 Months No later than [Date 102 Months lowing criteria are met: process After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of meets the definition of bag or Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- cartridge filtration; removal effi- ister]. ister]. ciency established through challenge testing that meets cri- teria in this subpart; and chal- lenge test shows at least 2 log removal for bag filters and 3 log removal for cartridge filters. (ii) Monthly verification that 100% Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the of flow was filtered. month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Register]. (9) Second stage filtration ...... Monthly verification that 100% of Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the flow was filtered through both month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was stages. conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Register]. (10) Slow and filtration ...... Monthly verification that 100% of Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the flow was filtered. month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Register]. (11) Chlorine dioxide ...... Summary of CT values for each Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the day based on Table in month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was ¤ 141.729(b). conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Register].

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47793

MICROBIAL TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Systems must submit the fol- On the following schedule1 —sys- On the following schedule1—sys- Toolbox option lowing information tems serving ≥ 10,000 people tems serving < 10,000 people

(12) Ozone ...... Summary of CT values for each Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the day based on Table in month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was ¤ 141.729(c). conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Register]. (13) UV ...... (i) Validation test results dem- No later than [Date 72 Months No later than [Date 102 Months onstrating operating conditions After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of that achieve required UV dose. Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- ister]. ister]. (ii) Monthly report summarizing Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the the percentage of water enter- month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was ing the distribution system that conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 was not treated by UV reactors Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- operating within validated con- tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal ditions for the required dose as Register]. Register]. specified in ¤ 141.729(d). (14) Demonstration of performance (i) Results from testing following a No later than [Date 72 Months No later than [Date 102 Months State approved protocol. After Date of Publication of After Date of Publication of Final Rule in the Federal Reg- Final Rule in the Federal Reg- ister]. ister]. (ii) As required by the State, Within 10 days following the Within 10 days following the monthly verification of operation month in which monitoring was month in which monitoring was within conditions of State ap- conducted, beginning [Date 72 conducted, beginning [Date 102 proval for demonstration of per- Months After Date of Publica- Months After Date of Publica- formance credit. tion of Final Rule in the Federal tion of Final Rule in the Federal Register]. Register]. 1 States may allow up to an additional two years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems making capital improvements.

(f) Systems must report to the State disinfection profiling and benchmarking accordance with the tables in this the information associated with requirements of §§ 141.711 to 141.714 in paragraph.

TABLE 1.—DISINFECTION PROFILING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SYSTEMS [Serving ≥10,000 people]

System type Benchmark component Submit the following items On the following schedule

(1) Systems required to conduct (i) Characterization of disinfection Giardia lamblia and virus inactiva- No later than [Date 36 Months Cyrptosporidium monitoring. practices. See ¤ 141.713. tion profiles must be on file for After Date of Publication of State review during sanitary Final Rule in the Federal Reg- survey. ister]. (ii) State review of proposed sig- Inactivation profile and benchmark Prior to significant modification of nificant changes to disinfection determinations. disinfection practice. practice. See ¤ 141.714. (2) Systems not required to con- (i) Applicability ...... None ...... None. duct Cryptosporidium moni- toring a. (ii) Characterization of Disinfection None ...... None. Practices. (iii) State Review of Proposed None ...... None. Changes to Disinfection Prac- tices. aSystems that provide at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment, consistent with a Bin 4 treatment requirement, are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring.

TABLE 2.—DISINFECTION PROFILING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS [Serving < 10,000 people]

System type Benchmark component Submit the following items On the following schedule

(1) Systems required to conduct (i) Characterization of disinfection Giardia lamblia and virus disinfec- No later than [Date 66 Months Cryptosporidium monitoring. practices. See ¤ 141.713. tion profiles must be on file for After Date of Publication of State review during sanitary Final Rule in the Federal Reg- survey. ister].

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:25 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 47794 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—DISINFECTION PROFILING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS—Continued [Serving < 10,000 people]

System type Benchmark component Submit the following items On the following schedule

(ii) State review of proposed sig- Disinfection profiles and bench- Prior to significant modification of nificant changes to disinfection mark determinations. disinfection practice. practices. See ¤ 141.714. (2) Systems not required to con- (i) Determination of requirement Report on TTHM and HAA5 LRAA No later than [Date 42 Months duct Cryptosporidium monitoring to profile. See ¤ 141.711(b). values from monitoring under After Date of Publication of and that exceed DBP triggers subpart L. Final Rule in the Federal Reg- a,b,c. ister]. (ii) Characterization of disinfection Giardia lambia and virus disinfec- No later than [Date 54 Months practices. See ¤ 141.713. tion profiles must be on file for after Date of Publication of State review during sanitary Final Rule in the Federal Reg- survey. ister]. (iii) State review of proposed sig- Disinfection profiles and bench- Prior to significant modification of nificant changes to disinfection mark determinations. disinfection practice. practices. See ¤ 141.714. (3) Systems not required to con- (i) Determination of no require- Report on TTHM and HAA5 LRAA No later than [Date 42 Months duct Cryptosporidium monitoring ment to profile. See values from monitoring under After Date of Publication of and that do not exceed DBP ¤ 141.711(b). subpart L. Final Rule in the Federal Reg- triggers b,c. ister]. (ii) Characterization of disinfection None ...... None. practices. See ¤ 141.713. (iii) State review of proposed sig- None ...... None. nificant changes to disinfection practice. See ¤ 141.714. a Systems that provide at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment, consistent with a Bin 4 treatment requirement, are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring. b See ¤ 141.702(b) to determine if Cryptosporidium monitoring is required. c See ¤ 141.711(b) to determine if disinfection profiling is required based on TTHM or HAA5 LRAA.

§ 141.731 Recordkeeping requirements. (ii) Initial bin classification for each § 142.15 Reports by States. (a) Systems must keep results from system that currently provides filtration (c) * * * monitoring required under § 141.702 or that is unfiltered and required to (6) Subpart W. (i) The initial bin until 36 months after all source water install filtration, along with any change classification for each system that monitoring required under this section in bin classification due to watershed currently provides filtration or that is has been completed. assessment during sanitary surveys or unfiltered and required to install (b) Systems must keep a record of any the second round of source water filtration, along with any change in bin notification to the State that they will monitoring. classification due to watershed not conduct source water monitoring (iii) A determination of whether each assessment during sanitary surveys or due to meeting the criteria of system that is unfiltered and meets all the second round of source water § 141.701(f) or (g). the filtration avoidance criteria of monitoring. (c) Systems required to develop § 141.71 of this chapter has a mean (ii) A determination of whether each disinfection profiles under § 141.711 source water Cryptosporidium level system that is unfiltered and meets all must keep disinfection profiles on file the filtration avoidance criteria of for State review during sanitary surveys. above 0.01 oocysts/L, along with any changes in this determination due to the § 141.71 of this chapter has a mean source water Cryptosporidium level PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY second round of source water above 0.01 oocysts/L, along with any DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS monitoring. changes in this determination due to the IMPLEMENTATION (iv) The treatment or control measures second round of source water 5. The authority citation for part 142 that systems use to meet their monitoring. Cryptosporidium treatment continues to read as follows: * * * * * requirements under § 141.720 or 8. Section 142.16 is amended by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, § 141.721 of this section. 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as 300j–9 and 300j–11. (v) A list of systems required to cover follows: or treat the effluent of an uncovered 6. Section 142.14 is amended by finished water reservoir. § 142.16 Special primacy conditions. adding paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) to * * * * * read as follows: (vi) A list of systems for which the State has waived the requirement to (m) [Reserved] § 142.14 Records kept by States. cover or treat the effluent of uncovered (n) Requirements for States to adopt * * * * * finished water storage facilities and 40 CFR part 141, subpart W. In addition (a) * * * supporting documentation of the risk to the general primacy requirements (8) [Reserved] mitigation plan. elsewhere in this part, including the (9) Any decisions made pursuant to requirements that State regulations be at the provisions of part 141, subpart W of * * * * * least as stringent as federal this chapter. 7. Section 142.15 is amended by requirements, an application for (i) Results of source water E. coli and adding paragraph (c)(6) to read as approval of a State program revision Cryptosporidium monitoring. follows: that adopts 40 CFR part 141, subpart W,

VerDate jul<14>2003 22:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Proposed Rules 47795

must contain a description of how the (2) Approve watershed control (4) Determine that a system with an State will accomplish the following programs for the 0.5 log watershed uncovered finished water reservoir has program requirements where allowed in control program credit in the microbial a risk mitigation plan that is adequate State programs. toolbox. for purposes of waiving the requirement (3) Approval protocols for treatment (1) Assess significant changes in the to cover or treat the reservoir. credits under the Demonstration of [FR Doc. 03–18295 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] watershed and source water as part of Performance toolbox option and for the sanitary survey process and alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide BILLING CODE 6560–50–P determine appropriate follow-up action. CT values.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:11 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUP2.SGM 11AUP2 Monday, August 11, 2003

Part III

Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 119 Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport; Final Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM 11AUR2 47798 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Anyone is able to search the animal during air transport to the electronic form of all comments Secretary of Transportation, through Federal Aviation Administration received into any of our dockets by the APHIS. The rule specifies the type and name of the individual submitting the manner of information that air carriers 14 CFR Part 119 comment (or signing the comment, if must submit to APHIS to comply with [Docket No. FAA–2002–13378; Amendment submitted on behalf of an association, Section 41721(a). APHIS will process No. 119–9] business, labor union, etc.). You may the reports and forward the relevant review DOT’s complete Privacy Act information to the Office of Aviation RIN 2120–AH69 statement in the Federal Register Enforcement and Proceedings (APE) for published on April 11, 2000 (Volume monthly publication in the Air Travel Reports by Carriers on Incidents 65, Number 70; pages 19477–78), or you Consumer Report. The term ‘‘animal’’ is Involving Animals During Air Transport may visit http://dms.dot.gov. limited to an animal that is being kept as a pet in a family household in the AGENCY: Federal Aviation Small Business Regulatory Enforcement United States. Administration (FAA), DOT. Fairness Act ACTION: Final rule. The Small Business Regulatory Discussion of Comments SUMMARY: This final rule implements Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of The FAA received approximately section 710 of the Wendell H. Ford 1996 requires FAA to comply with 3,760 comments in response to the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for small entity requests for information or NPRM. Most of the comments were the 21st Century (AIR–21) by requiring advice about compliance with statutes similar. Of the comments supporting the air carriers that provide scheduled and regulations within its jurisdiction. action proposed in the NPRM, most of passenger air transportation to submit Therefore, any small entity that has a the comments urged the FAA to expand monthly to the Secretary of question regarding this document may the reporting requirement to cover all Transportation, through the Animal and contact its local FAA official, or the animals that are transported by air, not Plant Health Inspection Service person listed under FOR FURTHER just household pets of U.S. families. (APHIS), United States Department of INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out Those who opposed the proposed rule Agriculture (USDA), a report on any more about SBREFA on the Internet at were typically concerned that the rule incidents involving the loss, injury or http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, would increase shipping costs for death of an animal during air transport or by e-mailing us at 9-AWA- animals or reduce the shipping options provided by the air carrier. [email protected]. available, and that the definition of ‘‘animal’’ should be limited to animals DATES: The Office of Management and Background being kept as a pet in a family Budget has not approved the Section 710 of AIR–21 (Public Law household in the United States, but not information collection contained in 106–181) added section 41721 to include animals being transported for these requirements. These requirements chapter 417 of Title 29 U.S.C. Section the purpose of being sold as a pet in a do not become effective until after the 41721(b) mandates that air carriers family household in the United States. FAA publishes a notice of the Office of report to the Secretary of Transportation FAA Response: Management and Budget’s approval for on a monthly basis about any incidents Definition of ‘‘Animal’’ this information collection. involving the loss, injury or death of an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: animal during air transportation. After reviewing the comments, the James W. Whitlow, Office of the Chief Section 41721(c) directs the Secretary of text of Section 710 and its legislative Counsel, AGC–2, Federal Aviation Transportation and the Secretary of history, the FAA has concluded that the Administration, 800 Independence Agriculture to enter into a memorandum intent of the legislation was to require Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; of understanding to ensure the sharing reporting of incidents involving pets telephone (202) 267–3222; facsimile of the information contained in these presented by passengers to scheduled (202) 267–3227. reports. Section 41721(d) directs the passenger air carriers for transport on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Secretary of Transportation to publish commercial flights. This conclusion is consistent with the limitation of Section Availability of Rulemaking Documents data on incidents and complaints involving the loss, injury, or death of an 41721(a) to ‘‘[a]n air carrier that You can get an electronic copy using animal during air transport in a manner provides scheduled passenger air the Internet by: comparable to other consumer transportation’’ and the fact that Section (1) Searching the Department of complaint and incident data. 41721(d) directs the Secretary of Transportation’s electronic Docket FAA published a notice of proposed Transportation to publish data on the Management System (DMS) web page rulemaking (NPRM) on September 27, incidents ‘‘in a manner comparable to (http://dms.dot.gov/search); 2002 (67 FR 61238) that proposed to other consumer complaint and incident (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s comply with section 710 of AIR–21. On data.’’ (Emphasis added). The web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/ October 18, 2002, in response to Conference Report for P. L. 106–181 arm/index.cfm; or requests that interested persons indicates that Section 710 was adopted (3) Accessing the Government submitted to the docket, we extended instead of the Senate amendment so that Printing Office’s web page at http:// the comment period to December 27, airlines could continue to carry animals www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/ 2002 (67 FR 64330). while information is collected that aces140.html. You can also get a copy Congress can use to determine whether by submitting a request to the Federal What the Final Rule Does there is a problem that warrants stronger Aviation Administration, Office of This final rule implements the rule legislative remedies. See House Report Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence proposed in the NPRM by amending 14 106–513, page 197. In the meantime, Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or CFR part 119 to require air carriers that Congress directed DOT: by calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to provide scheduled passenger air to work with airlines to improve the training identify the amendment number or transportation to submit monthly of employees so that (1) they will be better docket number of this rulemaking. reports on the loss, injury or death of an able to ensure the safety of animals being

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM 11AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47799

flown and (2) they will be better able to indicates that its economic impact is Regulatory Flexibility Determination explain to passengers the conditions under minimal. The reporting requirement was The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) which their pets are being carried. People established by statute, not this rule; should know that their pets might be in a of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 602–612, directs cargo hold that may not be air-conditioned or however, the cost of compliance will be Federal agencies to fit regulatory may differ from the passenger cabin in other minimal because the rule will require requirements to the scale of the respects. (Emphasis added) reports to be filed only after an incident business, organizations, and Id., page 198. occurs, and only with respect to the governmental jurisdiction subject to the In consideration of the above, Section transportation of pets. Because the costs regulation. Federal agencies are required 119.72(c)(2) shall read: and benefits of this action do not make to determine whether a proposed or ‘‘Animal means any warm or cold it a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as final action will have a ‘‘significant blooded animal which, at the time of defined in the Order, FAA has not economic impact on a substantial transportation, is being kept as a pet in prepared a ‘‘regulatory impact analysis.’’ number of small entities’’ as defined in a family household in the United Similarly, FAA has not prepared a full the Act. If an agency finds that the States.’’ ‘‘regulatory evaluation,’’ which is not action will have a significant impact, it Cost of Shipping Animals by Air and required when the economic impact of must do a ‘‘regulatory flexibility Availability of Shipping Options a rule is minimal. analysis.’’ The reporting requirement was This final action imposes an Economic Assessment, Regulatory insignificant reporting requirement on established by Congress in Section 710, Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact not by FAA through implementation of air carriers; therefore, FAA certifies that Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates this action will not have a significant this rule; therefore, the cost of Assessment compliance with the reporting economic impact on a substantial requirement is the result of the statute, Proposed changes to Federal number of small entities. not this rule. More importantly, though, regulations must undergo several Trade Impact Assessment because the rule will only require economic analyses. First, Executive The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 reports to be filed when an incident Order 12866 directs each Federal agency prohibits Federal agencies from occurs, and only with respect to the to propose or adopt a regulation only engaging in any standards or related transportation of pets, the economic upon a reasoned determination that the activity that create unnecessary impact of this rule should be minimal, benefits of the intended regulation obstacles to the foreign commerce of the and will neither raise the cost of justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory United States. Legitimate domestic shipping animals by air nor affect the Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies objectives, such as safety, are not availability of shipping options. to analyze the economic impact of considered unnecessary obstacles. The Paperwork Reduction Act regulatory changes on small entities. statute also requires consideration of According to the regulations Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 international standards and where implementing the Paperwork Reduction U.S.C. §§ 2531–2533) prohibits agencies appropriate, that they be the basis for Act of 1995, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), a from setting standards that create U.S. standards. In addition, consistent person is not required to respond to a unnecessary obstacles to the foreign with the Administration’s belief in the collection of information unless it commerce of the United States. In general superiority and desirability of displays a currently valid OMB control developing U.S. standards, this Trade free trade, it is the policy of the number. The OMB control number for Act also requires agencies to consider Administration to remove or diminish, this information collection will be international standards and, where to the extent feasible, barriers to published in the Federal Register, after appropriate, use them as the basis of international trade, including both the Office of Management and Budget U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded barriers affecting the export of American approves it. Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. goods and services to foreign countries 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a and barriers affecting the import of International Compatibility written assessment of the costs, benefits, foreign goods and services into the U.S. In keeping with U.S. obligations and other effects of proposed or final In accordance with the above statute under the Convention on International rules that include a Federal mandate and policy, FAA has assessed the Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to likely to result in the expenditure by potential effect of this rulemaking and comply with International Civil State, local, or tribal governments, in the has determined that it will have only a Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards aggregate, or by the private sector, of domestic impact and therefore no effect and Recommended Practices to the $100 million or more annually (adjusted on any trade-sensitive activity. maximum extent practicable. The FAA for inflation.) Unfunded Mandates Assessment has determined that there are no ICAO In conducting these analyses, FAA Standards and Recommended Practices The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that correspond to these regulations. has determined this rule (1) has benefits of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law that justify its costs, is not a ‘‘significant 104–4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, Executive Order 12866 and DOT regulatory action’’ as defined in section among other things, to curb the practice Regulatory Policies and Procedures 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not of imposing unfunded Federal mandates Executive Order 12866, Regulatory ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s on State, local, and tribal governments. Planning and Review, directs the FAA Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) Title II of the Act requires each Federal to assess both the costs and the benefits will not have a significant economic agency to prepare a written statement of a regulatory change. The FAA is not impact on a substantial number of small assessing the effects of any Federal allowed to propose or adopt a regulation entities; (3) will not create barriers to mandate in a proposed or final agency without making a reasoned international trade; and (4) does not rule that may result in a $100 million or determination that the benefits of the impose an unfunded mandate on state, more expenditure (adjusted annually for intended regulation justify its costs. local, or tribal governments, or on the inflation in any one year by State, local, FAA’s assessment of this rulemaking private sector. and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM 11AUR2 47800 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

or by the private sector; such a mandate is not a major regulatory action under directives issued by the Animal & Plant is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory the provisions of the EPCA. Health Inspection Service, and shall action.’’ contain the following information: List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 119 This final rule does not contain such (1) Carrier and flight number; a mandate. Therefore, the requirements Air Carrier, Animal Incidents, (2) Date and time of the incident; Reporting Requirements. of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates (3) Description of the animal, Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. The Amendment including name, if applicable; Executive Order 13132, Federalism In consideration of the foregoing, the (4) Identification of the owner(s) and/ or guardian of the animal; The FAA has analyzed this final rule Federal Aviation Administration under the principles and criteria of amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of (5) Narrative description of the Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The Federal Regulations as follows: incident; agency has determined that this action (6) Narrative description of the cause PART 119—AIRLINE SERVICE of the incident; will not have a substantial direct effect QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS on the States, or the relationship (7) Narrative description of any between the national Government and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 119 is corrective action taken in response to the States, or on the distribution of revised to read as follows: the incident; and (8) Name, title, address, and power and responsibilities among the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, various levels of government, and 40102, 40103, 40113, 41721, 44105, 44106, telephone number of the individual therefore does not have federalism 44111, 44701–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, filing the report on behalf of the air implications. 44904, 44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, carrier. 46103, 46105. Environmental Analysis (c) For purposes of this section: (1) ■ The air transport of an animal includes FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA 2. Section 119.72 is added to subpart C to read as follows: the entire period during which an actions that may be categorically animal is in the custody of an air carrier, excluded from preparation of a National § 119.72 Reports by air carriers on from check-in of the animal prior to Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) incidents involving animals during air departure until the animal is returned to environmental impact statement. In transport. the owner or guardian of the animal at accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, (a) Any air carrier that provides the final destination of the animal; and appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this scheduled passenger air transportation (2) Animal means any warm or cold rulemaking action qualifies for a shall, within 15 days of the end of the blooded animal which, at the time of categorical exclusion. month to which the information applies, transportation, is being kept as a pet in submit to the Animal & Plant Health Energy Impact a family household in the United States. Inspection Service, United States The energy impact of the final rule Department of Agriculture, a report on Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2003. has been assessed in accordance with any incidents involving the loss, injury, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act or death of an animal during air Marion C. Blakey, (EPCA) Pub. L. 94–163, as amended (42 transport provided by the air carrier. Administrator. U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. (b) The report shall be made in the [FR Doc. 03–20282 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] FAA has determined that the final rule form and manner set forth in reporting BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR2.SGM 11AUR2 Monday, August 11, 2003

Part IV

Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

9 CFR Part 206 Swine Packer Marketing Contracts; Contract Library; Final Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47802 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE made available by certain packers to rule contained three new regulatory swine producers. The LMRA requires sections that would appear in the Code Grain Inspection, Packers and certain packers (specified below) to of Federal Regulations at Part 206 of Stockyards Administration submit contracts to create the contract Title 9. The proposed first section, library. The amendment also requires section 206.1, contained the definition 9 CFR Part 206 the Secretary to make information of terms that would apply to the [PSA–2000–01–b] concerning those contract types regulations. The definitions were, in the available to producers and other main, taken from the definitions in the RIN 0580–AA71 interested parties. Additionally, the LMRA. Proposed section 206.2, the Secretary is to obtain and report contract library section of the Swine Packer Marketing Contracts; monthly information from certain regulations, required packers to file a Contract Library packers concerning the estimated copy of an example of each swine AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and numbers of swine to be delivered under packer marketing contract currently in Stockyards Administration, USDA. contractual arrangements for slaughter effect or available and an example of ACTION: Final rule. within the 6- and 12-month periods each new contract when it is offered. following each monthly report. We proposed to publish a summary of SUMMARY: We are establishing The LMRA also includes a section on contract terms from the example regulations to implement a swine the expiration of the authority granted contracts that are available in each of contract library as required by the by its provisions. Section 942 of the five regions of the country and by Swine Packer Marketing Contracts LMRA states that: contract type. Proposed section 206.3, subtitle of the Livestock Mandatory The authority provided by this title and the the monthly report section, required Reporting Act of 1999. The regulations amendments made by this title terminate 5 packers to provide an estimate, by specify how we will establish a library years after the date of the enactment of this month, for the following 12 months, of or catalog of contract types that packers Act. the number of committed swine by the use to purchase swine for slaughter and The President signed the appropriations type of contract, as well as an estimate make information about the contract act for Agriculture and other agencies of the number of swine that could terms available to the public. The on October 22, 1999. Therefore, the potentially be delivered if all existing regulations also establish monthly LMRA and the related amendments to expansion clauses in contracts are reports on the estimated number of the P&S Act will expire on October 22, exercised. The information from the swine committed for delivery to packers 2004. packer’s monthly reports would be under existing contracts. This rule sets forth the Grain aggregated and reported by GIPSA on a DATES: Effective Date: September 10, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards regional basis. In the proposed rule, we 2003. Administration (GIPSA) regulations to indicated that both the summary of Compliance Dates: implement section 934 of the LMRA, contract terms and the aggregated 1. Each packer’s initial submission of which amended the P&S Act to require monthly report would be available on example contracts representing existing the Secretary to establish and maintain the Internet on the GIPSA Web site or and available contracts is due November a library or catalog of the types of at the GIPSA Regional Office in Des 3, 2003. contracts offered by certain packers to Moines, Iowa. 2. Each packer’s initial submission of swine producers. We are implementing We received 11 comments during the monthly reports is due December 15, the new sections of the P&S Act in 30-day comment period that ended on 2003. regulations as new Part 206 of Title 9 of October 5, 2000. Along with reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations (the the comments submitted, we reviewed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. regulations, 9 CFR 206). The regulations the proposal to determine if changes Stuart Frank, Supervisory Economist, are described below. should be made to make the final rule USDA GIPSA, (515) 323–2579, Suite This regulatory program is intended more clear and the reporting process 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA to meet the purposes of providing to more efficient. We will describe those 50309, or via e-mail at producers, packers, and other market changes and address the comments [email protected]. participants information that can be below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: readily understood with respect to Definition of ‘‘Packer’’ Congressional Mandate swine marketing contracts. By providing this information, the swine contract While developing the swine contract Congress passed the Livestock library reports are intended to provide library regulations, we identified 11 Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 1 more transparency about contract terms small packers that purchase a small (LMRA), which includes requirements and equalize access to market number of swine and have them for mandatory price reporting by information for all market participants. slaughtered at plants that are large packers and requirements for reporting enough to make these small packers fit Background of certain information on the contract the definition of ‘‘packer’’ as contained types used by packers for procurement On September 5, 2000, we published in the proposed rule. As reported to us of swine for slaughter. The LMRA also a proposed rule 2 in the Federal Register on packer annual reports, in 2000, these amended the Packers and Stockyards (65 FR 53653–53679) to implement the 11 packers had a combined total of Act, as amended and supplemented (7 swine contract library amendments to 164,516 hogs slaughtered for them by U.S.C. 181–229) (P&S Act) to require the the P&S Act. In broad terms, the other packers, with the individual Secretary to establish and maintain a proposed regulatory program can be amounts from each of the 11 packers library or catalog of the contract types summarized as follows. The proposed ranging from 181 to 69,262 hogs. Most of these packers purchase hogs from the 1 Title IX of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 2 Refer to the proposal for a detailed explanation spot market and do not use contracts to Food and Drug Administration and Related of (1) the requirements of the LMRA for the Agencies Appropriation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– implementation of the swine contract library and purchase hogs for slaughter. These 11 78). (2) our interpretation of the requirements. packers are not comparable in size to

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47803

the 33 packers 3 that we estimate would We revised the definition of packers in to report as required by the swine be required to report under the swine section 206.1 to apply to a packer contract library regulations. Other contract library. We do not anticipate purchasing at least 100,000 swine per changes to the definition included that requiring small packers, such as year. We used 100,000 as the minimum deleting the phrase ‘‘or firm’’ from the these 11 packers, to report would add for consistency with the legislative definition of packer, because the enough value to the information we requirement for the average number of definition of person in the P&S Act report from the swine contract library to hogs that each plant slaughters. In includes individuals, partnerships, justify the anticipated burden on such comparing the purchases of these 11 corporations, and associations making small packers. We determined that it small packers, in 2000, the maximum the use of the phrase ‘‘or firm’’ would be reasonable to exempt such annual purchase was 69,262 hogs; as unnecessary, and deleting the word small packers from the requirements of this packer increases its annual ‘‘would’’ from the definition of packer. the swine contract library regulations. slaughter to 100,000, it will be required

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

Packer. Any person or firm engaged in the business of buying swine in Packer. Any person engaged in the business of buying swine in com- commerce for purposes of slaughter, of manufacturing or preparing merce for purposes of slaughter, of manufacturing or preparing meats or meat food products from swine for sale or shipment in com- meats or meat food products from swine for sale or shipment in merce, or of marketing meats or meat food products from swine in an commerce, or of marketing meats or meat food products from swine unmanufactured form acting as a wholesale broker, dealer, or dis- in an unmanufactured form acting as a wholesale broker, dealer, or tributor in commerce. The regulations in this part would only apply to distributor in commerce. The regulations in this part only apply to a a packer slaughtering swine at a federally inspected swine proc- packer purchasing at least 100,000 swine per year and slaughtering essing plant that meets either of the following conditions: * * * swine at a federally inspected swine processing plant that meets ei- ther of the following conditions: * * *

Submission of Example Contracts are intended to eliminate the confusion for all contracts; in the report, the During the development of the swine expressed by commenters about what packer will group the estimates by the contract library regulations, we needs to be submitted. contract type categories. We will use the contract type categories to summarize identified the packers and the specific In the proposed rule, we proposed to information from the example contracts plants that currently meet the have each packer sort its contracts into and the monthly reports and to provide requirements of the regulations. The six contract type categories, identify the public reports. The public reports will proposed rule did not specify how we example contracts within each contract be provided by contract type and will provide information about the type category, and then submit the geographic region. Information will only swine contract library to those packers; example contracts. Since the be released to the public if when this rule is published, we will publication of the proposed rule, we realized that each packer could identify confidentiality requirements can be met. notify each of those packers, in writing, In addition to the initial submission about the information that each packer its example contracts without having to sort the contracts into the six contract of existing and available contracts, as will be required to provide, and provide contracts are made available, revised, or a packer identification number, which type categories. We further realized that there would be greater consistency in expire, each packer should use the we will assign. In addition to providing following guidelines to determine when the contracts placed into each category a copy of guidelines, forms, and another submission or notification of a if we identified into which contract type instructions, the notification will change is required. provide information about the option of category each example contract will be • Required submission of contract submitting information electronically. placed, which will relieve packers of the made available: When a contract that Each of these packers will be required additional burden of sorting its represents an example contract is made to submit example contracts for each contracts into the six categories. available to swine sellers, the packer plant at which it slaughters or has hogs Therefore, packers do not need to sort will submit it to GIPSA as an example slaughtered that meets the definition in contracts by category. contract (for discussion purposes, we this rule. Each packer will use the After we receive the example will call this Example contract A). criteria established in this rule to contracts, we will categorize the • Potential subsequent submission determine which existing and available example contracts, using the six due to contract changes: When a contracts can be represented by one contract type categories established in contract changes, for example, the example contract. The packer will this rule. We will notify the packer of contract is made available and submit as many example contracts as the contract type category for each negotiations result in a new example are necessary to represent all of its example contract submitted. The packer contract, the packer will submit the new existing and available contracts at the will need to know the contract type example contract to GIPSA and specify time the initial submission is due. category to which each example if it replaces the previously submitted As a new option, we developed contract is assigned to prepare the example contract or if it is an additional guidelines that the packer may follow to information required for the monthly new example contract (for discussion submit example contracts and reports. We will provide the packer with purposes, we will call this Example developed an option for the electronic this information at least 2 weeks prior contract B). Example contracts would submission of example contracts. The to the required submission of monthly not be continuously submitted to GIPSA guidelines include an optional cover reports. In the monthly reports that each during negotiations; one would be sheet for the identification of example packer will submit, the packer will submitted when it is made available to contract submissions. The guidelines report the estimated deliveries of hogs sellers and, when necessary, another

3 Based on the 5 year average using the most federally inspected plants compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, there are 33 packers recent data, which included 2002 slaughter data for that will be submitting contracts for 53 plants.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47804 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

would be submitted when the Changes to the Monthly Report USDA Food Safety Inspection Service negotiation resulted in a contract or Submission Form assigns this number to the plant). when an existing contract changes. In addition to the changes we made to Because the scanable form is a multi- —New additional example contract the rule, in developing Form P&SP–341, page form, we added fields for the example: If the packer and the we revised the form from the sample Packer ID and the Federal Inspection producer agree to a contract with a shown in the proposed rule. We revised Number at the top of pages 2 and 3 of change, which results in a different the look and functionality of the form the form to ensure that each submission example contract (Example contract due to the technology available to read stays together and is recognized as a B) and the packer continues to the incoming forms and place the complete submission. In addition, we make Example contract A available information directly into the database. have numbered each section and item to other producers, the negotiated We made additional changes on the on the form for easier reference in the contract will be submitted as a new form in order to make the form more instructions for completing the form. example contract (Example contract understandable and to more accurately Specifically, the three pages of the form B). specify the information required to be have been labeled as sections 1, 2, and submitted on the form. Images of both 3. Section 1 requests the identification —Replacement example: If, however, the proposed sample and the current information (labeled as items 1 through in that scenario, the packer no version of the form are available at 12); Section 2 requests estimated longer makes the original Example http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/rulemaking/ deliveries (items 13 through 17); and contract A available to any other current/Fed-reg.htm. The overall look of Section 3 requests estimated maximum producer and Example contract A is the form was revised to be a scanable deliveries (items 18 through 22). We no longer used, then the negotiated form, which means that the form may be made changes to the labels shown in the contract would be submitted as an filled in and when we receive it and table in the sample form to add clarity example contract to replace the scan it into a computer file, a computer to the information requested. previously submitted Example program will automatically put the Specifically, we changed the labels for contract A. information from the completed form each of the tables as follows: we • Notification of example contracts into the correct fields in the database. changed ‘‘Number of Head of Estimated Therefore, the one-page sample as that have expired or that have been Deliveries of Swine’’ to ‘‘Estimated shown in the proposed rule became a withdrawn: When a previously Number of Swine To Be Delivered three-page form. submitted example contract no longer Under Existing Contracts’’ and we When the packer logs in to fill in the represents any existing contracts, the changed ‘‘Number of Head of Estimated electronic version of the form, several Maximum Deliveries of Swine’’ to packer will notify us that the example items will automatically be filled in. contract has expired. When a previously ‘‘Estimated Maximum Number of Swine Except for information that will be pre- To Be Delivered Under Existing submitted example contract did not filled on the electronic version of the result in any contracts between the Contracts.’’ We corrected the labels in form, the electronic version of the form the tables from ‘‘Existing Contract packer and seller(s) and no longer is identical to the hard copy of the form. represents any available contracts, the Types’’ to ‘‘Contract Types.’’ We added In addition to the information shown on the explanatory text ‘‘(12 Months packer will notify us that the example the sample, we are requesting a Packer Following the Report Month)’’ to the contract was withdrawn. ID number, which we will provide to Month/Year label. On the sample form, The requirements for submitting the packer. the month/year elements were example contracts and subsequent We changed the main title of the form illustrated with a four-digit year; on the notifications apply to both written and from ‘‘Packer/Plant Report’’ to ‘‘Monthly actual form, the packer will only need verbal contracts. The packer will Report’’ for consistency with the rule. In to provide the last two digits of the year. provide written documentation for the instruction line, we removed the On the sample form, the row for example contracts that represent verbal reference to the regulations and added Available contracts shows an X for one contracts. The guidelines identify the the monthly due date. The sample form of the contract types to denote the information that packers should requested the ‘‘State where plant is packer had available contract(s) of that document for verbal contracts. As we located;’’ we revised this item to request type; to facilitate the electronic stated in the proposed rule (65 FR the city and state in which the plant is processes, we changed this row to 53659): located because a packer with multiple provide ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’ choices. packers would be required to provide written plants may have more than one plant in Similarly, on the sample form, the row descriptions of the terms of all agreements for the same state. The sample form for Expansion clauses required the the purchase of swine for slaughter for which requested a phone number; we revised packer to fill in the number(s) related to the parties did not execute a document to the placement of this item to specify the expansion clauses in the existing signify the existence of the agreement. The that we are requesting the phone contracts of each contract type; we packer would be required to provide all number for the contact person. The changed this row to provide boxes to terms of a verbal contract to GIPSA sample form included a certification mark for expansion clauses 1, 2, and 3. including, but not limited to, the base price statement and a space for a signature; Copies of the form and the determination, a schedule of any carcass the option for electronic submission instructions are available upon request merit premium and discount (including the includes the ability to use an electronic and have been included in the manner of determining lean percent or other signature; we will provide the packer information collection package merits of the carcass that are used to with the required information. determine the amount of the premiums and We changed the names of two fields submitted to the Office of Management discounts and how those premiums and as follows: Firm Name became Packer and Budget (OMB) for approval. discounts are applied), noncarcass merit Name and Date of Report became Report Other changes and corrections have premiums and discounts, the application of Month and Year. been made to the regulations. These a ledger or accrual account, and the length We moved the placement of the field changes are summarized later in this of the agreement. for the Federal Inspection Number (the document.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47805

Discussion of Comments term ‘‘type of contract’’ is used, as it is (4) Other market formula purchases On September 5, 2000, we published in the legislation, to define contract without a ledger, a proposal in the Federal Register (65 categories. The term ‘‘example contract’’ (5) Other purchase arrangements with FR 53653–53679) to implement the is used to identify the contracts that a ledger, and swine contract library regulations as packers will submit to GIPSA. (6) Other purchase arrangements required by the Swine Packer Marketing ‘‘Type of contract’’ refers to the without a ledger. Contracts subtitle of the LMRA. We categories that will be used throughout GIPSA will sort packers’ contracts solicited comments concerning our the swine contract library to group into these six categories; the use of proposal for 30 days ending October 5, contracts. The term ‘‘type of contract’’ contracts in different categories will 2000. We received 11 comments by that was used and defined in the LMRA; in vary by packer. For example, one date. The comments were from swine order to eliminate confusion we will use packer’s contracts may all fit into one producers, swine producer groups, meat the term ‘‘contract type’’ in its place in category while another packer’s packers, meat packer groups, and a state this document and the rule. As defined contracts may fit into three of the six Department of Agriculture. Seven by the LMRA, the contract type categories. comments supported the proposal in categories are identified by the way in In the proposed rule, ‘‘type of part. The comments raised some which base price is determined and by contract’’ was defined in section 206.1. questions and concerns about parts of the presence or absence of a ledger The definition specified the six the proposed rule. These questions and account.4 The categories will be used for categories. For clarity, we changed the concerns and our response to those aggregating data on contracts and term ‘‘type of contract’’ to ‘‘contract comments, including changes we are contract information in the swine type’’ throughout the rule. These making to the rule, are discussed below. contract library. The six contract type changes appear in paragraphs 206.2(f), categories used in the swine contract 206.3(c)(2), (3), (5), 206.3(g)(ii), (iii), and Packer Reporting Clarifications library are: (v). In addition, we corrected the definition of the term by adding a Comment: The use of the terms ‘‘type (1) Swine or pork market formula comma after the word packer in the first of contract’’ and ‘‘example contract’’ purchases with a ledger, needs clarification. sentence. Due to additional changes in Response: There was apparent (2) Swine or pork market formula response to another comment, the confusion caused by the use of the terms purchases without a ledger, changes for paragraphs 206.3(c)(2) and ‘‘type of contract’’ and ‘‘example (3) Other market formula purchases (g)(ii) are shown following the other contracts’’ in the proposed rule. The with a ledger, comment.

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

Type of Contract. The classification of contracts or risk management Contract type. The classification of contracts or risk management agreements for the purchase of swine committed to a packer by the agreements for the purchase of swine committed to a packer, by the determination of the base price and the presence or absence of an determination of the base price and the presence or absence of an accrual account or ledger (as defined in this section). The type of accrual account or ledger (as defined in this section). The contract contract categories are: * * * type categories are: * * * 206.2(f) What information from the swine packer marketing contract li- 206.2(f) What information from the swine contract library will be made brary will be made available to the public? GIPSA will summarize the available to the public? GIPSA will summarize the information it has information it has received on contract terms, including, but not lim- received on contract terms, including, but not limited to, base price ited to, base price determination and the schedules of premiums or determination and the schedules of premiums or discounts. GIPSA discounts. GIPSA will summarize the information by region and type will make the information available by region and contract type as of contract as defined in § 206.1. Geographic regions will be defined defined in § 206.1, for public release one month after the initial sub- in such a manner as to avoid divulging data on individual firms’ oper- mission of contracts. Geographic regions will be defined in such a ations and the parties to contracts will not be identified. manner to provide as much information as possible while maintain- ing confidentiality. 206.3(c)(3) Estimates of committed swine. The packer’s estimate of the 206.3(c)(3) Estimates of committed swine. Each packer must provide total number of swine committed under contract for delivery to each an estimate of the total number of swine committed under existing plant for slaughter within each of the following 12 calendar months contracts for delivery to each plant for slaughter within each of the beginning with the 1st of the month immediately following the due following 12 calendar months beginning with the 1st of the month date of the report. The estimate of total swine committed will be re- immediately following the due date of the report. The estimate of ported by type of contract as defined in § 206.1. total swine committed will be reported by contract type as defined in § 206.1. 206.3(c)(5) Maximum estimates of swine. The packer’s estimate of the 206.3(c)(5) Maximum estimates of swine. The packer’s estimate of the maximum total number of swine that potentially could be delivered to maximum total number of swine that potentially could be delivered to each plant within each of the following 12 calendar months, if any or each plant within each of the following 12 calendar months, if any or all the types of expansion provisions identified in accordance with the all of the types of expansion clauses identified in accordance with requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of this section are executed. The es- the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of this section are executed. The timate of maximum potential deliveries must be reported by type of estimate of maximum potential deliveries must be reported for all ex- contract as defined in § 206.1. isting contracts by contract type as defined in § 206.1. 206.3(g)(3)(iii) The sum of packers’ reported estimates of total number 206.3(g)(3)(iii) The sum of packers’ reported estimates of the total of swine committed by contract for delivery during the next 6 and 12 number of swine committed by contract for delivery during the next 6 months beginning with the month the report is published. The report and 12 months beginning with the month the report is published. will indicate the number of swine committed by geographic reporting The report will indicate the number of swine committed by geo- region and by type of contract. graphic reporting region and by contract type.

4 A ledger or accrual account is an account held a running positive or negative balance as a result that establishes a minimum and/or maximum level by the packer on behalf of a producer that accrues of a pricing determination included in a contract of base price paid.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47806 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(g)(3)(v) The sum of packers’ reported estimates of the maximum 206.3(g)(3)(v) The sum of packers’ reported estimates of the maximum total number of swine that potentially could be delivered during each total number of swine that potentially could be delivered during each of the next 6 and 12 months if all expansion provisions in current of the next 6 and 12 months if all expansion clauses in current con- contracts are executed. The report will indicate the sum of estimated tracts are executed. The report will indicate the sum of estimated maximum potential deliveries by geographic reporting region and by maximum potential deliveries by geographic reporting region and by type of contract. contract type.

To provide information on the (3) Carcass merit premium and ‘‘offered,’’ ‘‘available,’’ and ‘‘existing’’ contract types available, GIPSA discount schedules; and were all used in the legislation. In the considered the information to be (4) Use and amount of noncarcass proposed rule we addressed the use of provided and the best way to collect merit premiums and discounts. the three terms and explained our that information. GIPSA’s interpretation Section 206.2, paragraphs (b) and (c), interpretation of the use of the words. of the requirements is that we should requires packers to submit an example All three of the words were used with make available information about of each contract; paragraph (d) specifies reference to information to be submitted contract terms (for example, noncarcass the four criteria the packer must use to by packers. As stated in the proposed merit premiums) that may affect the identify example contracts. rule, ‘‘Types of contracts offered’’ calculation of the actual price paid to Comment: What contracts need to be includes both ‘‘types of contracts producers. This information is available reported? available’’ and ‘‘types of existing Response: Each packer must submit as in the contracts and attached documents contracts’’ (65 FR 53655). many example contracts as are required that complete the contract. GIPSA to represent all of the contracts that it We eliminated the use of the term considered requiring each packer to currently has with or makes available to ‘‘offered contracts’’ and replaced it with submit all of its contracts, but a producer or producers. For the initial ‘‘available and existing contracts,’’ as determined that would be unnecessarily submission, the packer will submit appropriate. In addition, to further burdensome and would not be feasible example contracts that represent all of eliminate confusion, we eliminated the to publish information in a timely the existing and available contracts. For use of the word ‘‘offer’’ as in ‘‘new manner. Therefore, to collect the subsequent submissions, the packer will offers’’ and replaced it with the term information, GIPSA proposed to require submit example contracts when a ‘‘contracts made available’’ as packers to submit example contracts. change to a previously submitted appropriate. The words ‘‘offers,’’ ‘‘Example contracts’’ are contracts example contract occurs or a new ‘‘offered,’’ and ‘‘offering’’ were all used that a packer submits to GIPSA to contract is made available that results in in the rule language in the proposed represent the contracts that the packer a new example contract based on the rule; to eliminate confusion, we revised has with or makes available to four example-contract criteria listed the rule language to use the words producers. The packer must review its above. ‘‘available’’ and ‘‘existing’’ in their contracts and select an example contract Comment: The use of the terms place. These changes appear in the to represent those contracts that are ‘‘available,’’ ‘‘existing,’’ and ‘‘offered’’ to definition of the term ‘‘noncarcass merit identical based on the following criteria describe contracts needs clarification. premium or discount,’’ paragraphs (referred to as the ‘‘four example- Specifically, the reporting of ‘‘offered’’ 206.2(c) (title and text), (h), 206.3(c)(1), contract criteria’’): contracts includes contracts that have (c)(2), and (g)(3)(ii). (Paragraphs 206.2(c) expired. Packers should submit only and (h) were also revised in response to (1) Base price or determination of base available and existing contracts. another comment; the changes to the price; Response: We will require packers to proposed text for these paragraphs of (2) Application of a ledger or accrual submit example contracts for available the regulations are shown below in account; and existing contracts. The words response to that other comment.)

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

Noncarcass merit premium or discount. An increase or decrease in the Noncarcass merit premium or discount. An increase or decrease in the price for the purchase of swine offered by an individual packer or price for the purchase of swine made available by an individual packing plant, based on any factor other than the characteristics of packer or packing plant, based on any factor other than the charac- the carcass, if the actual amount of the premium or discount is teristics of the carcass, if the actual amount of the premium or dis- known before the purchase and delivery of the swine. count is known before the purchase and delivery of the swine. 206.3(c)(1) Existing contracts. The types of contracts the packer cur- 206.3(c)(1) Number of swine to be delivered under existing contracts. rently is using for the purchase of swine for slaughter at each plant. Existing contracts are contracts the packer currently is using for the Each packer must report types of contracts in use even if those types purchase of swine for slaughter at each plant. Each packer must are not currently being offered for renewal or to additional producers. provide monthly estimates of the number of swine committed to be Existing contracts will be shown on the report by providing monthly delivered under all of its existing contracts (even if those contracts estimates of the number of swine committed to be delivered under are not currently available for renewal or to additional producers) in the contracts in each category of the types of contracts as defined in each contract type as defined in § 206.1. § 206.1. 206.3(c)(2) Available contracts. The types of contracts the packer is 206.3(c)(2) Available contracts. Available contracts are contracts the currently offering to producers, or is making available for renewal to packer is currently making available to producers, or is making avail- currently contracted producers, for purchase of swine for slaughter at able for renewal to currently contracted producers, for the purchase each plant. On the monthly report, a packer will indicate each type of of swine for slaughter at each plant. On the monthly report, a packer contract, as defined in § 206.1, that the packer is currently offering. will indicate each contract type, as defined in § 206.1, that the pack- er is currently making available.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47807

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(g)(3)(ii) The types of contracts currently being offered to addi- 206.3(g)(3)(ii) The contract types currently being made available to ad- tional producers or available for renewal to currently contracted pro- ditional producers or available for renewal to currently contracted ducers in each geographic region. producers in each geographic region.

Comment: Packers should submit any of producers; contract made available producers. To minimize the length of and all amendments, addenda, or and accepted the same day or the next time it takes us to process the specialty clauses that they make day; and contracts renegotiated 2 weeks information and provide the reports, we available. Submitted contracts should be later and again a week later. have automated as much of the process fully representative of those contracts Response: After a packer’s initial as possible. currently in effect. submission of example contracts for the Even with the automation of our Response: The regulation requires swine contract library, the packer must process, we need to receive the example packers to submit example contracts. provide example contracts when a contracts from the packers in a timely We believe that the example contracts contract is made available that results in fashion, in order for us to meet the should include any and all a different example contract as requirement of ‘‘real time’’ reporting as amendments, addenda, and specialty determined by using the four example- closely as we can. Therefore, the packer clauses that complete the contract. As contract criteria. The LMRA requires the must submit example contracts to us discussed above, we determined that Secretary to make the information within one business day of making the packers would submit example available ‘‘on a real-time basis if contract available or revising the contracts based on a set of criteria. The practicable.’’ In the proposed rule, we contract, when the available contract or criteria used to identify example used the word ‘‘concurrently’’ for the the change results in a new or contracts focuses on price determining timing of this reporting and proposed to replacement example contract. In contract terms. Using this criteria, the require the packer to provide example addition, packers will also be required example contracts submitted should contracts to GIPSA on the day the to notify us of expired contracts or provide the full range of price contract is made available. The withdrawn contracts by the next determining contract terms for all examples provided in the comments business day, to enable us to remove the caused us to reconsider the same-day available and existing contracts. The information from the contract summary submission requirement. example contracts may not provide all reports and keep the information up to We believe that the intention of date and representative of available and of the other provisions (non-price requiring the library to include available determining contract terms) for all contracts and requiring the Secretary existing contracts. Therefore, we available or existing contracts. GIPSA make information available on a real changed the submission requirements will publish as much information as time basis, if practicable, was to provide specified in paragraph (c) and paragraph possible on the non-price determining producers with information about (h) of section 206.2 of the regulations to contract terms contained in the example contracts in a timely manner to enable require the packer to submit available contracts while maintaining the producers to know what terms are contracts within one business day of confidentiality. Therefore, we did not available. If packers submit contracts making the contract available or of a make any changes in response to this only after final negotiations and do not contract change, expiration, or comment. submit the original contract, then this withdrawal. Comment: The requirements for purpose is defeated. We understand that Other changes to paragraph 206.2(h) ‘‘reporting concurrently’’ and ‘‘real-time contract negotiations may result in a included changing ‘‘on the day that one reporting’’ need clarification. How contract the same day the contract is of its example contracts no longer would this apply, especially during made available to producers, which represents any existing or offered contract negotiations? Contracts and would make submitting the contract, as contracts’’ to ‘‘when an example proposed changes to contracts should an example contract, difficult to do on contract no longer represents any not have to be reported until the same day it is made available. We existing or available contract (expired or negotiations are final. Publish also believe that waiting a week for the withdrawn),’’ adding a sentence to the information within one week of the submission of the information would end of the paragraph to specify that the contract first being made available, not provide adequate notice of the example contracts and notifications issuing either a new contract or a contracts to producers. must be submitted within one business change in a contract rather than on the The steps involved in collecting and day, and combining the first and second actual day. Examples of contract processing the information are time sentences of the paragraph and development include: a final contract consuming. One of our goals is to correcting the sentence by changing the developed through a series of minimize the amount of time required word ‘‘that’’ to ‘‘if’’ in the phrase ‘‘if the discussions with producers and groups to get the information out to the new example contract.’’

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.2(c) What offered contracts do I need to provide and when are 206.2(c) What available contracts do I need to provide and when are they due? After the initial submission, each packer must send GIPSA they due? After the initial submission, each packer must send an example of each new contract it offers to a producer or producers GIPSA an example of each new contract it makes available to a pro- on the day the contract is offered at each plant that it operates or at ducer or producers within one business day of the contract being which it has swine slaughtered that meets the definition of packer in made available at each plant that it operates or at which it has swine § 206.1. slaughtered that meets the definition of packer in § 206.1.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47808 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.2(h) What do I need to do when a previously submitted example 206.2(h) What do I need to do when a previously submitted example contract is no longer a valid example due to contract changes, expi- contract is no longer a valid example due to contract changes, expi- ration, or withdrawal? Packers must submit a new example contract ration, or withdrawal? Each packer must submit a new example con- when contract changes result in changes to the criteria specified in tract when contract changes result in changes to any of the four ex- paragraph (d) of this section. Packers must notify GIPSA that the ample-contract criteria specified in paragraph (d) of this section and new example contract replaces the previously submitted example notify GIPSA if the new example contract replaces the previously contract. Packers must notify GIPSA on the day that one of its exam- submitted example contract. Each packer must notify GIPSA when ple contracts no longer represents any existing or offered contracts. an example contract no longer represents any existing or available This notification must specify the reason, for example, changes to a contract (expired or withdrawn). Each packer must submit these ex- contract, expiration of an existing contract, or withdrawal of an of- ample contracts and notifications within one business day of the fered contract. change, expiration, or withdrawal.

Comment: For new available within one business day of a negotiated represented by a previously submitted contracts, negotiated contracts, and contract, a contract change, or a contract example contract, then the packer needs revised contracts, under which being made available. to submit the negotiated contract as an circumstances does a packer need to After a contract is made available to example contract. The submission will send the contract to GIPSA as an a producer and reported to GIPSA as an be a new or replacement example example contract and when is the example contract, there may be changes contract based on whether or not the example contract due? For contract made through negotiations. When the previously submitted example contract changes, what is required for negotiations are complete and the is still a valid example contract for any compliance? Are packers to report packer has an accepted contract, the available or existing contracts. The modifications to existing contracts as packer will determine if the contract is packer will report the example contract new contracts? This is especially represented by the same example as required by section 206.2 paragraph important for verbal contracts because contract as the available contract, if it is (h). they tend to be modified several times represented by another previously The following chart is designed to even after initial agreement is reached. submitted example contract, or if it help a packer decide if a new available Response: The packer must submit an constitutes a new example contract that contract, negotiated contract, or revised example contract when a new available must be submitted. If the negotiated contract needs to be submitted as an contract, negotiated contract, or revised contract is represented by a previously example contract relative to previously contract is not the same as any submitted example contract that has not submitted example contracts, even those previously submitted example contracts, expired or been withdrawn, then the that have expired or been withdrawn. as determined by any difference in the packer does not need to submit an Specific examples, from the comments, four example-contract criteria. The example contract for the negotiated follow the chart. example contract must be submitted contract. If the negotiated contract is not BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47809

information when the rule is effective; information collection package In addition, we developed guidelines the package will include a copy of the submitted to OMB for approval. that are intended to provide clarity to guidelines. Copies of the guidelines are Comment: When should a verbal packers for the submission of example available through the swine contract agreement be reported? contracts. When this final rule is library Web site and from the Des Response: The requirement for published, we will send a package to Moines Regional Office upon request, reporting a verbal contract is the same each packer required to submit and have been included in the as for a written contract. A packer must

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 ER11AU03.039 47810 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

report a verbal contract to GIPSA within purpose, we will call this Example would be a change to one of the four one business day of the contract’s contract X). example-contract criteria, the carcass availability or change when the • If the contract made available on merit premium and discount schedules, available contract or change results in Monday were accepted on Tuesday, the therefore, if there was not any other an example contract as determined by packer would determine if, based on the previously submitted example contract the four example-contract criteria. four example-contract criteria, the that is the same based on the four Comment: If a packer makes a verbal accepted contract should be represented example-contract criteria, then the contract available to a producer on by a different example contract (for renegotiated contract would be reported Monday, is that available contract discussion purpose, we will call this either (1) as a new example contract if reported to GIPSA the same day? Example contract Y). If Example the original verbal agreement was still a Similarly, if negotiations result in an contract Y had not been submitted valid example contract (available to or accepted contract on the same day, do previously, the packer would report existing for another producer) or (2) as the original available contract and Example contract Y; it would be due on a replacement example contract to subsequent modification both have to be Wednesday (the next business day after replace the previously submitted reported? it was accepted). example contract. Response: If both the available —When the packer submits Example Comment: If the verbal agreement is contract and the accepted contract occur contract Y, if Example contract X is put in writing several days afterward, on Monday and if the original available still available to other producers, then does that constitute a different or contract is still available to other the packer will have submitted two unique reportable event? producers, then the packer evaluates the example contracts (Example contract differences, based on the four example- X on Tuesday and Example contract Response: If the verbal agreement is contract criteria, to determine if the Y on Wednesday). put in writing several days afterward, it available contract and the accepted —When the packer submits Example would not constitute a different or contract are represented by one or two contract Y, if Example contract X was unique reportable event. That is, example contracts and if either of those not available to any other producers assuming the written version and the example contracts have been submitted (the available contract was previously submitted example contract to GIPSA previously and are still withdrawn), then Example contract Y, that represents the verbal contract are included in the swine contract library as for the accepted contract, would be the same with regard to the four example contract(s) for available or due on Wednesday and would be example-contract criteria. The existing contracts. submitted as a replacement example reportable event would be the original • If there are two example contracts, contract to replace Example contract available contract and the accepted and if those two example contracts were X submitted on Tuesday. In this contract, if either is not represented by not represented by a previously scenario, if the packer wanted to a previously submitted example submitted example contract, then the submit only one example contract, the contract. packer reports both the available packer could choose to submit Packer Reporting Clarifications contract and the accepted contract as Example contract Y earlier than example contracts; the example required, by submitting it on Tuesday. Comment: How should futures-based contracts would be due on Tuesday (the Then only Example contract Y would contracts be reported? next business day). be submitted instead of submitting Response: Packers must report • If there is one example contract, Example contract X on Tuesday and futures-based contracts in the same and if the example contract was not a replacing it with Example contract Y manner as all other contracts, by previously submitted example contract, on Wednesday. identifying example contracts based on the packer would report the example Comment: If a verbal agreement on a the four example-contract criteria and contract; it would be due on Tuesday 5-year window contract is renegotiated submitting the example contracts to us. (the next business day). two weeks later to extend to 7 years and For the summarized reports we make • If the original available contract was renegotiated the following week available, as specified in the definition not available to any other producers, regarding a ‘‘sort loss’’ provision, are of ‘‘other market formula purchases,’’ then only the example contract for the these three reportable events? we will report futures-based contracts as accepted contract, which occurred on Response: No, this example would not ‘‘other market formula purchases.’’ the same day as the contract was made result in three reportable events; available, would be reported; it would however, it may be two reportable In the proposed rule, the packer was be due on Tuesday (the next business events. If the verbal agreement on a 5- responsible for the classification of day). year window contract was not contracts into categories as part of the Comment: Would the reporting represented by a previously submitted packer’s preparation for submitting requirement be different if the example contract, then it would be example contracts. To eliminate modification occurred on the Tuesday submitted as an example contract confusion about how to categorize following the original contract (reportable event). The length of contracts and to ensure uniformity of availability on Monday? contract is a reportable term of the the application of categories, we Response: If the original contract was verbal contract, but it is not one of the eliminated the requirement that packers made available on Monday and the four example-contract criteria that are categorize contracts, which was contract is accepted on Tuesday, the used to identify example contracts. specified in the preamble of the reporting requirement may be different. Renegotiating the length of the contract proposed rule. Instead, GIPSA will • If the contract made available on from 5 years to 7 years does not change categorize the contract into the Monday is an example contract, based any of the four example-contract ‘‘contract type’’ category. This change on the four example-contract criteria, criteria. Therefore, in the example, the will reduce the burden on packers. We then that example contract is due on result of the first renegotiation would will notify the packer of the categories Tuesday (the next business day after it not be a second reportable event. for the example contracts in writing, by was made available) (for discussion Renegotiating the ‘‘sort loss’’ provision phone, or by another method as

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47811

needed.5 The timing and method of information on the device used to a one-page sample highlighting the notification will vary, in part, estimate lean percent would need to be types of information that we proposed depending on how many example redacted, but if only one packer is using to publish. As we stated in the preamble contracts we receive that need to be a specific device to estimate lean of the proposed rule (65 FR 53664): categorized and how long that takes. We percent, then the packer could be The example contracts would provide the will provide each packer with identified from the contract. If contracts contract library with unique base price notification of the categories for each were redacted to a level of detail to determinations, the application of ledgers or example contract at least 2 weeks before ensure that confidentiality is preserved, accrual accounts, carcass merit premium and the monthly reports are due. then very little information would be discount schedules, and the use and amount Comment: Do packers need to report released. Therefore, we did not make of noncarcass merit premiums. Other ledger balances for the swine contract any changes in response to this contract terms that could be reported include library? comment. a variety of terms that could affect producer’s Response: No. Contracts with ledgers Comment: Change the format of the marketing decisions, such as quality and weight restrictions, length of contract, and or accrual accounts will specify the way information GIPSA reports by linking use of packer specified genetics. These other ledgers or accrual accounts are applied the reported contract terms to the base contract terms would not be included in the in the contract, for example, the price. criteria used to identify example contracts. conditions of the ledger and formulas or Response: In designing the contract Therefore, the information contained in the methods for crediting or debiting ledger summary reports, one of our concerns contract library on such other contract terms accounts. Therefore, we did not make was how to provide as much may not represent the full range of any changes in response to this information as possible and comply alternatives that packers are offering or have comment. with the confidentiality provision in the offered. We propose to summarize P&S Act. We concluded that if we information on contract terms from the Reported Contract Information linked the terms from a contract example contracts contained in the contract Comment: Only publish information library to provide as much information about together with the base price contract terms as possible, subject to the for available and existing contracts; do information, it would be possible to confidentiality protections. not publish information about contracts identify an individual packer based on that are no longer available or existing. the combination of that information. It is our intention to publish as much What contract information will GIPSA Therefore, we did not make any changes information from the contract terms as publish? in response to this comment. possible. In addition to the price Response: We will publish Comment: All carcass and noncarcass information, the sample showed information on available and existing merit premiums and discounts, not just categories for Quality and Weight contracts. Within the library that GIPSA those on a grid, should be reported by Restrictions and Other General Contract is required to maintain, previously the packer and by GIPSA. For example, Terms. Due to the large volume of available contracts will be maintained, contract terms that were categorized as information that will be published and but will not be included in the publicly ‘‘other contract terms’’ in the proposed for ease of access to the information on reported information after the packer rule, such as length of contract, genetics, the Web site, we changed the format in type of feed, and medication are the following manner: notifies GIPSA that the contract is no • longer available or has expired. specified in contracts as requirements In the proposed rule, the sample GIPSA will remove the previously and therefore should be treated as report showed the base price submitted example contract information premiums. Contract requirements, other determination as a combination of five from the publicly reported information than pricing terms identified in the to six pieces of information (65 FR when a packer submits a replacement proposed rule should be reported; for 53663). This was intended to show a example contract, or notifies GIPSA that example, genetic requirements to variety of the pieces of information that a contract has expired or a contract has qualify for a contract. Some carcass are used to determine the base price for been withdrawn. Therefore, we did not merit requirements are specifications a contract. Generally, the base price is make any changes in response to this that are not included on a grid; these calculated based on a reported price. To comment. specifications should be included in the simplify the presentation of the base Comment: Release redacted contracts. contract library. Packers should have to price determination information, on the Response: The amendment to the P&S report all terms of agreement for a Web site, base price determination will Act that creates the swine contract contract so producers can analyze the be presented as a list showing library requires the Secretary to make information and make a marketing combinations of four key pieces of information concerning contract types, decision. information, which will identify the not the contracts themselves, available Response: As specified in the reported price used. The remaining to producers and other interested definition of ‘‘noncarcass merit details used to determine each of the parties. We considered the alternative of premium or discount’’ in the regulation, base prices will be provided under the redacting the identity of persons a premium is an increase in the price for unique combinations of those four key (including parties to the contract) and the purchase of swine offered by a pieces of information. The four key any proprietary business information packer based on a factor other than a pieces of information are: from the contracts and releasing the carcass characteristic if the actual —Name: The title or reference to a redacted contracts. Publishing redacted amount of the premium is known before published or private report (for contracts could inadvertently allow the the purchase and delivery of the swine. example, the Agricultural identity of a packer to be determined. If a packer includes an increase in price Marketing Service (AMS) Western For example, it may not be clear that for any contract term other than a term Cornbelt Lean Hog, plant price, that specifies a carcass characteristic, it AMS Omaha Corn, or CME lean 5 The regulation will require a total of 33 pork will be treated as a premium. hog). packing companies (packers) to report for 53 plants It appears that there was some —Version: Typically, named reports that have the slaughtering capacity specified in the definition of ‘‘packer’’ in section 206.1, based on confusion about what we will publish in will have more than one version; for data including 2002, the most recent year for which the swine contract library. The sample reports released more than once a complete data are available. report shown in the proposed rule was day, the version is the release time

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47812 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

of the named report (for example, requirements, target weights and measurements and terms, which will be open, close, mid-session, or 10 weights used for payment, off quality reported in the contract summaries. a.m.). hogs, and meat quality or usability. The The information from the swine —Time period: Daily and weekly ‘‘purchase conditions and payment’’ contract library will provide producers reports are available and more than section will include information from with information from available and one report may be used to calculate contract terms specifying calculation of existing contracts. We will publish as the base price. The time period payment, changes in payment much information from the contract specifies the day(s) or week(s) of the calculation, transmittal of payment, terms as possible, so producers can see version of the report, that will be penalties for failure to meet standards, the variety of terms that packers are used to calculate base price (for and other payment conditions. The making available or using. We agree example, Day prior to delivery, ‘‘volume and delivery’’ section will with the commenter that the previous week average, or 20 week include information from contract terms information must be presented in a way average). specifying scheduling and delivery that will foster easy comparison; given —Series: On the version of the report, conditions, volume requirements, and the quantity of information and the the series will identify the specific right of first refusal. The ‘‘business limitations of the confidentiality number, dollar value, from the practices’’ section will include protections, we have designed the report (for example, weighted information from contract terms summary reports to foster easy average, top, or mid-point). specifying facilities, records and comparison by grouping like • The sample report in the proposed financial soundness requirements, information together into relevant rule showed two tables for premium and transfer of title, and other business categories of contract terms. We believe discount schedules, which showed conditions. The ‘‘general contract that the greatest value in the aggregate ranges for the premiums and terms’’ section will include information information from contract terms will be discounts based on range of lean percent from contract terms specifying gained by providing producers the and carcass weight. The premium and assignment of agreement, ability to see contract terms in as close discount schedules will be presented in confidentiality, dispute resolution, to the original content and language as enforcement, force majeure, indemnity, a consistent manner and will show possible. In that way, producers will notice requirements, term of the actual adjustments. better understand the contract terms agreement, termination of the • The sample report showed one that are actually available. To prepare agreement, review and renewal of the noncarcass merit premium. Noncarcass reports that would attempt to convert agreement, and other general contract merit premiums and discounts will be the contract terms to uniform measures terms. grouped into categories to show the would require conversion factors that Packers will submit example contracts were constantly updated and if we various amounts for the same to GIPSA. The four example-contract waited to assure the use of correct noncarcass premium and discount criteria used to identify example conversion factors, we could not present category. contracts focuses on price determining • the information in real-time. The sample report showed contract terms. Therefore, submitted Additionally, we could inadvertently generalized statements concerning how example contracts will provide the full change the content or lose information. a ledger account would be handled. range of price determining contract Therefore, we did not make any changes Provisions in the application of ledger terms for all available and existing in response to this comment. section will be grouped into four contracts. The example contracts may subcategories: Window/Target Price, not provide all of the other provisions Comment: Producers are unlikely to Window Conditions, Limits on Ledgers, (non-price determining contract terms) identify the contract provisions of and Termination of Ledger. for all available or existing contracts. interest and approach packers within • The sample report showed two GIPSA will publish as much the region to negotiate a contract. items each for two categories for other information on the non-price Producers looking for a contract with a provisions of contracts. Other determining contract terms as possible packer generally have to take one of the provisions of contracts will include all while maintaining confidentiality. contracts currently available. They may other provisions, grouped into Therefore, we did not make any changes look for different available contracts, but categories to show similar contract in the rule in response to this comment, individual producers generally don’t terms together. however the contract summary report have the bargaining power to get The ‘‘other provisions’’ section of the has been changed as previously packers to incorporate beneficial contract summary report will include described. provisions into a newly drafted contract. contract terms from all example Comment: Use uniform measurements For the reported contract information to contracts for each contract type within and terms for published contract be beneficial it must provide as a region related to quality and weight, information, such as the range of complete a picture of each contract purchase conditions and payment, percent lean, base price, and carcass available as possible. volume and delivery, business practices, weight. Report the base price on a Response: Amendments to the P&S and general contract terms. This will be carcass weight basis on a consistent Act require us to implement a swine an aggregation from all example weight basis or have the weight clearly contract library and make information contracts in the region and, to ensure labeled on the report. Reports must available. In addition, it requires us to confidentiality, will not be linked to foster easy comparison. protect the confidentiality of the other contract terms from example Response: To the extent that the information. To meet those contracts. The ‘‘quality and weight’’ packers use uniform measurements and requirements, we are providing as much section will include information from terms, we will report uniform information as possible while contract terms specifying drug usage/ measurements and terms. We will maintaining confidentiality. We believe withdrawal, genetics, nutrition, carcass receive example contracts from packers that there are additional benefits to the evaluation programs, changes in and publish a summary of contract availability of the information, which evaluation, quality improvement terms based on those example contracts. we discussed in estimating the benefits programs, lean percentage or yield Different packers use different for the implementation for this rule.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47813

The purpose of the swine contract information. One of the criteria we use in the release of additional information, library is to provide producers, packers, to meet the confidentiality requirements we determined that it would not be and other market participants with is that we will not publish information worth the additional burden and costs information that can be readily from fewer than three packers in a that would have been required. understood with respect to swine region. If we were to publish Therefore, we did not make any changes marketing contracts. By providing this information by state, then we would in response to this comment. information, the swine contract library encounter greater constraints about Confidentiality reports are intended to provide more information that we publish because transparency about contract terms and there are states in which only one or Comment: There is no reasonable equalize access to market information two packers operate. Given the expectation of privacy with regard to the for all market participants. requirements for confidentiality, information to be available in the library Because of the lack of information in publishing information by multi-state and packers, for the most part, have not the past, producers have not had access regions allows us to publish more attempted to keep contracts to enough information to identify the information. confidential. variety of contract terms being made We decided to report the contract Response: The amendment to the P&S available by packers. The publicly information on a regional basis, based Act that requires us to establish and available information from the contracts on the plant locations, to provide as maintain the swine contract library will provide producers with much price information from the specifically requires us to protect the significantly more information than they contracts as possible under the identity of persons, including parties to had in the past about the variety of confidentiality protections. This method contracts reported to us by packers and contract terms. Producers will be able to of providing information informs to protect proprietary business see the full range of contract terms being producers and other interested persons information from those contracts. made available by the packers in a that one of the packers that have hogs Section 222(c) of the P&S Act specifies region, whereas in the past they might slaughtered at a plant in that region has that the reporting requirements of the only have known about the terms a an available or existing contract that swine contract library are subject to the packer made available to them. With contains some of the terms published in protections provided under section 251 more information they will be better the summary for that region. of the Agricultural Marketing Act of equipped to negotiate contracts. In addition, we will not receive 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636), which was Therefore, we did not make any changes information from packers to show where initiated by the LMRA. We must comply in response to this comment. every contract is available based on with the statutory requirement. Comment: Require packers to report producer locations. We considered this Therefore, we did not make any changes contracts by the state in which they are alternative, but determined that it in response to this comment. available or are in force (producer would add burden to the packers Comment: How will confidentiality be location). Reporting information in this without providing additional maintained? Do not identify any way may be more useful to producers information. Specifically, it would have individual packer; do not include the than reporting by the location of the been time consuming for packers to term ‘‘from each packer,’’ as used in the plant. provide the additional information and proposed rule, in the final rule. It is Response: We will require each for us to receive and process the important to maintain confidentiality packer to report contracts by the plant additional information. By using plant when reporting contract information, location. We understand that some locations, there is a one-to-one including proprietary information and producers may find it useful to review relationship between the example the identity of packers and producers. information for contracts that are contract and the plant location that Response: To maintain available to producers located in their allows us to publish the information confidentiality, as required by the geographic region, or specifically their from each contract to a single region. If, amendment to the P&S Act, we will state. Most producers know where however, producer locations had been publish information about the contract plants are located in relationship to the used, we would have to know each state terms and not the contracts themselves. production site. If a producer is willing in which the packer is making the Among the confidentiality provisions is to transport animals a significant contract available to producers, and the requirement to ensure that distance, that producer will be able to then publish the contract information confidentiality is preserved with respect obtain information from the area to for each of those states. If we asked the to the identity of the parties to the which he is willing to ship. The contract packer to identify producer locations for contracts. Therefore, our summaries and terms and prices are likely to be each example contract, and if all reports will not identify the parties to associated to plants. Packers do not tend producer locations were not the contract (packer names or producer to make contracts available based on immediately known to the packer, the names). producer location, rather, they make packer would need additional time to As stated in the proposed rule (65 FR contracts available based on the plant collect and provide that information and 53669), ‘‘to ensure confidentiality, location. That is, a packer specifies then more time would be required for us information will only be published if it contract terms, such as base price to receive and process the producer is obtained from no fewer than three determination, based on market locations as the locations became packers representing a minimum of conditions prevailing at the plant. The known. If we had required packers to three companies, and no packer packer does not distinguish where the submit producer locations for all the represents a dominant portion of the animal originated, only where it will be contracts that the example contract region’s total’’ for the particular report. slaughtered. represented, then a potential negative To ensure that confidentiality is In planning the swine contract library result could have been packers limiting preserved regarding the identities of summary report, we considered various the availability of contracts to producers persons, including parties to a contract, ways in which we could present in a specific location. and the proprietary nature of the meaningful information to producers. We considered all of these factors and information included in the contracts, Among other things, we considered the because changing the report summaries we will present the contract library geographic areas for which we publish to producer locations would not result information without indications about

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47814 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

how the contract terms relate to each contact with producers and other supporting this method of information other within an example contract. The interested groups and individuals who delivery, and only one stated that contract library information will might benefit from the information in Internet access alone was not sufficient. provide a summary of the contract terms the swine contract library. GIPSA will (For additional information, contact that are available in each region. make use of public service GIPSA using the phone number, The use of the term ‘‘from each announcements distributed through address, or e-mail address listed in the packer’’ in the proposed rule came unpaid media, USDA agency FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT directly from the amendment to the P&S newsletters for producers and other section of this document.) No changes Act. Among other things, new section stakeholders, and radio to inform were made to the rule based on these 222(d) of the P&S Act requires the producers that the swine contract comments. Secretary to provide specific library reports are available and where Comment: Swine producers need to information in a monthly report, to find them. GIPSA will provide understand the contract library including information on the contracts information about the swine contract information. Simplify everything types available from each packer. The library when meeting with trade and possible. Test the reports with pork information that we will report includes industry groups for dissemination to producers. the contracts types available from members, and directly to individuals in Response: We agree with the packers in a specific region. Each packer meetings as appropriate. commenter that producers need to that meets the definition of packer in The swine contract library reports understand the information from the section 206.1 must submit example will be available to customers and the swine contract library. Wherever contracts and volume information to general public on the Internet, posted on possible, we have made adjustments to GIPSA. However, the published reports the GIPSA Web site, linked to other the presentation of the information to will not identify the names of packers USDA Web sites, and available in hard simplify it and make it understandable. that submitted contracts to GIPSA. copy at GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards As the information is made public and Therefore, we did not make any changes Programs headquarters in Washington, we hear from producers we will in response to this comment. DC, and at the regional office located in continue to make changes where Comment: If there are so few packers Des Moines, Iowa. The swine contract possible to simplify the presentation of within a region that information cannot library Internet site is compliant with the information. As stated in the be reported due to the confidentiality Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 6 proposed rule, we will ‘‘conduct protections, it may be an indication that for those customers using computer ongoing analyses of the data and there may be too great a concentration software requiring adherence to Section information obtained from packers, and of market share in that region. GIPSA 508 standards for alternate use. GIPSA would explore ways to increase the should investigate whether a packer is will coordinate customer access to the usefulness of the data and information’’ (65 FR 53671). taking actions in the region that violate services of the USDA Target Center 7 for the P&S Act, specifically, actions that Throughout the development process, those who require alternative formats of one of the considerations was the best have the purpose or effect of creating a the swine contract library reports. monopoly in violation of section 202 of way to present the information to make GIPSA is working with other USDA it understandable and usable. One of the the P&S Act. agencies that have an active presence at Response: We routinely investigate difficulties is that contracts, and the local level to address the difficulties packers for potential violations of the specifically individual contract terms, that may be faced by some producers P&S Act. If any information received for can be difficult to understand. The who would benefit from the information the swine contract library suggests a purpose of the swine contract library is contained in the swine contract library, potential violation of the P&S Act, we to provide information to producers and but do not personally have immediate will investigate to determine if a other interested parties about the access to the Internet. Many violation of the P&S Act has occurred or contract type’s terms available from communities have libraries with is occurring. Therefore, we did not make packers; it does not replace legal or Internet access and capabilities that any changes in response to this other business advice for understanding provide such service to residents. comment. contract terms or how the terms apply Producers can use these services for to an individual producer’s business. Outreach access to the swine contract library. In Another difficulty was the volume of Comment: Develop a comprehensive addition, while GIPSA received four information we expect to receive and producer education or outreach plan to comments on the proposed rule summarize to make publicly available. inform producers of the reports, their addressing Internet access to the swine We have simplified the summarization, content, how they can be used, and contract library, half (two) endorsed this presentation of, and access to the where they can be accessed. Add other method of information delivery, one information where possible. We will avenues of information dissemination pointed out the need for an active reduce the volume of information by because some pork producers lack outreach and communications effort eliminating redundancies, where Internet access. possible; for example, contract terms 6 Response: GIPSA will use a variety of See 29 U.S.C. 749d for section 508 of the that show up in multiple contracts will Rehabilitation Act. methods to disseminate information 7 The U.S. Department of Agriculture established be included once in the summary of about the swine contract library, with the Technology Accessible Resources Gives contract terms. To make it easier to get the intent of making every potential Employment Today (TARGET) Center, to support to specific information, we organized customer aware of the swine contract the USDA with assistive technology and ergonomic the reports into sections. solutions. As part of the USDA’s commitment to library, its capabilities and availability. ensure compliance with Section 508 requirements The contract summary report of A press release containing basic that all electronic and information technology be contract terms available within a region information about the swine contract accessible to persons with disabilities, the USDA consists of four sections. The library will be issued to national and TARGET Center is the contact point and resource ‘‘determination of base price’’ section center for converting USDA information and local press markets, to trade and documents into alternative formats. Alternative includes terms related to how base price industry groups for publication, and to formats include Braille, large print, video is set. The ‘‘premiums and discounts’’ USDA agencies and offices that have description, diskette, and audiotape formats. section includes terms related to

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47815

adjustments to the base price as contracted swine that packers must Implementation of the swine contract determined by carcass and noncarcass submit in monthly reports? library will not preempt State or local traits. This section includes carcass Response: Yes, on an ongoing basis, laws, regulations, or policies unless they merit premium and discount schedules, GIPSA will monitor and review the present an irreconcilable conflict with grading devices and formulas, and accuracy of the estimates of the number the statute. The state laws mentioned in noncarcass merit premiums and of contracted swine that packers specify the comment do not appear to present discounts, specifying the dollar or in the submitted monthly reports. In an irreconcilable conflict with the percentage adjustment (or range) of the addition, we will monitor and review statute or this regulation which premium or discount. The ‘‘application the example contract submissions and implements the statute. We did not of ledger’’ section includes terms related the monthly reports for completeness, make any changes in response to this to the application and use of ledger or consistency, and accuracy. As specified comment. accrual accounts. This section includes in the proposed rule, packers must Evaluate Contracts information from contract terms maintain records to verify the accuracy specifying window/target price, window of the information required to be Comment: Knowing the provisions of conditions, limits on the ledger, and reported. Therefore, we did not make contracts and being able to differentiate termination of ledger. The ‘‘other any changes in response to this the value of various contracts and provisions’’ section includes terms comment. contract terms are two different things. related to any item other than those Comment: What will the penalty be Will GIPSA or some other USDA agency listed above, such as quality and weight, for not including carcass or noncarcass provide a test or worksheet that a purchase conditions and payment, premiums and discounts in the reported producer can use to evaluate contracts volume and delivery, business practices, contract? in the future? and general contract terms. Response: The reported example Response: The purpose of the swine We will group like information and contract must be complete and, contract library is to provide list it with descriptive headings. For therefore, must include all carcass and information to producers and other example, the section that provides the noncarcass premiums and discounts interested parties about the contract determination of base price information associated with the example contract. types and terms available from packers; will organize the base prices by several As specified in new section 222(e) of the it will not provide guidance for key pieces of information (Name, P&S Act, to willfully fail or refuse to evaluating contracts. However, through Version, Series, Time Period) for provide accurate information constitutes the GIPSA Web site on the Internet, we example, Iowa/Southern Minnesota, a violation of the P&S Act. Excluding provide links to information that may Mid-Session, Weighted Average, Day of carcass or noncarcass premiums or help producers evaluate livestock and Delivery. Additional details that discounts that apply to the contract poultry contracts. In addition, through complete the determination of base from the reported example contracts the AMS Web site on the Internet, AMS price will be listed with these key would constitute a violation of Title II provides information on contracting in pieces of information. This approach of the P&S Act. Section 203 of the P&S agriculture and making the right will allow users to see the range of base Act sets forth the procedures that the decisions about contracting. We did not price options. Secretary is authorized to follow make any changes in response to this When we tested the summary report whenever there is reason to believe that comment. we involved individuals within USDA any packer has violated or is violating Summary of Changes to the Rule who have backgrounds in and a provision of Title II of the P&S Act. knowledge of hog marketing, including As discussed above, in response to Section 203 of the P&S Act also comments, we made changes to the rule. some former hog producers. Where specifies the sanction that may be possible, within the confidentiality Also, we made a number of additional assessed if the Secretary determines that changes to improve consistency, clarity, requirements, we made changes based a violation has occurred.8 Therefore, we on their suggestions to simplify the and make corrections. All of the changes did not make any changes in response to the rule are summarized below. presentation of the information and to this comment. make the information more accessible In response to comments, we made and understandable. State Laws the following changes: • We eliminated the use of the words Availability of Contracts Comment: Minnesota, Iowa, and ‘‘offer,’’ ‘‘offers,’’ ‘‘offered,’’ and several other Corn Belt States have Comment: Must packers make ‘‘offering.’’ We replaced the use of the forbidden contract clauses requiring word ‘‘offer’’ as in ‘‘new offers’’ with contracts available to every producer? contract terms to be kept confidential. In Response: No. This regulation ‘‘contracts made available’’ or ‘‘available addition, Minnesota requires packers to requires packers to submit example contracts’’ as appropriate. These file contracts. Will these State laws be contracts to GIPSA; neither the changes appear in the definition of the preempted? amendments to the P&S Act that created term ‘‘noncarcass merit premium or Response: No. The state statutory the swine contract library or this discount,’’ paragraphs 206.2(c) (title and requirement that there be no regulation implementing it imposes text), (h), 206.3(c)(1), (c)(2), and confidentiality clause in contracts will requirements for how or to whom a (g)(3)(ii). not be preempted, but GIPSA will packer makes a contract available. • We changed the term ‘‘type of comply with the P&S Act amendment Packers must continue to comply with contract’’ to ‘‘contract type.’’ These requirement that requires the requirements in the P&S Act and changes appear in the definition of the confidentiality of certain information related regulations. We did not make term and in paragraphs 206.2(f), from contracts submitted to GIPSA for any changes in response to this 206.3(c)(2), (3), (5), (g)(iii), and (v). the swine contract library. comment. Other changes included correcting the definition of ‘‘contract type’’ by adding Enforcement 8 Any such violation will be subject to an order to cease and desist from continuing such violation a comma after the word packer in the Comment: Does GIPSA intend to audit and a civil penalty of not more than $11,000 for first sentence, in paragraph the estimates of the number of each such violation. 206.3(g)(3)(iii), and correcting the

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47816 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

sentence by inserting the word ‘‘the’’ in notifications must be submitted within make them consistent as follows: We front of the phrase ‘‘total number of one business day. Other changes made changed plural references to the swine.’’ to paragraph 206.2(h) included singular, ‘‘packers’’ became ‘‘each • We changed the rule to require that combining the first and second packer’’ and we changed personal packers submit new example contracts sentences of the paragraph and pronouns to impersonal pronouns, and notification of changes to GIPSA correcting the sentence by changing the ‘‘they’’ became ‘‘it.’’ Other words in the within one business day after the word ‘‘that’’ to ‘‘if’’ in the phrase ‘‘if the sentences were revised as needed based availability of the contract or the day the new example contract.’’ on these changes. For example, in change was made. These changes appear We revised the definition of ‘‘packer’’ paragraph 206.3(c), ‘‘packers file’’ was in paragraphs 206.2(c) and (h). We made in section 206.1 to apply to a packer corrected to ‘‘each packer files.’’ These the following related changes in purchasing at least 100,000 swine per changes appear in paragraphs 206.2(a), paragraph 206.2(h): We changed ‘‘on the year. Other changes to the definition (e), and (h), and paragraphs 206.3(a), (b), day that one of its example contracts no include deleting the phrase ‘‘or firm’’ (c), (e), (f), and (f)(2). A specific example longer represents any existing or offered and the word ‘‘would’’ from the of this change is shown in the following contracts’’ to ‘‘when an example definition of ‘‘packer.’’ table. Another change we made in contract no longer represents any The proposed rule inconsistently paragraphs 206.2(e)(1), (2), (g), 206.3(c), existing or available contract (expired or referred to the packers in the singular (f)(1), (2), and (g)(1) was correcting the withdrawn)’’ and we added a sentence and plural and by personal and regional office address by replacing ‘‘the to the end of the paragraph to specify impersonal pronouns. We changed GIPSA Regional Office at Room 317’’ that the example contracts and references to packers throughout to with ‘‘USDA GIPSA, Suite 317.’’

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(f)(2) Printed report. Packers may deliver their printed monthly re- 206.3(f)(2) Printed report. Each packer may deliver its printed monthly port to the GIPSA Regional Office at Room 317, 210 Walnut Street, report to USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, Des Moines, IA 50309. IA 50309.

For consistency and clarity, we four example-contract criteria.’’ These and (h). A specific example of this revised references to the criteria used to changes appear in paragraphs 206.2(d) change is shown in the following table. identify example contracts to read ‘‘the

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.2(d) What criteria do I use to select example contracts? For pur- 206.2(d) What criteria do I use to select example contracts? For pur- poses of distinguishing among contracts to determine which contracts poses of distinguishing among contracts to determine which con- may be represented by a single example, contracts will be consid- tracts may be represented by a single example, contracts will be ered to be the same if they are identical with respect to all of the fol- considered to be the same if they are identical with respect to all of lowing four criteria: the following four example-contract criteria:

Paragraph 206.2(e) was revised to add subparagraphs to specify the two In addition, we added ‘‘and the option for electronic submission of methods for submitting example notifications’’ after ‘‘submit the example example contracts and notifications. We contracts and notifications. For clarity, contracts’’ and changed ‘‘required by changed ‘‘must send’’ to ‘‘may submit’’ we changed the title of the paragraph to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section’’ to with specification of two options for more correctly describe the ‘‘required by this section.’’ submission, and we created two requirements provided in the paragraph.

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.2(e) Where do I send my contracts? Packers must send the exam- 206.2(e) Where and how do I send my contracts? Each packer may ple contracts required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to the submit the example contracts and notifications required by this sec- GIPSA Regional Office at Room 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des tion by either of the following two methods: Moines, IA 50309. (1) Electronic report. Example contracts and notifications required by this section may be submitted by electronic means. Electronic submission may be by any form of electronic transmission that has been determined to be acceptable to the Administrator. To obtain current options for acceptable methods to submit example contracts electronically, contact GIPSA through the Internet on the GIPSA Web site (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/) or at USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. (2) Printed report. Each packer that chooses to submit printed exam- ple contracts and notifications must deliver the printed contracts and notifications to USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309.

We changed ‘‘swine packer marketing appeared. The term ‘‘swine packer consistent with the title of the contract(s)’’ references to ‘‘swine marketing contract’’ was used amendments to the P&S Act. These contract library’’ everywhere it throughout the proposed rule to be regulations implement the swine

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47817

contract library as required by the section 206.2, and paragraphs 206.2(f) We changed the last sentence of Swine Packer Marketing Contract and (g), and in the text of paragraph paragraph 206.2(g) by deleting the subtitle of the P&S Act. We believe that 206.3(a). Examples of this change are phrase ‘‘and/or examples of new ‘‘swine contract library’’ is more shown in the following table. Similarly, contracts’’ because the word accurate than the phrase ‘‘swine packer we changed ‘‘swine packer marketing ‘‘information’’ includes example marketing contracts.’’ The information contract information’’ to ‘‘swine contracts, and deleting the phrase ‘‘in from the contract library will be contract information’’ in 206.2(a). In Des Moines, Iowa,’’ which was available publicly, however, the addition, for consistency, we deleted the immediately followed by the office contracts will not be released. words ‘‘swine packer marketing address in the proposed rule and Therefore, to avoid confusion, we contract’’ from the title of paragraph therefore redundant. changed all of the references. These 206.3(a). changes appear in the titles of Part 206,

Text of the regulation as proposed Part 206—Swine Packer Marketing Contracts Text of the regulation as revised Part 206—Swine Contract Library

206.2 Swine packer marketing contract library. 206.2 Swine contract library. 206.3(a) Do I need to provide swine packer marketing contract monthly 206.3(a) Do I need to provide monthly reports? Each packer, as de- reports? Packers, as defined in § 206.1, must provide information for fined in § 206.1, must provide information for each swine processing each swine processing plant that they operate or at which they have plant that it operates or at which it has swine slaughtered that has swine slaughtered that has the slaughtering capacity specified in the the slaughtering capacity specified in the definition of packer. definition of packer.

In paragraph 206.2(f), we changed the sentence from ‘‘as to avoid divulging changed ‘‘Geographic regions will be second sentence to eliminate data on individuals firms’’ operations defined in such a manner as to avoid redundancy. Both the first and second and the parties to contracts will not be divulging data on individual firms’ sentences, as proposed, began ‘‘GIPSA identified’’ to ‘‘to provide as much operations and may be modified from will summarize.’’ We changed the information as possible while time to time.’’ to ‘‘Geographic regions second sentence to delete the phrase maintaining confidentiality’’ to refer to will be defined in such a manner to and to indicate when the first summary confidentiality in a consistent manner provide as much information as possible report will be made available. In in this document. We also made this while maintaining confidentiality and addition, we changed the end of the last change in paragraph 206.3(g)(2). We may be modified from time to time.’’

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.2(f) What information from the swine packer marketing contract li- 206.2(f) What information from the swine contract library will be made brary will be made available to the public? GIPSA will summarize the available to the public? GIPSA will summarize the information it has information it has received on contract terms, including, but not lim- received on contract terms, including, but not limited to, base price ited to, base price determination and the schedules of premiums or determination and the schedules of premiums or discounts. GIPSA discounts. GIPSA will summarize the information by region and type will make the information available by region and contract type as of contract as defined in § 206.1. Geographic regions will be defined defined in § 206.1, for public release one month after the initial sub- in such a manner as to avoid divulging data on individual firms’ oper- mission of contracts. Geographic regions will be defined in such a ations and the parties to contracts will not be identified. manner to provide as much information as possible while maintain- ing confidentiality. 206.3(g)(2) Information in the report will be aggregated and reported by 206.3(g)(2) Information in the report will be aggregated and reported geographic regions. Geographic regions will be defined in such a by geographic regions. Geographic regions will be defined in such a manner as to avoid divulging data on individual firms’ operations and manner to provide as much information as possible while maintain- may be modified from time to time. ing confidentiality and may be modified from time to time.

In paragraph 206.2(b), the Therefore, we revised the sentence to correctly describes the requirements requirement is for the packer to send the remove the phrase ‘‘and the Grain provided in the paragraph. Other example contracts to GIPSA; it is not a Inspection, Packers and Stockyards changes included abbreviating ‘‘Iowa’’ packer’s responsibility to also ensure Administration (GIPSA) must receive.’’ to ‘‘IA’’ and adding the timing for the that we receive the example contracts. To add clarity, we changed the title of beginning of the monthly reports. paragraph 206.3(b). The new title more

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(b) What information do I need to provide and when is it due? 206.3(b) When is the monthly report due? Each packer must send a Each packer must send a separate monthly report for each plant that separate monthly report for each plant that has the slaughtering ca- has the slaughtering capacity specified in the definition of packer in pacity specified in the definition of packer in § 206.1. Each packer § 206.1. Packers must deliver the report to the GIPSA Regional Of- must deliver the report to the GIPSA Regional Office in Des Moines, fice in Des Moines, Iowa by the close of business on the 15th of IA, by the close of business on the 15th of each month, beginning at each month. The GIPSA Regional Office closes at 4:30 p.m. Central least 45 days after the initial submission of example contracts. The Time. If the 15th day of a month falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or fed- GIPSA Regional Office closes at 4:30 p.m. Central Time. If the 15th eral holiday, the monthly report is due no later than the close of the day of a month falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the next business day following the 15th. monthly report is due no later than the close of the next business day following the 15th.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47818 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

To correct a reference, in paragraph addition, we added ‘‘required by this 206.3(f) we changed ‘‘monthly contract section.’’ information’’ to ‘‘monthly report.’’ In

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(f) Where and how do I send my monthly contract information? 206.3(f) Where and how do I send my monthly report? Each packer Packers may submit their monthly reports by either of the following may submit monthly reports required by this section by either of the two methods: following two methods:

To add clarity, we changed the title of provided in the paragraph. Other and including information on where to paragraph 206.3(c). The new title more changes included correcting the form obtain the form. correctly describes the requirements number reference in paragraph 206.3(c)

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(c) How do I make a monthly report? The monthly report that 206.3(c) What information do I need to provide in the monthly report? packers file must be reported on PSP Form 341 and must provide The monthly report that each packer files must be reported on Form the following information: P&SP–341, which will be available on the Internet on the GIPSA Web site (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/) and at USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. In the monthly re- port, each packer must provide the following information:

In paragraph 206.3(e), the first neither added requirements nor clarity. second sentence was unnecessary and sentence clearly states the requirement. Therefore, we determined that the deleted it to simplify the paragraph. The second sentence, as proposed,

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(e) When do I change previously reported estimates? Regardless 206.3(e) When do I change previously reported estimates? Regardless of any estimates for a given future month that may have been pre- of any estimates for a given future month that may have been pre- viously reported, current estimates of deliveries reported as required viously reported, current estimates of deliveries reported as required by paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this section must be based on the by paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this section must be based on the most accurate information available at the time each report is pre- most accurate information available at the time each report is pre- pared. Packers must update or change any previously reported esti- pared. mates for any month(s) included on the current report to reflect accu- rate information on producers’ plans, initiation of new contracts, or any other circumstances that cause changes in expected future deliv- eries.

In paragraph 206.3(f)(1), we deleted an e-mail submission option that would Instead, we developed a secure Web site ‘‘e-mail or any other’’ because during be secure and guarantee the so that we could offer the option of development of the reporting process confidentiality of the files submitted electronic submission. we determined that we could not offer during the transmission process.

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(f)(1) Electronic report. Information reported under this section 206.3(f)(1) Electronic report. Information reported under this section may be reported by electronic means, to the maximum extent prac- may be reported by electronic means, to the maximum extent prac- ticable. Electronic submission may be e-mail or by any other form of ticable. Electronic submission may be by any form of electronic electronic transmission that has been determined to be acceptable to transmission that has been determined to be acceptable to the Ad- the Administrator. To obtain current options for acceptable methods ministrator. To obtain current options for acceptable methods to sub- to submit information electronically, contact GIPSA through the Inter- mit information electronically, contact GIPSA through the Internet on net on the GIPSA homepage (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/) or at the the GIPSA Web site (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/) or at USDA GIPSA Regional Office at Room 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. Moines, IA 50309.

We changed the word ‘‘homepage’’ to link may not continue to appear on the and estimated deliveries’’ to ‘‘estimated ‘‘Web site’’ each time it appeared. The homepage if there is another logical deliveries by contract type.’’ information from the swine contract place for it to appear. This change In paragraph 206.3(c)(1), we revised library will be available on the GIPSA appears in paragraphs 206.2(g) and the title to more correctly describe the Web site, however it will not appear paragraphs 206.3(f)(1) and (g)(1). Other requirements provided in the paragraph. directly on the GIPSA homepage. Users changes to paragraph 206.3(g)(1) We revised the first sentences of will initially find a direct link to the included changing the first sentence to paragraphs 206.3(c)(1) and (2) to clarify information on the GIPSA homepage, more correctly describe the available that they provide definitions for existing but in the future, as the GIPSA Web site information by changing ‘‘contract types and available contracts, respectively, for goes through changes and updates, the which each packer must submit

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47819

estimates on monthly reports.9 In changing the phrase ‘‘for purchase’’ to consistency, in paragraphs 206.3(c)(4)(i) addition, we revised the second and ‘‘for the purchase’’ and in paragraphs and (ii), we revised ‘‘contract terms’’ to third sentences to combine text to more 206.3(c)(1) and (c)(2) changing ‘‘the ‘‘clauses.’’ A specific example of this directly and correctly state the types of contracts’’ to ‘‘contracts.’’ change in paragraph 2.6.3(c)(4) is shown requirement. As proposed, the second In the proposed rule, we used the in the following table. Other changes in sentence could have been misleading; terms ‘‘expansion provisions’’ and section 206.3 included correcting the the requirement is not to report the ‘‘expansion clauses’’ to mean the same sentence in paragraph (c)(5) by inserting types of contracts, but rather to report thing. In a contract, the expansion the word ‘‘of’’ in front of the phrase ‘‘the the number of estimated swine to be clause specifies the possibilities for types of expansion clauses’’ and added delivered. The revised sentence focuses increase of a quantity. For consistency, ‘‘for all existing contracts’’ to the second on the estimates to be reported, it does in the title of paragraph 206.3(c)(4) and sentence for clarity and in paragraph not change the requirement to report the text of paragraphs 206.3(c)(4), 206.3(g)(3)(iv) changing the word those estimates. Other changes included (4)(iii), (5), (g)(3)(iv), and (v), we revised ‘‘ensuing’’ to ‘‘following’’ for in paragraph 206.3(c)(2) included ‘‘provisions’’ to ‘‘clauses.’’ For consistency and plain language.10

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(c)(4) Expansion provisions. Any conditions or circumstances 206.3(c)(4) Expansion clauses. Any conditions or circumstances speci- specified by provisions in any existing contracts that could result in fied by clauses in any existing contracts that could result in an in- expansion in the estimates specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this sec- crease in the estimates specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. tion. Each packer will identify the expansion provisions in the monthly Each packer will identify the expansion clauses in the monthly report report by listing a code for the following conditions: by listing a code for the following conditions: (iii) Contract terms that allow for a range of the number of swine to (iii) Clauses that allow for a range of the number of swine to be be delivered; delivered; (iii) Contract terms that require a greater number of swine to be (iii) Clauses that require a greater number of swine to be delivered delivered as the contract continues; as the contract continues; (iii) Other provisions that provide for expansion in the numbers of (iii) Other clauses that provide for expansion in the numbers of swine to be delivered. swine to be delivered.

To specify that estimates reported in the monthly reports come from contracts and not from contract types, in the title of paragraph 206.3(d), we changed ‘‘type of contract’’ to ‘‘contract.’’ In addition, for clarity with the wording used throughout the regulations, we changed the word ‘‘head’’ to ‘‘swine.’’

Text of the regulation as proposed Text of the regulation as revised

206.3(d) What if a type of contract does not specify the number of head 206.3(d) What if a contract does not specify the number of swine com- committed? mitted?

In the proposed rule, the authority at a federally inspected swine report has the swine slaughtered at a citation included 7 U.S.C. 198, 198a, processing plant that meets either of the plant it does not own. and 198b, which are the sections of the following conditions: What contracts will packers need to U.S. Code in which the sections of the (1) A swine processing plant that provide? Each packer must send GIPSA P&S Act that require the establishment slaughtered an average of at least example contracts for available and of the swine contract library are 100,000 swine per year during the existing contracts with a producer (or codified. We corrected the authority immediately preceding 5 calendar years, producers) for the procurement of swine citation by replacing those citations with the average based on those periods for slaughter. For a packer using more with Section 941 of Public Law 106–78, in which the plant slaughtered swine; or than one plant, the packer must submit 113 Statute 1135, which is the section a separate package of example contracts of the Livestock Mandatory Price (2) Any swine processing plant that for each plant that has the slaughtering Reporting Act that requires regulations did not slaughter swine during the capacity specified in the definition of to implement the swine contract library. immediately preceding 5 calendar years ‘‘packer.’’ We added the OMB control number at that has the capacity to slaughter at least For verbal contracts, packers must the end of sections 206.2 and 206.3 to 100,000 swine per year, based on plant provide written descriptions of the show the OMB approval for the capacity information. terms of all agreements for the purchase collection of information required by Throughout this document, references of swine for slaughter for which the the swine contract library regulations, to ‘‘packers’’ refer to the packers that are parties did not execute a document to which OMB has approved concurrently required to report under the swine signify the existence of the agreement. with the approval of the final rule. contract library regulations. Throughout As specified in section 206.2(a), (b), this document, references to ‘‘plants’’ Summary of Swine Contract Library and (c) of the regulations, each packer refer to the plants at which the swine Final Rule must file an initial submission of are slaughtered for which the packers example contracts currently in effect or Who must provide contract are required to report. Currently, most of available and subsequent submissions information? The regulations apply to a the packers required to report slaughter with example contracts made available packer purchasing at least 100,000 swine at a plant that the packer owns. at each plant at which the packer swine per year and slaughtering swine In a few cases, the packer required to slaughters swine.

9 The table showing the changes from the is in the Discussion of Comments section of this 10 The table showing the changes from the proposed rule in paragraphs 206.3(c)(1) and (c)(2) document. proposed rule in paragraphs 206.3(c)(5) is in the Discussion of Comments section of this document.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47820 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

The initial submission of example What must the packer provide for defining a region are: (1) Relevant contracts is due the first business day of monthly reports? As specified in section marketing areas; (2) statutory the month following the determination 206.3 of the regulations, packers will requirements to maintain confidentiality that the plant has the slaughtering submit monthly reports that will and protect proprietary business capacity specified in the definition of provide, for existing contracts, the information; and (3) AMS definitions of ‘‘packer.’’ GIPSA has made that estimated number of swine committed regions in its reports of swine prices.11 determination for plants that are and the maximum number of swine that For example, we will review the AMS currently in operation; in the future as could be delivered under contract for regions for which AMS reports hog new plants open, the determination will each of the next 12 months, expansion prices. If we determine that we can be made as the information is available. clauses for each contract type, and provide more information by splitting When this final rule is published in the specify the contract types for which the an AMS region into more than one Federal Register, GIPSA will notify packer has any available contracts. region, then we will determine whether each packer in writing if it is required The packer must provide a separate the information can be presented for to submit information, and how and monthly report for each of the plants smaller regions and maintain when to submit, for the swine contract that it uses that has the slaughtering confidentiality. Alternately, if we library. To submit information for the capacity specified in the definition of determine that releasing information for swine contract library, example ‘‘packer,’’ even if it had no existing an AMS region will not maintain contracts and monthly reports, packers contracts for which to report estimated confidentiality, then we will aggregate may submit hard copies or submit deliveries of swine. The packer must the information into larger regions that electronically via the swine contract estimate the number of swine to be will maintain confidentiality. library Web site. For new contracts, the delivered under each contract at the In order to ensure confidentiality, packer must send the example contract plant, aggregated by contract type. If the information will only be published if it to our Regional Office in Des Moines, packer had no existing contracts for any is obtained from no fewer than three within one business day of the or all contract types, the reported packers, and no packer represents a contract’s availability. estimates would be zero. GIPSA will dominant portion of the region’s total In addition to submitting example notify the packer of the contract type for slaughter based on market share. The contracts, as specified in section each example contract. specific factor used to determine if a 206.2(h) of the regulations, when there What information from the swine packer is dominant in the region will are any changes, expirations, or contract library will GIPSA make not be released, to further assure withdrawals to previously submitted available to the public? The example confidentiality by preventing anyone example contracts, then packers must contracts will provide base price from using knowledge about the factor submit revised example contracts and determinations, the application of to reveal information that we will notify us of expirations and withdrawals ledgers or accrual accounts, carcass withhold. In any region or set of within one business day after expiration merit premium and discount schedules, circumstances that leads us to be or withdrawal. The packer’s example and the use and amount of noncarcass concerned about our ability to publish contracts must represent all of the merit premiums and discounts. Other information while maintaining contracts made available by the packer contract terms that will be reported confidentiality, in addition to the to swine producers for the purchase of include a variety of terms, such as expertise provided by GIPSA swine for slaughter. The packer may quality and weight restrictions, length of economists and industry experts, we submit example contracts and contract, and use of packer specified will consult with USDA statisticians to notifications electronically. genetics. We will summarize ensure that confidentiality is What criteria will packers use to information on contract terms from the maintained. select example contracts? To decide example contracts to provide as much To further maintain confidentiality which contracts will serve as examples information about contract terms as and provide useful information, we may of similar contracts, as specified in possible, subject to confidentiality change the regions over time. Initially, section 206.2(d) of the regulations, protections specified in section 251 of based on our analysis of swine packers will use the following criteria the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 processing plants and the AMS regions, (four example-contract criteria): (7 U.S.C. 1636). the information will be published for We will publish in the monthly report (1) The base price or the the regions listed below: determination of base price; as much information collected from • The Western U.S. region includes (2) The application of an accrual packers each month as possible, subject all states west of the Mississippi River. account or a ledger; to the requirement to maintain • The Western Cornbelt region (3) The carcass merit premium and confidentiality as discussed above. We includes Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, discount schedules (including the will calculate the aggregate 6- and 12- Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. manner of determining lean percent or month totals from the information in the (This region will also be included in the other merits of the carcass that are used monthly reports received from all Western U.S. region.) to determine the amount of the reporting packers and report the • The Iowa/Minnesota region premiums and discounts and how those aggregates on a regional basis as listed includes Iowa and Minnesota. (This premiums and discounts are applied); below. We will use the same regions for region will also be included in the and reporting the monthly report estimate Western Cornbelt region.) (4) The use and amount of noncarcass aggregates as described above for the • The Eastern Cornbelt region merit premiums and discounts. summaries of contract terms from the includes all states east of the For contracts that are identical in all contract library. four example-contract criteria listed What regions will GIPSA use for 11 Even with the differences between he contract above, a packer will need to file only reporting? The information we make information we report and prices reported by USDA one example contract to represent that available will be presented on a regional AMS Market News, producers and other interested parties will be able to review the information for set of contracts for each plant that basis, as specified in sections 206.2(f) consistent regions to understand contract terms and slaughters the swine purchased under and 206.3(g)(2) of the regulations. prices paid for hogs purchased through various the example contract. Among the factors we will consider in methods.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47821

Mississippi River. (This region is the This rule implements Subtitle B of 206.1, this term includes written and eastern half of the country, but is named Title II of the P&S Act, which requires verbal agreements. To submit example Eastern Cornbelt for consistency with packers to report to the Secretary contracts for verbal agreements, packers AMS regions.) information for swine packing plants will need to provide written We will monitor changes in the swine that have the slaughtering capacity descriptions of the verbal agreement. industry, feedback from producers and specified in the subtitle’s definition of The second component is the cost of other interested parties about the ‘‘packer.’’ The rule requires the providing a copy of each new example summary reports, and other relevant reporting of information on swine contract subsequently made available by information to determine if changes in marketing contracts by packers for the packer. We estimate the hourly cost reporting regions need to be considered. plants that have the slaughtering of these activities will average $20 per How will GIPSA make summary capacity specified in the definition of hour. example contract and monthly report ‘‘packer.’’ Based on our experience reviewing information available? As specified in Each packer purchasing at least swine contracts in the normal course of sections 206.2(g) and 206.3(g)(1) of the 100,000 swine per year must report enforcing the P&S Act, we believe that regulations, we will make the contract information for swine processing plants the time required for a packer to review library information and monthly reports it owns or at which it has swine its contracts, identify example contracts, available on the Internet on the GIPSA slaughtered that slaughtered an average and submit those examples as a package Web site at http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/ of 100,000 head of swine per year (including documenting verbal and at the GIPSA Regional Office in Des during any of the immediately contracts) will average 9 hours per plant Moines, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, preceding 5 calendar years based on for the initial submission. The first component of the 9 hours is Des Moines, IA 50309. The information those years in which the plant an initial 4 hours to review the files of available from the GIPSA Web site and slaughtered swine. Based on data including 2002, the most recent year for contracts and identify examples of at the regional office will be the same. which complete data are available, this existing and available contracts. Packers Initially, summarized information includes a total of 53 plants owned or must identify which contracts are from example contracts could be utilized by 33 swine packers. identical for reporting purposes, as available as early as 2 months after the The rule establishes a swine contract specified in section 206.2(d) of the final rule becomes effective (30 days library and requires packers operating or regulations, in order to determine which after packers will be required to submit utilizing plants of the specified contracts need to be sent as examples. example contracts for each of the plants slaughtering capacity to submit example The second component of the 9 hours that has the slaughtering capacity contracts and monthly reports to is an additional 5 hours to collect and specified in the definition of ‘‘packer’’ provide numbers of swine committed to submit example contracts to GIPSA. as specified in section 206.1). packers under contract. We believe that This is composed of 0.5 hours per plant Subsequent information on new this information program will benefit per example contract; we increased this example contracts made available by producers, especially small producers. It estimate from the 0.25 hours estimated packers will be available on a real-time will increase information available to in the proposed rule to allow extra time basis, to the extent possible (packers producers about contract terms, as well for packers to review the guidelines must send GIPSA new example as improve producers’ and packers’ developed for the submission of contracts within one business day of the ability to plan with improved example contracts and the time to contract being made available). The knowledge of the volume of swine submit the example contracts method and time of delivery and the already contracted for slaughter. electronically. Based on our experience complexity of contract terms will reviewing swine contracts, we have determine how quickly GIPSA can make Summary of Costs determined that some packers will only the information available. Initially, No costs will be imposed on have one example contract to report for summarized monthly report information producers as a result of the regulations. each plant, while other packers will could be available as early as 3 months Monthly reports and information from have a variety of example contracts. For after the final rule becomes effective the contract library on contract terms this analysis and to provide an upper (the first day of the month following will be available on the GIPSA Web site estimate for the costs associated with packers’ first monthly report on the Internet. Producers with Internet the contract library, we estimated that, submission.). Subsequent summarized access will be able to access the reports on average, packers would have 10 monthly reports will be available the 1st at no additional cost beyond their example contracts per plant to be of each month (2 weeks following the normal Internet costs. We believe that submitted to GIPSA for the initial filing. packers’ monthly report submission). many producer organizations and At 0.5 hours per plant per example private news and information services Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory contract, it would take 5 hours for the will copy and redistribute these reports Flexibility Act packer to collect and submit the 10 at no direct cost to producers as part of example contracts to GIPSA. This rule has been determined to be the services they already provide to The total one-time cost to compile the significant for the purposes of Executive producers. initial submission of example contracts Order 12866, and therefore, has been Packers required to report will face for all 53 plants 12 is $9,540 ($180 per reviewed by the Office of Management costs associated with submitting plant × 53 plants, which combines the and Budget. The following is an contracts for the contract library. The first component of $20 per hour × 4 economic analysis of the rule that first component of these costs is the hours = $80 and the second component includes the cost-benefit analysis initial cost of compiling and providing of $20 per hour × 0.5 hours × 10 required by Executive Order 12866. The to GIPSA a copy of each example economic analysis also provides a final contract currently in effect or available 12 The regulation will require a total of 33 pork regulatory flexibility analysis of the at each plant that has the slaughtering packing companies (packers) to report for 53 plants that have the slaughtering capacity specified in the potential economic effects on small capacity specified in the definition of definition of ‘‘packer’’ in section 206.1, based on entities as required by the Regulatory ‘‘packer’’ in section 206.1. As specified data including 2001, the most recent year for which Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601—612). in the definition of ‘‘contract’’ in section complete data are available.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47822 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

example contracts = $100 per plant). similar in type and complexity. The Based on our experience in working There should be no additional cost for higher hourly wage rate for this activity with similar documents and data entry electronic submission because the is based on the use of personnel with processes, we estimate that it will take submission will be through a secure specialized skills necessary to set up an average of 2 hours per month per Web site, which will be at no additional spreadsheets or databases. The creation plant to manually compile and report cost to those packers that have Internet of spreadsheets or databases to maintain the figures needed for the monthly access. the necessary information can be reporting provision. The initial monthly After the initial submission, we accomplished by in-house computer report may take somewhat longer than estimate an average of about 2.5 hours staff, or by other employees such as 2 hours. per year per plant will be required to accountants or auditors who are We estimate the cost per hour of this submit an average of 5 examples of new responsible for operating the packer’s activity will average $20.00 per hour, for contracts or changes to previously electronic recordkeeping system. The a total monthly cost per plant of $40.00 submitted example contracts, at a cost total one-time cost for packers to set up ($20 per hour × 2 hours = $40). A packer per plant of $25.00 per year ($20/hour using an electronic system to compile × a database or spreadsheet to maintain 2.5 hours = $50). In months when a information for the monthly report for reports will face lower monthly packer does not have a new contract or all 53 plants is estimated to be $2,650 compliance costs than a packer that modify a previously submitted example ($50 per plant × 53 plants) if packers does not use an electronic system. We contract, there will be no cost of choose to submit reports electronically estimate that a packer utilizing compliance with contract library for all 53 plants. electronic systems will take an average reporting requirements. Packers must of 1 hour per month per plant at a total An additional 2 hours per plant, at the notify GIPSA within one business day cost per plant of $20.00 to compile and estimated hourly cost of $50.00 per hour when one of its example contracts no report the monthly estimates. The total for a total one-time cost of $100.00 per longer represents any existing or annual recurring cost per plant to plant, will be required for personnel available contracts. The costs for this compile and submit the monthly report with similar skills in use of electronic notification are included in the estimate is $480 ($40 per month × 12 months) if for changes to previously submitted recordkeeping systems to extract and the packer chooses to submit reports contracts. The total annual recurring format the required information from manually or $240 ($20 per month × 12 cost for all 53 plants for the submission the packer’s electronic information and months) if the packer chooses to submit of examples of contract types is develop methods for electronic reports electronically. The total annual estimated to be $2,650 ($50 per plant × transmission of the completed reports to recurring cost for all 53 plants to 53 plants). GIPSA. Upon request, we will provide compile and submit the monthly report Packers also face costs in complying the necessary information for the is estimated to be $25,440 ($480 per with the monthly reporting interface to our system. Packers that do plant × 53 plants) if the packers choose requirements. We believe that many not use electronic data transmission will to submit reports manually for all 53 packers already maintain the required not incur this initial set-up cost, but will plants or $12,720 ($240 per plant × 53 information electronically for use in not gain the advantage of potential plants) if the packers choose to submit business and strategic planning. Based savings from electronic recordkeeping reports electronically for all 53 plants. on our investigations and reviews of and reporting as described below. The The following table summarizes the packers, we believe that all packers that total one-time cost for packers to extract estimated compliance costs for packers are large enough to meet the statutory and format information and develop required to submit example contracts requirements for reporting already use methods for electronic transmission for and monthly contract information for computers.13 Therefore, we do not the monthly report for all 53 plants is plants that are subject to the regulations anticipate that the packers will incur estimated to be $5,300 ($100 per plant in 9 CFR Part 206. As shown in the × any additional costs for computer 53 plants) if the packers choose to table, total first year costs for all 33 hardware to implement electronic submit reports electronically for all 53 packers (53 plants) to comply with the submissions of monthly reports. For plants. requirements of the contract library and those packers that use computers but do Once a recordkeeping and reporting monthly reports is $37,630 if the not currently maintain contract system is established, additional time packers choose to submit reports information electronically, we estimate will be required to enter data into the manually for all 53 plants or $32,860 if that at most 1 hour per plant, at an database or spreadsheet each month. the packers choose to submit reports hourly cost of $50.00, will be required Packers that choose not to use an electronically for all 53 plants. The total to set up a database or spreadsheet to electronic system for maintaining and first year costs include the start-up maintain the necessary information. compiling data required for the monthly costs, therefore, the annual recurring This estimate is based on our experience reports will manually compile the data costs will be lower and are estimated to with spreadsheets and databases that are on paper forms each month; the forms be $28,090 if the packers choose to will be available from the Des Moines submit reports manually for all 53 13 Most, if not all, of these packers are required plants or $15,370 if the packers choose to use an electronic system to provide information regional office. The total time required to AMS under mandatory livestock price reporting for either method will depend on the to submit reports electronically for all requirements in the AMA (7 U.S.C. 1636(g)). number of contracts in effect. 53 plants.

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47823

Total costs Total costs if packers Costs per if packers use elec- Costs per plant, use manual tronic meth- plant, electronic methods for ods for manual monthly monthly re- reports all 53 plants 1 ports for all 53 plants 1

Start-Up Costs: Contract Library: Review contracts, identify example contracts (4 hours x $20.00/hr) ...... $80.00 $80.00 $4,240.00 $4,240.00 Collect and submit example contracts 2 (10 examples x 0.5 hr. x $20.00 per hour) ...... $100.00 $100.00 $5,300.00 $5,300.00 Monthly Report: Set up database or spreadsheet (1 hour x $50.00) ...... N/A $50.00 N/A $2,650.00 Development of transmission methods (2 hours x $50.00) ...... N/A $100.00 N/A $5,300.00

Total Start-Up Costs ...... $180.00 $330.00 $9,540.00 $17,490.00

Annual Recurring Costs: Contract Library: Collect and submit example contracts (5 examples x 0. 5 hr. x $20.00 per hour) $50.00 $50.00 $2,650.00 $2,650.00 Monthly Report: Enter data into database or spreadsheet, or tabulate on paper, and compile totals: (Electronic: 1 hour per month x 12 x $20.00) ...... N/A $240.00 N/A $12,720.00 (Manual: 2 hours per month x 12 x $20.00) ...... $480.00 N/A $25,440.00 N/A

Total Annual Recurring Costs ...... $530.00 $290.00 $28,090.00 $15,370.00

Total 1st Year Cost (Start-up costs plus annual recurring costs) ...... $710.00 $620.00 $37,630.00 $32,860.00 1 Although we believe it is likely that most packers will use electronic methods, we do not have a basis for estimating the actual number of packers that will choose to use electronic versus manual methods. Thus, estimates are shown for the alternatives of all manual submissions versus all electronic submissions to provide a range of the likely total costs to packers. 2 We are not assuming any electronic submission of contracts for purposes of this analysis because it is likely that many of the plants will sub- mit the information directly and the plants may not have the electronic version of the contracts.

GIPSA will incur costs of operating contracts is complete, there will be This rule will make information about the swine contract library, analyzing the fewer contracts received for analysis. the variety and types of contract terms monthly reports submitted by packers, available in the marketplace, as well as ensuring that packers are in compliance, Summary of Benefits the number of swine committed under and making the information available at The primary economic benefit of the contract by region, readily and easily the P&SP regional office and on the contract library to producers will be to available from a single source. GIPSA Web site. We estimate that alleviate some of the current imbalance Availability of information from GIPSA will incur total costs of $400,000 in information between producers and example contracts and monthly reports per year for all activities, specified packers by increasing the amount of will serve to lower the search costs for producers and enable producers to be below, associated with implementing information available to producers and more informed before entering the the swine contract library. We will to provide producers the potential to marketplace. monitor and review contracts submitted improve overall production planning for the contract library and monthly This increased information will be and marketing efficiency. Many beneficial to producers in making reports filed by packers to assure producers report that they cannot completeness, consistency, and production plans and determining how currently obtain the information needed to market swine. The increased accuracy. In addition, we will conduct to compare contracts available from ongoing analyses of the data and information about which contract types different packers. Producers may have and contract terms are available will information obtained from packers, and very limited information, especially will explore ways to increase the enable producers to understand the about contracts and contracting particular terms that are available. For usefulness of the published data and practices, since producers are parties to information. Our projected costs include example, different packers often have fewer contracts and have fewer different requirements for swine with communication costs, travel expense for resources for searching out this plant visits to monitor compliance with given carcass characteristics, and the information than do packers. Based on packers’ premiums and discounts reflect the swine contract library sections of the GIPSA’s contacts with producers, we 14 P&S Act and regulations, costs for office the unique requirements. The believe that most producers currently do information from the contracts will supplies, computer hardware and not search out contract terms among software acquisition and maintenance. make producers aware of contract terms competing packers. Rather, they tend to that better match the characteristics of We anticipate that our costs for contract with and deliver their hogs to providing assistance to packers and a single packer. Producers have 14 For example, one analysis found that net prices maintaining the contract library will indicated to GIPSA that they do not paid by different packers for the same quality of decrease over time. As a packer becomes have enough knowledge about contract hogs varied by up to $2.00 per hundredweight. (‘‘Factors That Influence Prices Producers Receive familiar with the regulations, it will terms available to them to encourage for Hogs: Statistical Analysis of Kill Sheet and need less assistance from us. Once the them to search out more favorable Survey Data,’’ John D. Lawrence, Staff Paper No. analysis of the initial submission of terms. 279, Iowa State University. March 1996.)

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47824 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

the swine they produce. Although the providing the information will make it those benefits; none of the commenters contract information will not identify available to the widest possible provided any additional information. which packers have specific contract audience in the most efficient way. We Effects on Small Entities terms available, producers will know believe that many producer that specific terms are available at a organizations and private news and The Small Business Administration plant in identified regions. information services will copy and (SBA) classifies producers’ swine Additionally, the monthly reports will redistribute these reports at no direct production enterprises as small provide producers with information on cost to producers as part of the services businesses if they have annual sales of the number of contracted swine by they already provide to producers. $500,000 or less. There were region for the upcoming 6- and 12- Although packers will bear the approximately 92,000 producers that month periods. Producers could use this compliance costs of the regulations, would be classified as small businesses information, in combination with data packers are not the primary by this definition, or 90 percent of all such as current inventories of swine on beneficiaries of the contract library. The producers reporting sales of swine in feed from the National Agricultural chief benefit to the packers will be from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The rule Statistics Service and projections of improved knowledge about aggregate will not impose any reporting slaughter from land grant college supply based on information provided requirement or other burden on extension services and other sources, to in the monthly reports of aggregate producers of any size. We believe the estimate the percentage of the region’s future supplies of swine contracted for rule will provide significant benefits for all producers, as discussed in the swine slaughter requirements for the slaughter and knowledge of contract section on Summary of Benefits above, next 6 and 12 months that are being met terms being made available by other and especially to small producers. by contracted swine. This will help packers. producers to determine how many sows According to the SBA size standard, In conclusion, the benefits to to breed, whether to search out packers a company that owns and operates a producers and other interested persons in regions with lower volumes of swine packing plant, including a swine are not quantifiable and, therefore, already contracted, and to make other processing plant, would be classified as difficult to compare to the costs that decisions related to the production and a small business if the company has less packers and GIPSA will incur to marketing of their swine. For example, than 500 employees in total. It is implement the swine contract library knowledge of the volume of swine common in the red meat industry for requirements of the amendments to the already contracted for delivery 12 larger companies to own several plants. months into the future will better enable P&S Act. The total annual cost for A packer that owns and operates one or producers to adjust their production GIPSA to implement the contract library more plants would be considered as a plans to avoid situations such as and monthly reports is $400,000. The small business under the SBA definition occurred during a prolonged period in total first-year costs for packers only if the packer, at all plants late 1998. During that period, extremely choosing to utilize electronic combined, had fewer than 500 large supplies of swine for slaughter submission methods is estimated to be employees. were out of balance with aggregate $330 per plant with an annual recurring The regulation will require a total of industry slaughter capacity and costs thereafter of an estimated $290 per 33 pork packing companies (packers) to producers suffered losses in the billions plant; the total first-year cost for packers report for 53 plants that have the of dollars. choosing to use manual submission slaughtering capacity specified in the By lowering the search costs for methods is estimated to be $710 with an definition of ‘‘packer’’ in section 206.1. producers and increasing the amount of annual recurring cost thereafter We have minimized the number of available information, information made estimated at $530 per plant. We believe small entities that would have been available from example contracts and all packers required to report have the required to comply with the swine the monthly reports will alleviate much capability to use electronic methods. contract library regulations as proposed of the current imbalance in information However, we do not have an estimate by limiting the packers to those that available to producers relative to for how many packers will choose to purchase at least 100,000 swine per packers. The benefits are difficult, if not use electronic versus manual methods. year. Based on the SBA size standard, impossible, to quantify, but available Thus, for purposes of comparing costs approximately 15 of the packers that evidence indicates the benefits will be and benefits, we are conservatively will be required to report, are substantial. We believe that benefits to using the highest cost, which is based considered small businesses. These producers, from the availability of on all packers using manual methods to small packers will bear some costs of contract terms and packers’ estimates of submit example contracts and monthly compliance with the regulation. The future deliveries, will include better reports. Using this conservative costs, as described above in Summary of planning for their marketing decisions. estimate, the total first-year cost to the Costs, arise from the reporting and We envision that the primary means industry is $37,630 and annual recordkeeping requirements for the of access to information from the recurring cost thereafter is $28,090. We packers that are required to report. The example contracts and monthly reports requested comments on these estimates same requirements will be imposed on will be through the GIPSA Web site on and on the likelihood that packers will large and small packers that are required the Internet. The information will also use electronic methods; none of the to report. However, we believe the be available in hard copy in our regional commenters provided this information. burden of these requirements will be office located in Des Moines, Iowa. We Additionally, the benefits to the less on the packers classified as small believe that many producers have access producer will be an increase in the businesses, as explained below. to the Internet; for those who do not, we knowledge about supply and contract have coordinated with other USDA terms that could result in better Projected Reporting Burden on Small agencies with officers at the local level marketing decisions. These benefits are Entities to provide Internet access, or producers difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. The rule requires packers to report could use public libraries with Internet We requested commenters to provide two types of information regarding service available, as many across the additional information on the benefits of contracts for the purchase of swine for country do. Therefore, this method of this regulation and the quantification of slaughter. The first type is an example

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47825

of each contract (called an ‘‘example of packers of any size will require entry each year to provide certain information contract’’) currently in effect or of data into 68 to 94 fields. Packers will to the Secretary. There were few feasible available by packers at each plant compile and aggregate data from alternatives possible with regard to required to report under section 206.1. individual contracts to enter into these obtaining the required information. Packers must provide an initial fields. Small packers that meet the In the proposed rule, we required any submission of example contracts for minimum purchasing and slaughtering packer, regardless of size, to comply existing and available contracts and capacity required for reporting are with the swine contract library subsequent submissions of example expected to have a smaller number of requirements if the packer used a plant contracts for new contracts. A copy of contracts from which to compile data. that met the slaughter capacity specified an example contract will only be Therefore, the total reporting burden for in the definition of packer in section submitted once for each plant. Based on smaller packers should be less than for 201.1 of the regulations. However, there prior contacts with packers by GIPSA the larger packers. are a number of small packers that buy personnel during the normal course of We encourage packers to utilize small amounts of swine and have the enforcing the P&S Act, we believe that electronic data transmission to submit swine custom slaughtered at a plant small packers have a relatively small the required information to GIPSA. We large enough to require the packer to number of example contracts that will will provide packers the necessary report. To eliminate the potential have to be submitted. Packers will information on procedures to submit the burden on such small packers, we submit example contracts by mail, data to GIPSA electronically. We expect revised the rule to add a minimum electronic data transmission, or another that packers will use a variety of annual purchase of 100,000 swine to the method that is convenient for them and methods to provide the data to GIPSA. definition of ‘‘packer.’’ Therefore, these approved by GIPSA. We will use the For electronic data transmission, we small packers are not covered by the information in these contracts to will provide a secure system to allow swine contract library regulations. prepare a report for public release that packers to submit data via the Internet The example contract requirement for will describe the contract types and through the GIPSA Web site. filing contract types in use could be contract terms existing or available, but Those small packers that choose not accomplished by requiring that packers will not identify individual packers of to use electronic submission methods file copies of all contracts, not just any size, or release copies of actual for example contract information and example contracts. However, we believe individual contracts used by any packer. monthly reports can send the this would result in an overwhelming We will make the report with the information via facsimile or mail to and unnecessary paperwork burden for information from the example contracts GIPSA. However, a packer will have to both packers and GIPSA. It would available on the Internet and at our meet the submission deadlines require all packers required to report to submit multiple copies of the same regional office located in Des Moines, regardless of the method used for contract. It would also require a Iowa. submission. significant increase in expense to the The second type of information Projected Recordkeeping Burden on government for the time required to reported by packers will consist of a Small Entities review and classify all the contracts monthly report of the number of swine Each packer that is required to report received. committed for delivery under each type information is required to maintain such The monthly report requirement of existing contract. The form for the records as are necessary to compile the could be accomplished by GIPSA monthly report will consist of up to 196 information reported and verify its compiling all data necessary for the separate fields of information, including accuracy. Current P&S Act monthly report to determine each report date, packer, plant identification, recordkeeping requirements are set out individual packer’s projected deliveries and certification information (16 fields); in 7 U.S.C. 221, 9 CFR 201, and 9 CFR of swine for slaughter for the following swine delivery estimates for 6 contract 203.4. This rule does not require 6- and 12-month periods. This type categories for each of the next 12 maintenance of records beyond those alternative would require that we also months (up to 144 fields for committed that packers are already required to implement the first alternative and maximum estimates); yes or no for maintain. Therefore, the rule does not discussed above (that is, require packers any currently available contracts under create new, unduly burdensome to file all contracts) for GIPSA to have a category of contract type (up to 6 recordkeeping requirements. the necessary details to compile the data fields); codes for the types of expansion Professional skills required for each month. In addition to the cost to clauses in existing contracts to increase recordkeeping under the rule are no the government of collecting all swine deliveries to the maximum different than those already employed contracts, it would add significant estimate (up to 6 fields); and the dates by the reporting entities. However, additional costs to the government to for which the estimates are provided (24 packers may need to extract and format tabulate data each month from all fields). A packer will fill out 196 fields the required information for contracts submitted by packers. of information for a plant that had one submissions to GIPSA. We believe the We also considered the option of or more contracts under each of the six skills needed to maintain such records requiring electronic submission of the contract types. Packers must report this are already in place at those small information required in the monthly information once each month for each packers affected by the rule. report. Under the P&S Act, packers are plant for which it is required to report required to submit information on under the regulations. If 196 fields of Alternatives various forms, and packers are used to information were required per We considered alternative methods by submitting the information via facsimile submission, a packer will report up to which the objectives of the statute and or mail. Therefore, we decided to 196 pieces of information each month implementing regulations could be consider that a packer would expect to for each plant. However, few if any accomplished. The regulations, as submit this information in the same packers will have contracts of such mandated by the Livestock Mandatory format in which it submits other variety as to be required to complete all Reporting Act, require packers that own information. Probably all of the packers fields on any given monthly report. We or use swine packing plants that that will be required to submit expect that the average monthly report slaughter a specified number of swine information for the swine contract

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47826 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

library will have the capability to administrative procedures that must be a producer for the purchase of swine for submit the required information exhausted prior to any judicial slaughter, except a negotiated purchase electronically. The required information challenge to the provisions of this rule. (as defined in this section). will be plant level information and Contract type. The classification of Paperwork Reduction Act some packers may choose to have the contracts or risk management plant submit the information directly to In accordance with the Paperwork agreements for the purchase of swine GIPSA. Even though the packer may Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– committed to a packer, by the have the capability to submit 3520), the information collection or determination of the base price and the information electronically, that recordkeeping requirements included in presence or absence of an accrual capability may not exist at each of the this rule have been approved by the account or ledger (as defined in this plants. In addition, the option that we Office of Management and Budget section). The contract type categories developed for the electronic submission (OMB) under OMB control number are: of monthly reports is via data entry into 0580–0021. (1) Swine or pork market formula an automated form on the Web site on purchases with a ledger, GPEA Compliance the Internet; the automated form is the (2) Swine or pork market formula same as the hard copy form. We believe GIPSA is committed to compliance purchases without a ledger, that the collection of this information with the Government Paperwork (3) Other market formula purchases would be most successful by providing Elimination Act, which requires with a ledger, a variety of options for submission. Government agencies to provide the (4) Other market formula purchases Therefore, in developing these public option of submitting information without a ledger, regulations, we decided that the or transacting business electronically to (5) Other purchase arrangements with reporting objectives could be the maximum extent possible. a ledger, and accomplished by allowing packers to (6) Other purchase arrangements List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 206 report the required information by without a ledger. facsimile or mail if they choose not to Swine, Reporting and recordkeeping Formula price. A price determined by use electronic submission. Although we requirements. a mathematical formula under which will encourage packers to utilize the price established for a specified ■ For the reasons set forth in the electronic data transmission, and we market serves as the basis for the preamble, GIPSA amends 9 CFR Chapter will provide to packers the necessary formula. II as follows: information on procedures to submit Ledger. (Synonymous with ‘‘accrual ■ 1. Add Part 206 to read as follows: data to GIPSA electronically, we expect account,’’ as defined in this section.) An account held by a packer on behalf of that packers will use a variety of PART 206—SWINE CONTRACT a producer that accrues a running methods to provide the data to GIPSA. LIBRARY For electronic data transmission, we positive or negative balance as a result will provide a secure system to allow Sec. of a pricing determination included in packers to submit data via the Internet 206.1 Definitions. a contract that establishes a minimum through the GIPSA Web site. 206.2 Swine contract library. and/or maximum level of base price In conclusion, as shown above, it is 206.3 Monthly report. paid. Credits and/or debits for amounts difficult to quantify all of the economic Authority: Sec. 941, Pub. L. 106–78, 113 beyond these minimum and/or impacts on small entities based on the Stat. 1135; 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.81. maximum levels are entered into the alternative submission methods that account. Further, the contract specifies § 206.1 Definitions. small packers may choose and the how the balance in the account affects anticipated benefits, especially for small The definitions in this section apply producer and packer rights and producers. Small packers will incur the to the regulations in this part. The obligations under the contract. costs of complying with these definitions in this section do not apply Negotiated purchase. A purchase, regulations; however, only 15 small to other regulations issued under the commonly known as a ‘‘cash’’ or ‘‘spot packers, representing a small percentage Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) or market’’ purchase, of swine by a packer of all small packers in the United States, to the P&S Act as a whole. from a producer under which: would be required to comply with these Accrual account. (Synonymous with (1) The buyer-seller interaction that regulations because these 15 packers ‘‘ledger,’’ as defined in this section.) An results in the transaction and the purchase more than 100,000 swine account held by a packer on behalf of agreement on actual base price occur on annually and have swine slaughtered at a producer that accrues a running the same day; and a slaughtering plant that slaughtered an positive or negative balance as a result (2) The swine are scheduled for average of more than 100,000 swine per of a pricing determination included in delivery to the packer not later than 14 year. We believe that all of the a contract that establishes a minimum days after the date on which the swine approximately 92,000 small producers and/or maximum level of base price are committed to the packer. will accrue benefits at little or no cost. paid. Credits and/or debits for amounts Noncarcass merit premium or Therefore, we believe that the balance of beyond these minimum and/or discount. An increase or decrease in the the economic impact on small entities maximum levels are entered into the price for the purchase of swine made will be positive. account. Further, the contract specifies available by an individual packer or how the balance in the account affects packing plant, based on any factor other Executive Order 12988 producer and packer rights and than the characteristics of the carcass, if This rule has been reviewed under obligations under the contract. the actual amount of the premium or E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and is Base price. The price paid for swine discount is known before the purchase not intended to have retroactive effect. before the application of any premiums and delivery of the swine. This rule will not pre-empt State or or discounts, expressed in dollars per Other market formula purchase. A local laws, regulations, or policies unit. purchase of swine by a packer in which unless they present an irreconcilable Contract. Any agreement, whether the pricing determination is a formula conflict with this rule. There are no written or verbal, between a packer and price based on any market other than

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47827

the markets for swine, pork, or a pork plant that it operates or at which it has methods to submit example contracts product. The pricing determination swine slaughtered that has the electronically, contact GIPSA through includes, but is not limited to: slaughtering capacity specified in the the Internet on the GIPSA Web site (1) A price formula based on one or definition of packer in § 206.1. (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/) or at more futures or options contracts; (b) What existing or available USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut (2) A price formula based on one or contracts do I need to provide and when Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. more feedstuff markets, such as the are they due? Each packer must send, to (2) Printed report. Each packer that market for corn or soybeans; or the Grain Inspection, Packers and chooses to submit printed example (3) A base price determination using Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), an contracts and notifications must deliver more than one market as its base where example of each contract it currently the printed contracts and notifications at least one of those markets would be has with a producer or producers or that to USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut defined as an ‘‘other market formula is currently available at each plant that Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. purchase.’’ it operates or at which it has swine (f) What information from the swine Other purchase arrangement. A slaughtered that meets the definition of contract library will be made available purchase of swine by a packer that is packer in § 206.1. This initial to the public? GIPSA will summarize not a negotiated purchase, swine or pork submission of example contracts is due the information it has received on market formula purchase, or other to GIPSA on the first business day of the contract terms, including, but not market formula purchase, and does not month following the determination that limited to, base price determination and involve packer-owned swine. the plant has the slaughtering capacity the schedules of premiums or discounts. Packer. Any person engaged in the specified in the definition of packer in GIPSA will make the information business of buying swine in commerce § 206.1. available by region and contract type as for purposes of slaughter, of (c) What available contracts do I need defined in § 206.1, for public release one manufacturing or preparing meats or to provide and when are they due? After month after the initial submission of meat food products from swine for sale the initial submission, each packer must contracts. Geographic regions will be or shipment in commerce, or of send GIPSA an example of each new defined in such a manner to provide as marketing meats or meat food products contract it makes available to a producer much information as possible while from swine in an unmanufactured form or producers within one business day of maintaining confidentiality in acting as a wholesale broker, dealer, or the contract being made available at accordance with section 251 of the distributor in commerce. The each plant that it operates or at which Agricultural Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. regulations in this part only apply to a it has swine slaughtered that meets the 1636). packer purchasing at least 100,000 definition of packer in § 206.1. (g) How can I review information from swine per year and slaughtering swine (d) What criteria do I use to select the swine contract library? The at a federally inspected swine example contracts? For purposes of information will be available on the processing plant that meets either of the distinguishing among contracts to Internet on the GIPSA Web site (http:/ following conditions: determine which contracts may be /www.usda.gov/gipsa/) and at USDA (1) A swine processing plant that represented by a single example, GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, slaughtered an average of at least contracts will be considered to be the Des Moines, IA 50309. The information 100,000 swine per year during the same if they are identical with respect will be updated as GIPSA receives immediately preceding 5 calendar years, to all of the following four example- information from packers. with the average based on those periods contract criteria: (h) What do I need to do when a in which the plant slaughtered swine; or (1) Base price or determination of base previously submitted example contract (2) Any swine processing plant that price; is no longer a valid example due to did not slaughter swine during the (2) Application of a ledger or accrual contract changes, expiration, or immediately preceding 5 calendar years account (including the terms and withdrawal? Each packer must submit a that has the capacity to slaughter at least conditions of the ledger or accrual new example contract when contract 100,000 swine per year, based on plant account provision); changes result in changes to any of the capacity information. (3) Carcass merit premium and four example-contract criteria specified Producer. Any person engaged, either discount schedules (including the in paragraph (d) of this section and directly or through an intermediary, in determination of the lean percent or notify GIPSA if the new example the business of selling swine to a packer other merits of the carcass that are used contract replaces the previously for slaughter (including the sale of to determine the amount of the submitted example contract. Each swine from a packer to another packer). premiums and discounts and how those packer must notify GIPSA when an Swine. A porcine animal raised to be premiums and discounts are applied); example contract no longer represents a feeder pig, raised for seedstock, or and any existing or available contract raised for slaughter. (4) Use and amount of noncarcass (expired or withdrawn). Each packer Swine or pork market formula merit premiums and discounts. must submit these example contracts purchase. A purchase of swine by a (e) Where and how do I send my and notifications within one business packer in which the pricing contracts? Each packer may submit the day of the change, expiration, or determination is a formula price based example contracts and notifications withdrawal. on a market for swine, pork, or a pork required by this section by either of the (Approved by the Office of Management and product, other than a futures contract or following two methods: Budget under control number 0580–0021) option contract for swine, pork, or a (1) Electronic report. Example pork product. contracts and notifications required by § 206.3 Monthly report. this section may be submitted by (a) Do I need to provide monthly § 206.2 Swine contract library. electronic means. Electronic submission reports? Each packer, as defined in (a) Do I need to provide swine may be by any form of electronic § 206.1, must provide information for contract information? Each packer, as transmission that has been determined each swine processing plant that it defined in § 206.1, must provide to be acceptable to the Administrator. operates or at which it has swine information for each swine processing To obtain current options for acceptable slaughtered that has the slaughtering

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 47828 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

capacity specified in the definition of clauses in the monthly report by listing information be made available to the packer. a code for the following conditions: public? (b) When is the monthly report due? (i) Clauses that allow for a range of the (1) Availability. GIPSA will provide a Each packer must send a separate number of swine to be delivered; monthly report of estimated deliveries monthly report for each plant that has (ii) Clauses that require a greater the slaughtering capacity specified in number of swine to be delivered as the by contract types as reported by packers the definition of packer in § 206.1. Each contract continues; in accordance with this section, for packer must deliver the report to the (iii) Other clauses that provide for public release on the 1st business day of GIPSA Regional Office in Des Moines, expansion in the numbers of swine to be each month. The monthly reports will IA, by the close of business on the 15th delivered. be available on the Internet on the of each month, beginning at least 45 (5) Maximum estimates of swine. The GIPSA Web site (http://www.usda.gov/ days after the initial submission of packer’s estimate of the maximum total gipsa/) and at USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, example contracts. The GIPSA Regional number of swine that potentially could 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA Office closes at 4:30 p.m. Central Time. be delivered to each plant within each 50309, during normal business hours of If the 15th day of a month falls on a of the following 12 calendar months, if 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time, Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, any or all of the types of expansion Monday through Friday. clauses identified in accordance with the monthly report is due no later than (2) Regions. Information in the report the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of the close of the next business day will be aggregated and reported by following the 15th. this section are executed. The estimate (c) What information do I need to of maximum potential deliveries must geographic regions. Geographic regions provide in the monthly report? The be reported for all existing contracts by will be defined in such a manner to monthly report that each packer files contract type as defined in § 206.1. provide as much information as possible must be reported on Form P&SP–341, (d) What if a contract does not specify while maintaining confidentiality in which will be available on the Internet the number of swine committed? To accordance with section 251 of the on the GIPSA Web site (http:// meet the requirements of paragraphs Agricultural Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. www.usda.gov/gipsa/) and at USDA (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this section, the 1636) and may be modified from time to GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, packer must estimate expected and time. Des Moines, IA 50309. In the monthly potential deliveries based on the best (3) Reported information. The report, each packer must provide the information available to the packer. monthly report will provide the following information: Such information might include, for following information: (1) Number of swine to be delivered example, the producer’s current and under existing contracts. Existing projected swine inventories and (i) The existing contract types for each contracts are contracts the packer planned production. geographic region. currently is using for the purchase of (e) When do I change previously (ii) The contract types currently being swine for slaughter at each plant. Each reported estimates? Regardless of any made available to additional producers packer must provide monthly estimates estimates for a given future month that or available for renewal to currently of the number of swine committed to be may have been previously reported, contracted producers in each geographic delivered under all of its existing current estimates of deliveries reported region. contracts (even if those contracts are not as required by paragraphs (c)(3) and currently available for renewal or to (c)(5) of this section must be based on (iii) The sum of packers’ reported additional producers) in each contract the most accurate information available estimates of the total number of swine type as defined in § 206.1. at the time each report is prepared. committed by contract for delivery (2) Available contracts. Available (f) Where and how do I send my during the next 6 and 12 months contracts are the contracts the packer is monthly report? Each packer may beginning with the month the report is currently making available to producers, submit monthly reports required by this published. The report will indicate the or is making available for renewal to section by either of the following two number of swine committed by currently contracted producers, for the methods: geographic reporting region and by purchase of swine for slaughter at each (1) Electronic report. Information contract type. plant. On the monthly report, a packer reported under this section may be (iv) The types of conditions or will indicate each contract type, as reported by electronic means, to the circumstances as reported by packers defined in § 206.1, that the packer is maximum extent practicable. Electronic that could result in expansion in the currently making available. submission may be by any form of numbers of swine to be delivered under (3) Estimates of committed swine. electronic transmission that has been the terms of expansion clauses in the Each packer must provide an estimate of determined to be acceptable to the the total number of swine committed Administrator. To obtain current contracts at any time during the under existing contracts for delivery to options for acceptable methods to following 12 calendar months. each plant for slaughter within each of submit information electronically, (v) The sum of packers’ reported the following 12 calendar months contact GIPSA through the Internet on estimates of the maximum total number beginning with the 1st of the month the GIPSA Web site (http:// of swine that potentially could be immediately following the due date of www.usda.gov/gipsa/) or at USDA delivered during each of the next 6 and the report. The estimate of total swine GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut Street, 12 months if all expansion clauses in committed will be reported by contract Des Moines, IA 50309. current contracts are executed. The type as defined in § 206.1. (2) Printed report. Each packer may report will indicate the sum of (4) Expansion clauses. Any conditions deliver its printed monthly report to estimated maximum potential deliveries or circumstances specified by clauses in USDA GIPSA, Suite 317, 210 Walnut by geographic reporting region and by any existing contracts that could result Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. contract type. in an increase in the estimates specified (g) What information from monthly in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Each reports will be made available to the (Approved by the Office of Management and packer will identify the expansion public and when and how will the Budget under control number 0580–0021)

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 47829

Dated: August 5, 2003. Donna Reifschneider, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. 03–20374 Filed 8–8–03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:30 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11AUR3.SGM 11AUR3 Monday, August 11, 2003

Part V

The President Notice of August 7, 2003—Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control Regulations

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:35 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11AUO2.SGM 11AUO2 VerDate jul<14>2003 20:35 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11AUO2.SGM 11AUO2 47833

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 68, No. 154

Monday, August 11, 2003

Title 3— Notice of August 7, 2003

The President Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control Regula- tions

On August 17, 2001, consistent with the authority provided me under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 170l et seq.), I issued Executive Order 13222. In that order, I declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.). Because the Export Administration Act has not been renewed by the Congress, the national emergency declared on August 17, 2001, and renewed on August 14, 2002, must continue in effect beyond August 17, 2003. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emer- gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13222. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. W THE WHITE HOUSE, August 7, 2003. [FR Doc. 03–20569 Filed 8–8–03; 8:58 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 20:35 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\11AUO2.SGM 11AUO2 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 154 Monday, August 11, 2003

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 110...... 47386 Presidential Documents 3 CFR 9001...... 47386 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Executive Orders: 9003...... 47386 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 12722 (See: Notice of 9004...... 47386 July 31, 2003) ...... 45739 Other Services 9008...... 47386 12724 (See: Notice of 9031...... 47386 741–6020 Electronic and on-line services (voice) July 31, 2003) ...... 45739 9032...... 47386 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 13290 (See: Notice of 9033...... 47386 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 July 31, 2003) ...... 45739 9034...... 47386 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 13313...... 46073 9035...... 47386 13222 (See: Notice of 9036...... 47386 August 7, 2003) ...... 47833 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 9038...... 47386 Administrative Orders: World Wide Web Notices: 12 CFR Notice of July 31, 701...... 46439 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 2003) ...... 45739 is located at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara Proposed Rules: Notice of August 7, 3...... 45900 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 2003 ...... 47833 7...... 46119 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: Presidential 34...... 46119 http://www.archives.gov/federallregister/ Determinations: 208...... 45900 No. 2003–28 ...... 47441 E-mail 225...... 45900 No. 2003–29 ...... 47443 325...... 45900 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 567...... 45900 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 7 CFR 614...... 47502 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 51...... 46433 615...... 47502 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 250...... 46434 PDF links to the full text of each document. 340...... 46434 14 CFR To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 993...... 46436 996...... 46919 25 ...... 46428, 47202, 47445 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 39 ...... 46441, 46443, 46444, (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 1778...... 46077 1794...... 45157 47202, 47204, 47207, 47208, PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 47211, 47213, 47216, 47218, Proposed Rules: 47447 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 52...... 46504 71 ...... 47447, 47448, 47449, To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 331...... 45787 47637 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 783...... 47499 119...... 47798 the instructions. 983...... 45990 1124...... 46505 Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 21...... 46283 respond to specific inquiries. 1131...... 46505 1778...... 46119 39 ...... 45176, 45177, 46514, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 4279...... 46509 47267, 47513 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 61...... 46283 65...... 46283 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 8 CFR 71 ...... 47515, 47516, 47518 regulations. 204...... 46925 212...... 46926 77...... 46283 91...... 47269 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, AUGUST 214...... 46926 231...... 46926 107...... 46283 233...... 46926 109...... 46283 45157–45740...... 1 121...... 46283, 47269 45741–46072...... 4 9 CFR 135...... 46283, 47269 46073–46432...... 5 77...... 47201 145...... 46283 46433–46918...... 6 82...... 45741 154...... 46283 46919–47200...... 7 206...... 47802 47201–47440...... 8 15 CFR 47441–47834...... 11 10 CFR 911...... 45160 140...... 46929 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 303...... 45177 30...... 45172 16 CFR 170...... 46439 171...... 46439 305...... 47449 11 CFR 17 CFR 104...... 47386 4...... 47221 107...... 47386 30...... 46446

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:28 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\11AUCU.LOC 11AUCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Reader Aids

240...... 46446 28 CFR 268...... 47527 69...... 46500 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules Proposed Rules: 80...... 46957 1...... 46516 16...... 47519 111...... 45192 73 ...... 45786, 46286, 46502, 522...... 46138 47255, 47256 18 CFR 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 1304...... 46930 29 CFR 52 ...... 45897, 46089, 46099, 73 ...... 46359, 47282, 47283, Proposed Rules: 697...... 46949 46101, 46479, 46484, 46487, 47284, 47285 47466, 47468, 47473, 47477, 2...... 46452 Proposed Rules 48 CFR 284...... 48133 Ch. X...... 46983 47482 388...... 46456 60...... 46489 1806...... 45168 30 CFR 63...... 46102 1807...... 45168 19 CFR 926...... 46460 70...... 46489 1811...... 45168 71...... 45167 1814...... 45168 103...... 47453 31 CFR 180...... 46491, 47246 1815...... 45168 111...... 47455 591...... 45777 261...... 46951 1817...... 45168 20 CFR 592...... 45777 Proposed Rules: 1819...... 45168 Ch. 1 ...... 46435 1825...... 45168 218...... 45315 32 CFR 19...... 45788 1827...... 45168 225...... 45315 21...... 47150 27...... 45788 1844...... 45168 Proposed Rules: 22...... 47150 51...... 46436 1852...... 45168 404...... 45180 32...... 47150 52 ...... 46141, 46437, 47279, 1872...... 45168 416...... 45180 34...... 47150 47530, 45731, 47532, 47533 37...... 47150 63...... 46142 49 CFR 21 CFR Proposed Rules 70...... 46438 191...... 46109 172...... 46364, 46403 199...... 46526 141...... 47640 192...... 46109 558...... 47237 142...... 47640 195...... 46109 Proposed Rules: 33 CFR 271...... 45192 571...... 47485 310...... 48133 100...... 46087, 47237 Proposed Rules: 334...... 48133 117...... 45784, 47462 41 CFR 71...... 47533 510...... 47272 165 ...... 45164, 45165, 47237, Proposed Rules: 571...... 46539, 46546 558...... 47272 47239, 47241, 47243, 47245, 51-3...... 45195 585...... 46546 47464, 47465 51-4...... 45195 586...... 46546 22 CFR Proposed Rules: 589...... 46546 42 CFR 41...... 46948, 47460 110...... 45190 590...... 46546 117 ...... 46139, 47520, 47522 409...... 46036 596...... 46546 24 CFR 165...... 46984, 47277 411...... 46036 412 ...... 45346, 45674, 47637 50 CFR 905...... 45730 36 CFR 413...... 45346, 46036 17...... 46684, 46870 Proposed Rules: 4...... 46477 440...... 46036 300...... 47256 960...... 45734 Proposed Rules: 483...... 46036 622...... 47498 488...... 46036 25 CFR 7...... 47524 635...... 45169 489...... 46036 660...... 46112 Proposed Rules: 39 CFR 648...... 47264 Ch. 1 ...... 45787 224...... 47527 46 CFR 679 ...... 45170, 45766, 46116, 261...... 47527 188...... 45785 46117, 46502, 47265, 47266 26 CFR 262...... 47527 189...... 45785 Proposed Rules: 1 ...... 45745, 45772, 46081 263...... 47527 15...... 46559 301...... 46081 264...... 47527 47 CFR 17...... 46143, 46989 602...... 46081 265...... 47527 2...... 46957 20...... 47424 Proposed Rules: 266...... 47527 13...... 46957 600...... 45196 1...... 46516, 46983 267...... 47527 54...... 47253 635...... 45196

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:28 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\11AUCU.LOC 11AUCU Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Reader Aids iii

REMINDERS Colorado; comments due by promulgation; various promulgation; various The items in this list were 8-20-03; published 7-21- States; air quality planning States: editorially compiled as an aid 03 [FR 03-18447] purposes; designation of New York; comments due to Federal Register users. Soybean promotion and areas: by 8-20-03; published 7- Inclusion or exclusion from research order: Colorado; comments due by 21-03 [FR 03-18301] this list has no legal United Soybean Board; 8-21-03; published 7-22- ENVIRONMENTAL significance. membership adjustment; 03 [FR 03-18303] PROTECTION AGENCY comments due by 8-18- ENVIRONMENTAL Air quality implementation RULES GOING INTO 03; published 6-17-03 [FR PROTECTION AGENCY plans; approval and EFFECT AUGUST 11, 03-15270] Air quality implementation promulgation; various 2003 COMMERCE DEPARTMENT plans; approval and States: National Oceanic and promulgation; various Texas; comments due by 8- ENVIRONMENTAL Atmospheric Administration States; air quality planning 20-03; published 7-1-03 purposes; designation of PROTECTION AGENCY Fishery conservation and [FR 03-16582] areas: Air programs; approval and management: Hazardous waste program promulgation; State plans Pennsylvania; comments authorizations: Alaska; fisheries of due by 8-18-03; published for designated facilities and Georgia; comments due by Exclusive Economic 7-18-03 [FR 03-18294] pollutants: Zone— 8-18-03; published 7-18- Indiana; published 6-12-03 Air quality implementation Salmon; comments due 03 [FR 03-18296] Air quality implementation plans; approval and by 8-22-03; published plans; approval and promulgation; various ENVIRONMENTAL 7-23-03 [FR 03-18734] promulgation; various States: PROTECTION AGENCY States: Atlantic coastal fisheries California; comments due by Hazardous waste program Kansas; published 6-10-03 cooperative 8-22-03; published 7-23- authorizations: Kentucky; published 7-10-03 management— 03 [FR 03-18739] Georgia; comments due by Atlantic striped bass; HOMELAND SECURITY ENVIRONMENTAL 8-18-03; published 7-18- comments due by 8-20- DEPARTMENT PROTECTION AGENCY 03 [FR 03-18297] Customs and Border 03; published 7-21-03 ENVIRONMENTAL [FR 03-18491] Air quality implementation Protection Bureau plans; approval and PROTECTION AGENCY Northeastern United States Confidential commercial promulgation; various Human testing; standards and fisheries— information; published 8-11- States: criteria; comments due by 03 Atlantic mackerel, squid, Florida; comments due by 8-20-03; published 8-6-03 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT and butterfish; 8-21-03; published 7-22- [FR 03-20154] Drug Enforcement comments due by 8-18- 03 [FR 03-18500] ENVIRONMENTAL Administration 03; published 7-18-03 PROTECTION AGENCY Controlled substances; [FR 03-18343] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pesticides; tolerances in food, manufacturers, distributors, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and dispensers; registration: Air quality implementation animal feeds, and raw Courts-Martial Manual; review; Reverse distributors; plans; approval and agricultural commodities: comments due by 8-19-03; promulgation; various Azoxystrobin; comments due definition and registration; published 6-20-03 [FR 03- published 7-11-03 States: by 8-18-03; published 6- 15574] NUCLEAR REGULATORY Florida; comments due by 18-03 [FR 03-15261] COMMISSION ENERGY DEPARTMENT 8-21-03; published 7-22- Bacillus pumilus (strain Nuclear equipment and Federal Energy Regulatory 03 [FR 03-18501] QST2808); comments due material; export and import: Commission Georgia; comments due by by 8-18-03; published 6- Major nuclear reactor Natural Gas Policy Act: 8-18-03; published 7-18- 18-03 [FR 03-15129] components; general Blanket sales certificates; 03 [FR 03-18153] Glyphosate; comments due import license; published comments due by 8-18- ENVIRONMENTAL by 8-18-03; published 6- 5-28-03 03; published 8-5-03 [FR PROTECTION AGENCY 18-03 [FR 03-15128] STATE DEPARTMENT 03-19879] Air quality implementation FEDERAL Visas; nonimmigrant ENVIRONMENTAL plans; approval and COMMUNICATIONS documentation: PROTECTION AGENCY promulgation; various COMMISSION Classification table; two new Air pollution control; new States: Common carrier services: symbols added; published motor vehicles and engines: Indiana; comments due by 8-11-03 Federal-State Joint Board Nonroad diesel engines and 8-20-03; published 7-21- on Universal Service— TRANSPORTATION 03 [FR 03-18298] DEPARTMENT fuel; emissions standards; Lifeline and Link-Up comments due by 8-20- ENVIRONMENTAL Federal Aviation programs; comments 03; published 5-23-03 [FR PROTECTION AGENCY Administration due by 8-18-03; 03-09737] Airworthiness directives: Air quality implementation published 7-17-03 [FR Iniziative Industriali Italiane Air quality implementation plans; approval and 03-18056] S.p.A.; published 6-24-03 plans; approval and promulgation; various Telecommunications Act of States: Short Brothers and Harland promulgation; various 1996; implementation— Ltd.; published 6-30-03 States; air quality planning Indiana; comments due by Numbering resource purposes; designation of 8-20-03; published 7-21- optimization; telephone areas: COMMENTS DUE NEXT 03 [FR 03-18299] number portability; WEEK Colorado; comments due by New York; comments due comments due by 8-20- 8-21-03; published 7-22- by 8-20-03; published 7- 03; published 7-21-03 03 [FR 03-18302] AGRICULTURE 21-03 [FR 03-18300] [FR 03-18364] DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL Radio stations; table of Agricultural Marketing PROTECTION AGENCY PROTECTION AGENCY assignments: Service Air quality implementation Air quality implementation California and Texas; Potatoes (Irish) grown in— plans; approval and plans; approval and comments due by 8-22-

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:28 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\11AUCU.LOC 11AUCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Reader Aids

03; published 7-18-03 [FR NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND Saab; comments due by 8- with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws 03-18228] RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 20-03; published 7-21-03 Update Service) on 202–741– Michigan; comments due by NARA facilities: [FR 03-18419] 6043. This list is also 8-22-03; published 7-18- Exhibition Hall; hours of Airworthiness standards: available online at http:// 03 [FR 03-18249] operation; comments due Special conditions— www.nara.gov/fedreg/ plawcurr.html. Various States; comments by 8-18-03; published 6- AMSAFE, Inc., Zenair due by 8-22-03; published 17-03 [FR 03-15190] model CH2000 airplane; The text of laws is not 7-18-03 [FR 03-18227] NUCLEAR REGULATORY comments due by 8-18- published in the Federal HOMELAND SECURITY COMMISSION 03; published 7-17-03 Register but may be ordered DEPARTMENT Spent nuclear fuel and high- [FR 03-18071] in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Customs and Border level radioactive waste; TRANSPORTATION pamphlet) form from the Protection Bureau independent storage; DEPARTMENT Superintendent of Documents, Electronic cargo information; licensing requirements: Federal Aviation U.S. Government Printing advance presentation Approved spent fuel storage Administration Office, Washington, DC 20402 requirement; comments due casks; list; comments due Airworthiness standards: (phone, 202–512–1808). The by 8-18-03; published 7- text will also be made by 8-22-03; published 7-23- Special conditions— 03 [FR 03-18558] 18-03 [FR 03-18260] available on the Internet from Boeing Model 747SP GPO Access at http:// INTERIOR DEPARTMENT NUCLEAR REGULATORY airplane; comments due COMMISSION www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ Fish and Wildlife Service by 8-21-03; published nara005.html. Some laws may Spent nuclear fuel and high- Endangered and threatened 7-22-03 [FR 03-18625] not yet be available. species: level radioactive waste; independent storage; TRANSPORTATION Findings on petitions, etc.— H.R. 74/P.L. 108–67 licensing requirements: DEPARTMENT Johnston’s frankenia; Approved spent fuel storage Federal Aviation To direct the Secretary of delisting; comments due casks; list; comments due Administration Agriculture to convey certain by 8-20-03; published by 8-18-03; published 7- Class D airspace; comments land in the Lake Tahoe Basin 5-22-03 [FR 03-12748] 18-03 [FR 03-18262] due by 8-21-03; published Management Unit, Nevada, to Slickspot peppergrass; 7-22-03 [FR 03-18515] the Secretary of the Interior, TRANSPORTATION comments due by 8-18- in trust for the Washoe Indian DEPARTMENT Class D and Class E4 03; published 7-18-03 [FR airspace; comments due by Tribe of Nevada and 03-18402] Federal Aviation California. (Aug. 1, 2003; 117 Administration 8-18-03; published 7-17-03 Migratory bird hunting: [FR 03-18074] Stat. 880) Airworthiness directives: Federal Indian reservations, TRANSPORTATION S. 1280/P.L. 108–68 Boeing; comments due by off-reservation trust lands, DEPARTMENT 8-18-03; published 7-2-03 To amend the PROTECT Act and ceded lands; Federal Aviation to clarify certain volunteer comments due by 8-18- [FR 03-16694] GROB-WERKE; comments Administration liability. (Aug. 1, 2003; 117 03; published 8-8-03 [FR Stat. 883) 03-20290] due by 8-18-03; published Class E airspace; comments 7-15-03 [FR 03-17818] due by 8-20-03; published Last List August 1, 2003 INTERIOR DEPARTMENT McDonnell Douglas; 7-9-03 [FR 03-17253] Surface Mining Reclamation comments due by 8-18- TREASURY DEPARTMENT and Enforcement Office 03; published 7-24-03 [FR Internal Revenue Service Public Laws Electronic Permanent program and 03-18791] abandoned mine land Income taxes: Notification Service Pratt & Whitney; comments reclamation plan Private activity bonds; due by 8-18-03; published (PENS) submissions: definition; comments due 6-17-03 [FR 03-15224] Ohio; comments due by 8- by 8-19-03; published 5- TRANSPORTATION 20-03; published 7-21-03 14-03 [FR 03-11926] PENS is a free electronic mail DEPARTMENT [FR 03-18468] Qualified retirement plans; notification service of newly Federal Aviation deemed IRAs; comments NATIONAL AERONAUTICS enacted public laws. To Administration due by 8-18-03; published AND SPACE subscribe, go to http:// 5-20-03 [FR 03-12675] ADMINISTRATION Airworthiness directives: listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ publaws-l.html Organization, functions, and Rolls-Royce plc; comments authority delegations: due by 8-21-03; published 8-6-03 [FR 03-19475] LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Note: This service is strictly Temporary duty travel; for E-mail notification of new issuance of motor vehicle TRANSPORTATION This is a continuing list of laws. The text of laws is not for home-to-work DEPARTMENT public bills from the current available through this service. transportation; comments Federal Aviation session of Congress which PENS cannot respond to due by 8-22-03; published Administration have become Federal laws. It specific inquiries sent to this 6-23-03 [FR 03-15693] Airworthiness directives: may be used in conjunction address.

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:28 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\11AUCU.LOC 11AUCU Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Reader Aids v

CFR CHECKLIST Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 14 Parts: 1–59 ...... (869–050–00038–5) ...... 60.00 Jan. 1, 2003 This checklist, prepared by the Office of the Federal Register, is 60–139 ...... (869–050–00039–3) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 published weekly. It is arranged in the order of CFR titles, stock 140–199 ...... (869–050–00040–7) ...... 28.00 Jan. 1, 2003 numbers, prices, and revision dates. 200–1199 ...... (869–050–00041–5) ...... 47.00 Jan. 1, 2003 An asterisk (*) precedes each entry that has been issued since last 1200–End ...... (869–050–00042–3) ...... 43.00 Jan. 1, 2003 week and which is now available for sale at the Government Printing 15 Parts: Office. 0–299 ...... (869–050–00043–1) ...... 37.00 Jan. 1, 2003 A checklist of current CFR volumes comprising a complete CFR set, 300–799 ...... (869–050–00044–0) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2003 also appears in the latest issue of the LSA (List of CFR Sections 800–End ...... (869–050–00045–8) ...... 40.00 Jan. 1, 2003 Affected), which is revised monthly. 16 Parts: The CFR is available free on-line through the Government Printing 0–999 ...... (869–050–00046–6) ...... 47.00 Jan. 1, 2003 Office’s GPO Access Service at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ 1000–End ...... (869–050–00047–4) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2003 index.html. For information about GPO Access call the GPO User Support Team at 1-888-293-6498 (toll free) or 202-512-1530. 17 Parts: The annual rate for subscription to all revised paper volumes is 1–199 ...... (869–050–00049–1) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 $1195.00 domestic, $298.75 additional for foreign mailing. 200–239 ...... (869–050–00050–4) ...... 58.00 Apr. 1, 2003 240–End ...... (869–050–00051–2) ...... 62.00 Apr. 1, 2003 Mail orders to the Superintendent of Documents, Attn: New Orders, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. All orders must be 18 Parts: accompanied by remittance (check, money order, GPO Deposit 1–399 ...... (869–050–00052–1) ...... 62.00 Apr. 1, 2003 Account, VISA, Master Card, or Discover). Charge orders may be 400–End ...... (869–050–00053–9) ...... 25.00 Apr. 1, 2003 telephoned to the GPO Order Desk, Monday through Friday, at (202) 19 Parts: 512–1800 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern time, or FAX your 1–140 ...... (869–050–00054–7) ...... 60.00 Apr. 1, 2003 charge orders to (202) 512-2250. 141–199 ...... (869–050–00055–5) ...... 58.00 Apr. 1, 2003 Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 200–End ...... (869–050–00056–3) ...... 30.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1, 2 (2 Reserved) ...... (869–050–00001–6) ...... 9.00 4Jan. 1, 2003 20 Parts: 1–399 ...... (869–050–00057–1) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 3 (1997 Compilation 400–499 ...... (869–050–00058–0) ...... 63.00 Apr. 1, 2003 and Parts 100 and 500–End ...... (869–050–00059–8) ...... 63.00 Apr. 1, 2003 101) ...... (869–050–00002–4) ...... 32.00 1 Jan. 1, 2003 21 Parts: 4 ...... (869–050–00003–2) ...... 9.50 Jan. 1, 2003 1–99 ...... (869–050–00060–1) ...... 40.00 Apr. 1, 2003 5 Parts: 100–169 ...... (869–050–00061–0) ...... 47.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1–699 ...... (869–050–00004–1) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2003 170–199 ...... (869–050–00062–8) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 700–1199 ...... (869–050–00005–9) ...... 46.00 Jan. 1, 2003 200–299 ...... (869–050–00063–6) ...... 17.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1200–End, 6 (6 300–499 ...... (869–050–00064–4) ...... 29.00 Apr. 1, 2003 Reserved) ...... (869–050–00006–7) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 500–599 ...... (869–050–00065–2) ...... 47.00 Apr. 1, 2003 7 Parts: 600–799 ...... (869–050–00066–1) ...... 15.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1–26 ...... (869–050–00007–5) ...... 40.00 Jan. 1, 2003 800–1299 ...... (869–050–00067–9) ...... 58.00 Apr. 1, 2003 27–52 ...... (869–050–00008–3) ...... 47.00 Jan. 1, 2003 1300–End ...... (869–050–00068–7) ...... 22.00 Apr. 1, 2003 53–209 ...... (869–050–00009–1) ...... 36.00 Jan. 1, 2003 22 Parts: 210–299 ...... (869–050–00010–5) ...... 59.00 Jan. 1, 2003 1–299 ...... (869–050–00069–5) ...... 62.00 Apr. 1, 2003 300–399 ...... (869–050–00011–3) ...... 43.00 Jan. 1, 2003 300–End ...... (869–050–00070–9) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 2003 400–699 ...... (869–050–00012–1) ...... 39.00 Jan. 1, 2003 700–899 ...... (869–050–00013–0) ...... 42.00 Jan. 1, 2003 23 ...... (869–050–00071–7) ...... 44.00 Apr. 1, 2003 900–999 ...... (869–050–00014–8) ...... 57.00 Jan. 1, 2003 24 Parts: 1000–1199 ...... (869–050–00015–6) ...... 23.00 Jan. 1, 2003 0–199 ...... (869–050–00072–5) ...... 58.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1200–1599 ...... (869–050–00016–4) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 200–499 ...... (869–050–00073–3) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1600–1899 ...... (869–050–00017–2) ...... 61.00 Jan. 1, 2003 500–699 ...... (869–050–00074–1) ...... 30.00 Apr. 1, 2003 4 1900–1939 ...... (869–050–00018–1) ...... 29.00 Jan. 1, 2003 700–1699 ...... (869–050–00075–0) ...... 61.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1940–1949 ...... (869–050–00019–9) ...... 47.00 Jan. 1, 2003 1700–End ...... (869–050–00076–8) ...... 30.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1950–1999 ...... (869–050–00020–2) ...... 45.00 Jan. 1, 2003 2000–End ...... (869–050–00021–1) ...... 46.00 Jan. 1, 2003 25 ...... (869–050–00077–6) ...... 63.00 Apr. 1, 2003 8 ...... (869–050–00022–9) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 26 Parts: §§ 1.0-1–1.60 ...... (869–050–00078–4) ...... 49.00 Apr. 1, 2003 9 Parts: §§ 1.61–1.169 ...... (869–050–00079–2) ...... 63.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1–199 ...... (869–050–00023–7) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.170–1.300 ...... (869–050–00080–6) ...... 57.00 Apr. 1, 2003 200–End ...... (869–050–00024–5) ...... 56.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.301–1.400 ...... (869–050–00081–4) ...... 46.00 Apr. 1, 2003 10 Parts: §§ 1.401–1.440 ...... (869–050–00082–2) ...... 61.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1–50 ...... (869–050–00025–3) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.441-1.500 ...... (869-050-00083-1) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 51–199 ...... (869–050–00026–1) ...... 56.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.501–1.640 ...... (869–050–00084–9) ...... 49.00 Apr. 1, 2003 200–499 ...... (869–050–00027–0) ...... 44.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.641–1.850 ...... (869–050–00085–7) ...... 60.00 Apr. 1, 2003 500–End ...... (869–050–00028–8) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.851–1.907 ...... (869–050–00086–5) ...... 60.00 Apr. 1, 2003 11 ...... (869–050–00029–6) ...... 38.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.908–1.1000 ...... (869–050–00087–3) ...... 60.00 Apr. 1, 2003 §§ 1.1001–1.1400 ...... (869–050–00088–1) ...... 61.00 Apr. 1, 2003 12 Parts: §§ 1.1401–1.1503-2A ..... (869–050–00089–0) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 1–199 ...... (869–050–00030–0) ...... 30.00 Jan. 1, 2003 §§ 1.1551–End ...... (869–050–00090–3) ...... 50.00 Apr. 1, 2003 200–219 ...... (869–050–00031–8) ...... 38.00 Jan. 1, 2003 2–29 ...... (869–050–00091–1) ...... 60.00 Apr. 1, 2003 220–299 ...... (869–050–00032–6) ...... 58.00 Jan. 1, 2003 30–39 ...... (869–050–00092–0) ...... 41.00 Apr. 1, 2003 300–499 ...... (869–050–00033–4) ...... 43.00 Jan. 1, 2003 40–49 ...... (869–050–00093–8) ...... 26.00 Apr. 1, 2003 500–599 ...... (869–050–00034–2) ...... 38.00 Jan. 1, 2003 50–299 ...... (869–050–00094–6) ...... 41.00 Apr. 1, 2003 600–899 ...... (869–050–00035–1) ...... 54.00 Jan. 1, 2003 300–499 ...... (869–050–00095–4) ...... 61.00 Apr. 1, 2003 ...... 900–End (869–050–00036–9) 47.00 Jan. 1, 2003 500–599 ...... (869–050–00096–2) ...... 12.00 5Apr. 1, 2003 13 ...... (869–050–00037–7) ...... 47.00 Jan. 1, 2003 600–End ...... (869–050–00097–1) ...... 17.00 Apr. 1, 2003

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\11AUCL.LOC 11AUCL vi Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Reader Aids

Title Stock Number Price Revision Date Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 27 Parts: 86 (86.600–1–End) ...... (869–048–00149–2) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 1–199 ...... (869–050–00098–9) ...... 63.00 Apr. 1, 2003 87–99 ...... (869–048–00150–6) ...... 57.00 July 1, 2002 200–End ...... (869–050–00099–7) ...... 25.00 Apr. 1, 2003 100–135 ...... (869–048–00151–4) ...... 42.00 July 1, 2002 ...... 28 Parts: ...... 136–149 (869–048–00152–2) 58.00 July 1, 2002 150–189 ...... 0-42 ...... (869–048–00098–4) ...... 58.00 July 1, 2002 (869–048–00153–1) 47.00 July 1, 2002 190–259 ...... 43-end ...... (869-048-00099-2) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2002 (869–048–00154–9) 37.00 July 1, 2002 260–265 ...... (869–048–00155–7) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 29 Parts: 266–299 ...... (869–048–00156–5) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 0–99 ...... (869–048–00100–0) ...... 45.00 8July 1, 2002 300–399 ...... (869–048–00157–3) ...... 43.00 July 1, 2002 100–499 ...... (869–048–00101–8) ...... 21.00 July 1, 2002 400–424 ...... (869–048–00158–1) ...... 54.00 July 1, 2002 500–899 ...... (869–048–00102–6) ...... 58.00 July 1, 2002 425–699 ...... (869–048–00159–0) ...... 59.00 July 1, 2002 900–1899 ...... (869–048–00103–4) ...... 35.00 July 1, 2002 700–789 ...... (869–048–00160–3) ...... 58.00 July 1, 2002 1900–1910 (§§ 1900 to 790–End ...... (869–048–00161–1) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2002 1910.999) ...... (869–048–00104–2) ...... 58.00 July 1, 2002 41 Chapters: 1910 (§§ 1910.1000 to 3 8 1, 1–1 to 1–10 ...... 13.00 July 1, 1984 end) ...... (869–048–00105–1) ...... 42.00 July 1, 2002 1, 1–11 to Appendix, 2 (2 Reserved) ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 1911–1925 ...... (869–048–00106–9) ...... 29.00 July 1, 2002 3–6 ...... 14.00 3 July 1, 1984 1926 ...... (869–048–00107–7) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 7 ...... 6.00 3 July 1, 1984 1927–End ...... (869–048–00108–5) ...... 59.00 July 1, 2002 8 ...... 4.50 3 July 1, 1984 30 Parts: 9 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 1–199 ...... (869–048–00109–3) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2002 10–17 ...... 9.50 3 July 1, 1984 200–699 ...... (869–048–00110–7) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 18, Vol. I, Parts 1–5 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 700–End ...... (869–048–00111–5) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2002 18, Vol. II, Parts 6–19 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 18, Vol. III, Parts 20–52 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 31 Parts: 19–100 ...... 13.00 3 July 1, 1984 0–199 ...... (869–048–00112–3) ...... 35.00 July 1, 2002 1–100 ...... (869–048–00162–0) ...... 23.00 July 1, 2002 200–End ...... (869–048–00113–1) ...... 60.00 July 1, 2002 101 ...... (869–048–00163–8) ...... 43.00 July 1, 2002 32 Parts: 102–200 ...... (869–048–00164–6) ...... 41.00 July 1, 2002 1–39, Vol. I ...... 15.00 2 July 1, 1984 201–End ...... (869–048–00165–4) ...... 24.00 July 1, 2002 1–39, Vol. II ...... 19.00 2 July 1, 1984 42 Parts: 1–39, Vol. III ...... 18.00 2 July 1, 1984 1–399 ...... (869–048–00166–2) ...... 56.00 Oct. 1, 2002 1–190 ...... (869–048–00114–0) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2002 400–429 ...... (869–048–00167–1) ...... 59.00 Oct. 1, 2002 191–399 ...... (869–048–00115–8) ...... 60.00 July 1, 2002 430–End ...... (869–048–00168–9) ...... 61.00 Oct. 1, 2002 400–629 ...... (869–048–00116–6) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 630–699 ...... (869–048–00117–4) ...... 37.00 July 1, 2002 43 Parts: 700–799 ...... (869–048–00118–2) ...... 44.00 July 1, 2002 1–999 ...... (869–048–00169–7) ...... 47.00 Oct. 1, 2002 800–End ...... (869–048–00119–1) ...... 46.00 July 1, 2002 1000–end ...... (869–048–00170–1) ...... 59.00 Oct. 1, 2002 33 Parts: 44 ...... (869–048–00171–9) ...... 47.00 Oct. 1, 2002 1–124 ...... (869–048–00120–4) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 45 Parts: 125–199 ...... (869–048–00121–2) ...... 60.00 July 1, 2002 1–199 ...... (869–048–00172–7) ...... 57.00 Oct. 1, 2002 200–End ...... (869–048–00122–1) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 200–499 ...... (869–048–00173–5) ...... 31.00 9Oct. 1, 2002 34 Parts: 500–1199 ...... (869–048–00174–3) ...... 47.00 Oct. 1, 2002 1–299 ...... (869–048–00123–9) ...... 45.00 July 1, 2002 1200–End ...... (869–048–00175–1) ...... 57.00 Oct. 1, 2002 300–399 ...... (869–048–00124–7) ...... 43.00 July 1, 2002 46 Parts: 400–End ...... (869–048–00125–5) ...... 59.00 July 1, 2002 1–40 ...... (869–048–00176–0) ...... 44.00 Oct. 1, 2002 35 ...... (869–048–00126–3) ...... 10.00 7July 1, 2002 41–69 ...... (869–048–00177–8) ...... 37.00 Oct. 1, 2002 70–89 ...... (869–048–00178–6) ...... 14.00 Oct. 1, 2002 36 Parts 90–139 ...... (869–048–00179–4) ...... 42.00 Oct. 1, 2002 ...... 1–199 (869–048–00127–1) 36.00 July 1, 2002 140–155 ...... (869–048–00180–8) ...... 24.00 9Oct. 1, 2002 ...... 200–299 (869–048–00128–0) 35.00 July 1, 2002 156–165 ...... (869–048–00181–6) ...... 31.00 9Oct. 1, 2002 ...... 300–End (869–048–00129–8) 58.00 July 1, 2002 166–199 ...... (869–048–00182–4) ...... 44.00 Oct. 1, 2002 37 ...... (869–048–00130–1) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 200–499 ...... (869–048–00183–2) ...... 37.00 Oct. 1, 2002 ...... 38 Parts: 500–End (869–048–00184–1) 24.00 Oct. 1, 2002 0–17 ...... (869–048–00131–0) ...... 57.00 July 1, 2002 47 Parts: 18–End ...... (869–048–00132–8) ...... 58.00 July 1, 2002 0–19 ...... (869–048–00185–9) ...... 57.00 Oct. 1, 2002 20–39 ...... (869–048–00186–7) ...... 45.00 Oct. 1, 2002 39 ...... (869–048–00133–6) ...... 40.00 July 1, 2002 40–69 ...... (869–048–00187–5) ...... 36.00 Oct. 1, 2002 40 Parts: 70–79 ...... (869–048–00188–3) ...... 58.00 Oct. 1, 2002 1–49 ...... (869–048–00134–4) ...... 57.00 July 1, 2002 80–End ...... (869–048–00189–1) ...... 57.00 Oct. 1, 2002 50–51 ...... (869–048–00135–2) ...... 40.00 July 1, 2002 48 Chapters: 52 (52.01–52.1018) ...... (869–048–00136–1) ...... 55.00 July 1, 2002 1 (Parts 1–51) ...... (869–048–00190–5) ...... 59.00 Oct. 1, 2002 52 (52.1019–End) ...... (869–048–00137–9) ...... 58.00 July 1, 2002 1 (Parts 52–99) ...... (869–048–00191–3) ...... 47.00 Oct. 1, 2002 53–59 ...... (869–048–00138–7) ...... 29.00 July 1, 2002 2 (Parts 201–299) ...... (869–048–00192–1) ...... 53.00 Oct. 1, 2002 60 (60.1–End) ...... (869–048–00139–5) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2002 3–6 ...... (869–048–00193–0) ...... 30.00 Oct. 1, 2002 60 (Apps) ...... (869–048–00140–9) ...... 51.00 8July 1, 2002 7–14 ...... (869–048–00194–8) ...... 47.00 Oct. 1, 2002 61–62 ...... (869–048–00141–7) ...... 38.00 July 1, 2002 15–28 ...... (869–048–00195–6) ...... 55.00 Oct. 1, 2002 63 (63.1–63.599) ...... (869–048–00142–5) ...... 56.00 July 1, 2002 29–End ...... (869–048–00196–4) ...... 38.00 9Oct. 1, 2002 63 (63.600–63.1199) ...... (869–048–00143–3) ...... 46.00 July 1, 2002 63 (63.1200-End) ...... (869–048–00144–1) ...... 61.00 July 1, 2002 49 Parts: 64–71 ...... (869–048–00145–0) ...... 29.00 July 1, 2002 1–99 ...... (869–048–00197–2) ...... 56.00 Oct. 1, 2002 72–80 ...... (869–048–00146–8) ...... 59.00 July 1, 2002 100–185 ...... (869–048–00198–1) ...... 60.00 Oct. 1, 2002 81–85 ...... (869–048–00147–6) ...... 47.00 July 1, 2002 186–199 ...... (869–048–00199–9) ...... 18.00 Oct. 1, 2002 86 (86.1–86.599–99) ...... (869–048–00148–4) ...... 52.00 8July 1, 2002 200–399 ...... (869–048–00200–6) ...... 61.00 Oct. 1, 2002

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\11AUCL.LOC 11AUCL Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2003 / Reader Aids vii

Title Stock Number Price Revision Date 400–999 ...... (869–048–00201–4) ...... 61.00 Oct. 1, 2002 1000–1199 ...... (869–048–00202–2) ...... 25.00 Oct. 1, 2002 1200–End ...... (869–048–00203–1) ...... 30.00 Oct. 1, 2002 50 Parts: 1–17 ...... (869–048–00204–9) ...... 60.00 Oct. 1, 2002 18–199 ...... (869–048–00205–7) ...... 40.00 Oct. 1, 2002 200–599 ...... (869–048–00206–5) ...... 38.00 Oct. 1, 2002 600–End ...... (869–048–00207–3) ...... 58.00 Oct. 1, 2002 CFR Index and Findings Aids ...... (869–050–00048–2) ...... 59.00 Jan. 1, 2003 Complete 2003 CFR set ...... 1,195.00 2003 Microfiche CFR Edition: Subscription (mailed as issued) ...... 298.00 2003 Individual copies ...... 2.00 2003 Complete set (one-time mailing) ...... 298.00 2002 Complete set (one-time mailing) ...... 290.00 2001 1 Because Title 3 is an annual compilation, this volume and all previous volumes should be retained as a permanent reference source. 2 The July 1, 1985 edition of 32 CFR Parts 1–189 contains a note only for Parts 1–39 inclusive. For the full text of the Defense Acquisition Regulations in Parts 1–39, consult the three CFR volumes issued as of July 1, 1984, containing those parts. 3 The July 1, 1985 edition of 41 CFR Chapters 1–100 contains a note only for Chapters 1 to 49 inclusive. For the full text of procurement regulations in Chapters 1 to 49, consult the eleven CFR volumes issued as of July 1, 1984 containing those chapters. 4 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period January 1, 2002, through January 1, 2003. The CFR volume issued as of January 1, 2002 should be retained. 5 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period April 1, 2000, through April 1, 2001. The CFR volume issued as of April 1, 2000 should be retained. 7 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period July 1, 2000, through July 1, 2001. The CFR volume issued as of July 1, 2000 should be retained. 8 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period July 1, 2001, through July 1, 2002. The CFR volume issued as of July 1, 2001 should be retained. 9 No amendments to this volume were promulgated during the period October 1, 2001, through October 1, 2002. The CFR volume issued as of October 1, 2001 should be retained.

VerDate jul 14 2003 23:29 Aug 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4721 Sfmt 4721 E:\FR\FM\11AUCL.LOC 11AUCL