1–12–00 Wednesday Vol. 65 No. 8 Jan. 12, 2000 Pages 1755–2016

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:29 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\12JAWS.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JAWS

1 II Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000

The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512–1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 523–5243 Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/ fedreg. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Register documents as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format, including full text and all graphics), or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully check retrieved material to ensure that documents were properly downloaded. On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http:/ /www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web access can also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computer and modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then log in as guest with no password. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team by E-mail at [email protected]; by fax at (202) 512–1262; or call (202) 512–1530 or 1–888–293–6498 (toll free) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday, except Federal holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $555, or $607 for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $220. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $8.00 for each issue, or $8.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $1.50 for each issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic postage and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 65 FR 12345.

.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:29 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\12JAWS.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JAWS

2 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8

Wednesday, January 12, 2000

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Education Department NOTICES RULES Meetings: Postsecondary education: Environmental exposures among children with cancer; Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program, 1780– study, 1898–1899 1787

Agricultural Marketing Service Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Board RULES RULES Walnuts grown in— National Environmental Policy Act; implementation: California, 1755–1757 Loan guarantee decisions; information availability; PROPOSED RULES correction, 1758 Sheep and lamb promotion and research, 1825 NOTICES Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: RULES Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, 1846 National Environmental Policy Act; implementation: Loan guarantee decisions; information availability; Agriculture Department correction, 1757–1758 See Agricultural Marketing Service See Forest Service Energy Department See Rural Utilities Service See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Army Department NOTICES NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Environmental statements; notice of intent: Historically black colleges and universities and other Fort Sam Houston, TX; real property master plan, 1854 minority institutions; support of advanced fossil resource utilization research, 1854–1855 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natural gas exportation and importation: NOTICES Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corp. et al., 1856–1857 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Sonat Energy Services Co., 1857 Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Training Centers, 1899–1906 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Meetings: PROPOSED RULES National Institution for Occupational Safety and Health— Energy conservation: Safety and Occupational Health Study Section, 1906 Alternative fuel transportation program— Nutritional Factors and Prevention of Birth Defects; Alternative fueled vehicle acquisition requirements for workshop, 1906 private and local government fleets, 1831

Children and Families Administration Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES RULES Agency information collection activities: Air quality implementation plans; approval and Submission for OMB review; comment request, 1906– promulgation; various States: 1908 Missouri, 1787–1790 Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw Commerce Department agricultural commodities: See International Trade Administration Emamectin benzoate, 1796–1802 See National Institute of Standards and Technology Mepiquat chloride, 1790–1796 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration N,N-diethyl-2-(4-methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine hydrochloride, 1809–1814 Spinosad, 1802–1809 Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports, Interagency Solid wastes: Commission Municipal solid waste landfill permit programs; adequacy NOTICES determinations— Meetings, 1908–1909 Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska, 1814–1817 Water supply: Defense Department National primary drinking water regulations— See Army Department Lead and copper, 1949–2015 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Meetings: Air quality implementation plans; approval and Defense Partnership Council, 1853 promulgation; various States: Science Board task forces, 1853–1854 Missouri, 1841–1842

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\12JACN.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACN IV Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Contents

Solid wastes: New Mexico, 1843 Municipal solid waste landfill permit programs; adequacy Oregon, 1843 determinations— Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska, 1842–1843 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Hydroelectric applications, 1861 Proposed collection; comment request, 1861–1862 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Air programs: Mississippi River Transmission Corp., 1857 State implementation plans; adequacy status for Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 1857–1858 transportation conformity purposes— Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 1858 Texas, 1862–1863 Petal Gas Storage Co., 1858–1859 Integrated risk information system: PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corp., 1859 Health effects of chronic exposure to chemical Portland General Electric Co. et al., 1859 substances; information request, 1863–1865 Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Co., 1859 Meetings: Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc., 1860 Ozone Transport Commission, 1865–1866 Wyoming Interstate Co., Ltd., 1860 Science Advisory Board, 1866–1867 Pesticide programs: Federal Highway Administration Organophosphates; risk assessments and public participation in risk management— NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Mevinphos and phosalone, 1867–1869 Ontonagon County, MI; withdrawn, 1943 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Dow AgroSciences, 1869–1887 Novartis Crop Protection, 1887–1888 Federal Railroad Administration Ortho Group et al., 1889–1891 PROPOSED RULES Toxic and hazardous substances control: Railroad safety enforcement procedures: Test guidelines; availability and comment request, 1891– Light rail transit operations on general railroad system; 1892 safety jurisdiction; joint agency policy statement with Federal Transit Administration, 1844 Farm Credit Administration NOTICES NOTICES Exemption petitions, etc.: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1892 Association of American Railroads, 1943–1945 Chesaning Central & Owosso Railroad, 1945 Federal Aviation Administration Traffic control systems; discontinuance or modification: RULES Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway, 1945–1946 Airworthiness directives: Bombardier, 1765–1767 Federal Reserve System British Aerospace, 1763–1765 NOTICES General Electric Aircraft Engines, 1771–1774 Agency information collection activities: Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 1767–1768 Proposed collection; comment request, 1893–1894 Rolladen Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH, 1769–1771 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 1895–1897 Saab, 1761–1763 Banks and bank holding companies: Airworthiness standards: Change in bank control, 1897–1898 Special conditions— Ayres Corp. Model LM-200 Loadmaster airplane, 1758– Fish and Wildlife Service 1760 PROPOSED RULES Class E airspace, 1774–1775 Endangered and threatened species: PROPOSED RULES Critical habitat designations— Airworthiness directives: Spikedace and loach minnow, 1845 Agusta, 1838–1839 Airbus, 1833–1836 Food and Drug Administration Raytheon, 1836–1838 Rolls-Royce Ltd., 1840–1841 RULES Rolls-Royce plc, 1831–1833 Food additives: NOTICES Secondary direct food additives— Advisory circulars; availability, etc.: Acidified sodium chlorite solutions, 1776 Normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category Human drugs: airplanes; type certification; compliance methods; New drug applications— policy statement, 1941–1943 Drug master files, 1776–1780 NOTICES Federal Communications Commission Food additive petitions: RULES Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., 1908 Radio stations; table of assignments: Colorado, 1824 Forest Service Wyoming, 1823–1824 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES National Forest System lands: Radio stations; table of assignments: Alaska National Forests, AK; outfitting and guiding Idaho and Montana, 1843 activities; flat fee policy, 1846–1847

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\12JACN.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACN Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Contents V

General Services Administration Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Agency information collection activities: Submission for OMB review; comment request, 1898 Proposed collection; comment request, 1913 Safety standard petitions: Geological Survey Monterey Coal Co. et al., 1913–1915 NOTICES Meetings: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Water Information Advisory Committee; correction, 1910 NOTICES Motor vehicle safety standards: Health and Human Services Department Nonconforming vehicles— See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Importation eligibility; determinations, 1946 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: See Children and Families Administration American Transportation Corp., 1946 See Food and Drug Administration See Health Care Financing Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Meetings: Vital and Health Statistics National Committee, 1898 Manufacturing Extension Partnership Board, 1852–1853 Health Care Financing Administration RULES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Medicare: NOTICES Hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and 2000 Permits: FY rates; correction, 1817–1823 Marine mammals, 1853

Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Northeast Dairy Compact Commission Seaports PROPOSED RULES See Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports, Interagency Over-order price regulations: Commission Technical amendments; hearing, 1825–1829

Inter-American Foundation Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1908 Rulemaking proceedings: Christie, Bob, 1829–1830 Interior Department NOTICES See Fish and Wildlife Service Meetings; Sunshine Act, 1918 See Geological Survey Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards See Land Management Bureau considerations; biweekly notices, 1918–1934 See Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Occupational Safety and Health Administration Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: NOTICES Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Advisory Council, State plans; standards approval, etc.: 1909 Nevada, 1915–1917 Meetings: Invasive Species Advisory Committee et al., 1909–1910 Public Health Service See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry International Trade Administration See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES See Food and Drug Administration Antidumping: Cut-to-length carbon steel plate from— Romania, 1847–1849 Reclamation Bureau Sebacic acid from— NOTICES China, 1849–1851 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Tehama and Shasta Counties, CA; Battle Creek salmon Africa Commerce Advisory Committee, 1851–1852 and steelhead restoration project, 1912–1913

Labor Department Rural Utilities Service See Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc., IL, 1847 Land Management Bureau NOTICES Securities and Exchange Commission Meetings: NOTICES Resource Advisory Councils— Agency information collection activities: New Mexico, 1910 Proposed collection; comment request, 1934–1935 Privacy Act: Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Systems of records, 1911–1912 New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 1935

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\12JACN.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACN VI Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Contents

Social Security Administration Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Agency NOTICES See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Social security acquiescence rulings: Albright v. Commissioner of Social Security; effect of prior disability findings on subsequent claim Transportation Department adjudication, etc., 1936–1938 See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration State Department See Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Agency information collection activities: See Surface Transportation Board Submission for OMB review; comment request, 1938– 1939 Treasury Department Art objects; importation for exhibition: NOTICES Art in Rome in the Eighteenth Century, 1939 Meetings: Culture and Continuity: The Jewish Journey, 1939 Debt Management Advisory Committee, 1948 Painting Revolution: Kandinsky, Malevich and the Russian Avant Garde, 1939–1940

Surface Transportation Board Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp., 1946–1947 Part II Railroad services abandonment: Environmental Protection Agency, 1949–2015 Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1947–1948 Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Reader Aids Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Greene County, TN; Nolichucky Dam and Reservoir; phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, flood remediation, 1940–1941 and notice of recently enacted public laws.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\12JACN.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACN Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

7 CFR 984...... 1755 Proposed Rules: 1280...... 1825 1301...... 1825 1304...... 1825 1305...... 1825 1306...... 1825 1307...... 1825 1308...... 1825 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 50...... 1829 490...... 1831 13 CFR 400...... 1757 500...... 1758 14 CFR 23...... 1758 39 (7 documents) ...... 1761, 1762, 1763, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1771 71...... 1774 Proposed Rules: 39 (5 documents) ...... 1831, 1833, 1836, 1838, 1840 21 CFR 173...... 1776 314...... 1776 34 CFR 611...... 1780 40 CFR 9...... 1950 52...... 1787 70...... 1787 141...... 1950 142...... 1950 180 (4 documents) ...... 1790, 1796, 1802, 1809 257...... 1842 258...... 1842 Proposed Rules: 52...... 1841 70...... 1841 257...... 1814 258...... 1814 42 CFR 412...... 1817 413...... 1817 483...... 1817 485...... 1817 47 CFR 73 (2 documents) ...... 1823, 1824 Proposed Rules: 73 (3 documents) ...... 1843, 1843, 1843 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 209...... 1844 50 CFR Proposed Rules: 17...... 1845

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:31 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\12JALS.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JALS 1755

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8

Wednesday, January 12, 2000

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, place of business, has jurisdiction to contains regulatory documents having general AMS, USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box review the Secretary’s ruling on the applicability and legal effect, most of which 96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456; petition, provided an action is filed not are keyed to and codified in the Code of telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) later than 20 days after the date of the Federal Regulations, which is published under 720–5698. entry of the ruling. 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Small businesses may request This rule continues to decrease the The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by information on complying with this assessment rate established for the the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Board for the 1999–2000 and new books are listed in the first FEDERAL Marketing Order Administration subsequent marketing years from REGISTER issue of each week. Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, $0.0133 per kernelweight pound to AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room $0.0118 per kernelweight pound of 2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456; walnuts handled. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) The order provides authority for the 720–5698, or E-mail: Board, with the approval of the Agricultural Marketing Service [email protected]. Department, to formulate an annual 7 CFR Part 984 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule budget of expenses and collect is issued under Marketing Agreement assessments from handlers to administer [Docket No. FV99±984±3 FIR] and Order No. 984, both as amended (7 the program. The members of the Board are producers and handlers of California Walnuts Grown in California; CFR part 984), regulating the handling walnuts. They are familiar with the Decreased Assessment Rate of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ Board’s needs and with the costs for AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, The marketing agreement and order are goods and services in their local area USDA. effective under the Agricultural and are thus in a position to formulate ACTION: Final rule. Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as an appropriate budget and assessment amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter rate. The assessment rate is formulated SUMMARY: The Department of referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ and discussed in a public meeting. Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as The Department is issuing this rule in Thus, all directly affected persons have a final rule, without change, the conformance with Executive Order an opportunity to participate and provisions of an interim final rule 12866. provide input. which decreased the assessment rate This rule has been reviewed under For the 1998–99 and subsequent established for the Walnut Marketing Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice marketing years, the Board Board (Board) for the 1999–2000 and Reform. Under the marketing order now recommended, and the Department subsequent marketing years from in effect, California walnut handlers are approved, an assessment rate of $0.0133 $0.0133 per kernelweight pound to subject to assessments. Funds to per kernelweight pound of walnuts that $0.0118 per kernelweight pound of administer the order are derived from would continue in effect from marketing walnuts handled. The Board is such assessments. It is intended that the year to marketing year unless modified, responsible for local administration of assessment rate as issued herein will be suspended, or terminated by the the marketing order which regulates the applicable to all assessable walnuts Secretary upon recommendation and handling of walnuts grown in California beginning August 1, 1999, and continue information submitted by the Board or (order). Authorization to assess walnut until amended, suspended, or other information available to the handlers enables the Board to incur terminated. This rule will not preempt Secretary. expenses that are reasonable and any State or local laws, regulations, or The Board met on September 10, necessary to administer the program. policies, unless they present an 1999, and unanimously recommended The marketing year began August 1 and irreconcilable conflict with this rule. 1999–2000 expenditures of $2,967,356 ends July 31. The assessment rate The Act provides that administrative and an assessment rate of $0.0118 per decrease is possible because the 1999– proceedings must be exhausted before kernelweight pound of walnuts. In 2000 assessable poundage is expected to parties may file suit in court. Under comparison, last year’s budgeted total 252,000,000 kernelweight pounds section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any expenditures were $2,620,274. The (almost 30 percent higher than last handler subject to an order may file assessment rate of $0.0118 is $0.0015 year). The assessment rate will remain with the Secretary a petition stating that lower than the rate currently in effect. in effect indefinitely unless modified, the order, any provision of the order, or The lower assessment rate was suspended, or terminated. any obligation imposed in connection recommended because this year’s crop EFFECTIVE DATE: February 11, 2000. with the order is not in accordance with is estimated by the California FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: law and request a modification of the Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) to Maureen Pello, Marketing Specialist, order or to be exempted therefrom. Such be the largest on record at 280,000 tons. California Marketing Field Office, Fruit handler is afforded the opportunity for The Board estimates that about and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, a hearing on the petition. After the 252,000,000 kernelweight pounds of the 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, hearing the Secretary would rule on the crop will be certified as merchantable Fresno, California 93721; telephone: petition. The Act provides that the and thus be subject to assessments. The (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or district court of the United States in any recommended assessment rate should George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, district in which the handler is an allow the Board to more than cover its Marketing Order Administration inhabitant, or has his or her principal expected expenses for 1999–2000.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.149 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The major expenditures Marketing orders issued pursuant to the of $2,967,356 which included increases recommended by the Board for the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are in administrative and office expenses 1999–2000 year include $2,413,038 for unique in that they are brought about and research programs. Prior to arriving marketing and production research through group action of essentially at this budget, the Board considered expenses, $289,709 for general small entities acting on their own information from various sources, such expenses, $179,809 for office expenses, behalf. Thus, both statutes have small as the Board’s Budget and Personnel $59,800 for a production research entity orientation and compatibility. Committee, the Research Committee, director, and $25,000 as a contingency. There are approximately 5,000 and the Market Development Budgeted expenses for these items in producers of walnuts in the production Committee. Alternative expenditure 1998–99 were $2,115,016 for marketing area and approximately 48 handlers levels were discussed by these groups, and production research expenses, subject to regulation under the based upon the relative value of various $246,643 for general expenses, $163,815 marketing order. Small agricultural research projects to the walnut industry. for office expenses, $59,800 for a producers have been defined by the The Board also considered alternative production research director, and Small Business Administration (13 CFR assessment rates of $0.0120 and $0.0123 $35,000 as a contingency, respectively. 121.601) as those having annual receipts per kernelweight pound in case the crop The assessment rate recommended by less than $500,000, and small and amount of assessable walnuts are the Board was derived by dividing agricultural service firms are defined as underestimated. However, the Board anticipated expenses by expected those whose annual receipts are less ultimately derived the rate of $0.0118 merchantable certifications of California than $5,000,000. per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. Walnut shipments for the year During the 1997–98 marketing year, as walnuts by dividing the total are estimated at about 252,000,000 a percentage, about 33 percent of the recommended budget by the kernelweight pounds which should handlers shipped over 2.4 million 252,000,000 kernelweight pound provide $2,973,600 in assessment kernelweight pounds of walnuts and 67 estimate of assessable walnuts for the income. Unexpended funds may be percent of the handlers shipped under 1999–2000 marketing year. used temporarily to defray expenses of 2.4 million kernelweight pounds. Using A review of historical information and the subsequent marketing year, but must an average f.o.b. price of $2.10 per preliminary information pertaining to be made available to the handlers from kernelweight pound, the majority of the current marketing year indicates that whom collected within 5 months after California walnut handlers may be the grower price for the 1999–2000 the end of the year (§ 984.69). The classified as small entities. season should average about $0.65 per assessment rate will continue in effect This rule continues to decrease the kernelweight pound of walnuts. indefinitely unless modified, assessment rate established for the Therefore, the estimated assessment suspended, or terminated by the Board and collected from handlers for revenue for the 1999–2000 marketing Secretary upon recommendation and the 1999–2000 and subsequent year as a percentage of total grower information submitted by the Board or marketing years from $0.0133 per revenue should be less than 2 percent. other available information. kernelweight pound to $0.0118 per This action continues to decrease the Although this assessment rate is kernelweight pound of walnuts. The assessment obligation imposed on effective for an indefinite period, the Board unanimously recommended handlers. Assessments are applied Board will continue to meet prior to or 1999–2000 expenditures of $2,967,356 uniformly on all handlers, and some of during each marketing year to and an assessment rate of $0.0118 per the costs may be passed on to recommend a budget of expenses and kernelweight pound. The assessment producers. However, decreasing the consider recommendations for rate of $0.0118 is $0.0015 lower than the assessment rate reduces the burden on modification of the assessment rate. The 1998–99 rate. The quantity of assessable handlers, and may reduce the burden on dates and times of Board meetings are walnuts for the 1999–2000 marketing producers. In addition, the Board’s available from the Board or the year is estimated at 252,000,000 meeting was widely publicized Department. Board meetings are open to kernelweight pounds. Thus, the $0.0118 throughout the California walnut the public and interested persons may rate should provide $2,973,600 in industry and all interested persons were express their views at these meetings. assessment income and be adequate to invited to attend the meeting and The Department will evaluate Board cover this year’s expenses. The lower participate in Board deliberations on all recommendations and other available assessment rate was recommended issues. Like all Board meetings, the information to determine whether because this year’s crop is estimated by September 10, 1999, meeting was a modification of the assessment rate is the CASS to be the largest on record at public meeting and all entities, both needed. Further rulemaking will be 280,000 tons. large and small, were able to express undertaken as necessary. The Board’s The major expenditures views on this issue. 1999–2000 budget and those for recommended by the Board for the This action imposes no additional subsequent marketing years will be 1999–2000 year include $2,413,038 for reporting or recordkeeping requirements reviewed and, as appropriate, approved marketing and production research on either small or large California by the Department. expenses, $289,709 for general walnut handlers. As with all Federal Pursuant to requirements set forth in expenses, $179,809 for office expenses, marketing order programs, reports and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the $59,800 for a production research forms are periodically reviewed to Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) director, and $25,000 as a contingency. reduce information requirements and has considered the economic impact of Budgeted expenses for these items in duplication by industry and public this rule on small entities. Accordingly, 1998–99 were $2,115,016 for marketing sector agencies. AMS has prepared this final regulatory and production research expenses, The Department has not identified flexibility analysis. $246,643 for general expenses, $163,815 any relevant Federal rules that The purpose of the RFA is to fit for office expenses, $59,800 for a duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this regulatory actions to the scale of production research director, and rule. business subject to such actions in order $35,000 as a contingency. An interim final rule concerning this that small businesses will not be unduly The Board reviewed and unanimously action was published in the Federal or disproportionately burdened. recommended 1999-2000 expenditures Register on October 18, 1999 (64 FR

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.150 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1757

56131). Copies of that rule were also published amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act mailed to all handlers, Board members, Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board Because this rule is not subject to a and alternate members. The rule was regulations. An error in drafting one of requirement to provide prior notice and also made available through the Internet the regulatory changes occurred. This an opportunity for public comment by the Office of the Federal Register. A rule corrects that error. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other 60-day comment period ending DATES: This rule is effective January 11, law, the analytical requirements of the December 17, 1999, was provided to 2000. Comments may be submitted no Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 allow interested persons to respond to later than March 13, 2000. et seq., are inapplicable. the rule. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying ADDRESSES: Comments may be Congressional Review Act with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop submitted to: Jay E. Dittus, Executive This rule has been determined to be marketing agreements and orders may Director, Emergency Steel Guarantee not major for purposes of the be viewed at the following web site: Loan Board, U.S. Department of Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/ Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. et seq. moab.html. Any questions about the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay compliance guide should be sent to Jay E. Dittus, Executive Director, Emergency Intergovernmental Review Guerber at the previously mentioned Steel Guarantee Loan Board, U.S. No intergovernmental consultations address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Department of Commerce, Washington, with State and local officials are CONTACT section. D.C. 20230, (202) 219–0584. required because the rule is not subject After consideration of all relevant to the provisions of Executive Order SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On material presented, including the 12372 or Executive Order 12875. information and recommendation December 23, 1999 the Emergency Steel submitted by the Board and other Guarantee Loan Board published Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 available information, it is hereby found amendments of the Emergency Steel This rule contains no Federal that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, Guarantee Loan Board regulations. mandates, as that term is defined in the will tend to effectuate the declared Three changes to the Board’s regulations Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, on policy of the Act. were made in this notice. An error in state, local and tribal governments or drafting § 400.205(a), Application the private sector. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984 Process, occurred. This notice correct Marketing agreements, Nuts, § 400.205(a) to reflect the intent of the Executive Order 13132 Reporting and recordkeeping Board. This rule does not contain policies requirements, Walnuts. In response to industry concerns over having federalism implications For the reasons set forth in the the time frame for the submission of requiring preparation of a Federalism preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is amended as completed applications, the deadline for Assessment. the submission of applications was follows: Executive Order 12630 extended from December 30, 1999, to PART 984ÐWALNUTS GROWN IN January 31, 2000. Currently, § 400.205(a) This rule does not contain policies CALIFORNIA requires that applications be provided to that have takings implications. a delivery service on or before January List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 400 Accordingly, the interim final rule 30, 2000, with ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ amending 7 CFR part 984 which was before 8:00 P.M. on January 30, 2000, in Loan Programs—Steel. published at 64 FR 56131 on October order to meet the Board’s submission Jay E. Dittus, 18, 1999, is adopted as a final rule deadline. The correct date for Executive Director, Emergency Steel without change. applications with ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ Guarantee Loan Board. Dated: January 6, 2000. should be before 8:00 P.M. on January For the reasons set forth in the Robert C. Keeney, 31, 2000. preamble, the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board amends 13 CFR Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable Administrative Law Requirements Programs. part 400 as follows: [FR Doc. 00–713 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Executive Order 12866 PART 400Ð[AMENDED] BILLING CODE 3410±02±P This interim final rule has been determined not to be significant for 1. The authority citation for part 400 purposes of Executive Order 12866. continues to read as follows: EMERGENCY STEEL GUARANTEE Administrative Procedure Act Authority: Pub. L. 106–51, 113 Stat. 255 LOAN BOARD (15 U.S.C. 1841 note). 13 CFR Part 400 This rule is exempt from the 2. Section 400.205 is amended by requirement to provide prior notice and revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: RIN 3003±ZA00 an opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), as it § 400.205 Application process. Loan Guarantee Decision; Availability involves a matter relating to Board (a) Application process. An original of Environmental Information; procedures and practice. Similarly, application and three copies must be Correction because this rule of procedure does not received by the Board no later than 8 AGENCY: Emergency Steel Guarantee have a substantive effect on the public, p.m. EST, January 31, 2000, in the U.S. Loan Board. it is not subject to a 30 day delay in Department of Commerce, Washington, ACTION: Interim final rule, request for effective date, as normally is required D.C. 20230. Applications which have comments. under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, the been provided to a delivery service on Board is interested in receiving public or before January 30, 2000, with SUMMARY: On December 23, 1999 the comment and is, therefore, issuing this ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ before 8 p.m. on Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board rule as interim final. January 31, 2000, will be accepted for

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.153 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations review if the Applicant can document completed applications, the deadline for requiring preparation of a Federalism that application was provided to the the submission of applications was Assessment. delivery service with delivery to the extended from December 30, 1999, to Executive Order 12630 address listed in this section guaranteed January 31, 2000. Currently, § 500.205(a) prior to the closing date and time. A requires that applications be provided to This rule does not contain policies postmark of January 31, 2000, is not a delivery service on or before January that have takings implications. sufficient to meet this deadline as the 30, 2000, with ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 500 application must be received by the before 8:00 P.M. on January 30, 2000, in required date and time. Applications order to meet the Board’s submission Loan Programs—Oil and Gas. will not be accepted via facsimile deadline. The correct date for Charles E. Hall, machine transmission or electronic applications with ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ Executive Director, Emergency Oil and Gas mail. should be before 8:00 P.M. on January Guaranteed Loan Board. * * * * * 31, 2000. For the reasons set forth in the [FR Doc. 00–699 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] preamble, the Emergency Oil and Gas Administrative Law Requirements Guaranteed Loan Board amends 13 CFR BILLING CODE 1310±FP±M Executive Order 12866 part 500 as follows: This interim final rule has been PART 500Ð[AMENDED] EMERGENCY OIL AND GAS determined not to be a significant for GUARANTEED LOAN BOARD purposes of Executive Order 12866. 1. The authority citation for part 500 continues to read as follows: Administrative Procedure Act 13 CFR Part 500 Authority: Pub. L. 106–51, 113 Stat. 255 RIN 3003±ZA00 This rule is exempt from the (15 U.S.C. 1841 note). requirement to provide prior notice and 2. Section 500.205 is amended by Loan Guarantee Decision; Availability an opportunity for public comment revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: of Environmental Information; pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), as it Correction involves a matter relating to Board § 500.205 Application process. procedures and practice. Similarly, (a) Application Process. An original AGENCY: Emergency Oil and Gas because this rule of procedure does not application and three copies must be Guaranteed Loan Board. have a substantive effect on the public, received by the Board no later than 8 ACTION: Interim final rule, request for it is not subject to a 30 day delay in p.m. EST, January 31, 2000, in the U.S. comments. effective date, as normally is required Department of Commerce, Washington, SUMMARY: On December 23, 1999 to under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, the DC 20230. Applications which have Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Board is interested in receiving public been provided to a delivery service on Loan Board published amendments to comment and is, therefore, issuing this or before January 30, 2000, with the Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed rule as interim final. ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ before 8 p.m. on January 31, 2000, will be accepted for Loan Board regulations. An error in Regulatory Flexibility Act drafting one of the regulatory changes review if the Applicant can document occurred. This rule corrects that error. Because this rule is not subject to a that the application was provided to the requirement to provide prior notice and delivery service with delivery to the DATES: This rule is effective January 11, an opportunity for public comment address listed in this section guaranteed 2000. Comments may be submitted no pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other prior to the closing date and time. A later than March 13, 2000. law, the analytical requirements of the postmark of January 31, 2000, is not ADDRESSES: Comments may be Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 sufficient to meet this deadline as the submitted to: Executive Charles E. Hall et seq., are inapplicable. application must be received by the Director, Emergency Oil and Gas Congressional Review Act required date and time. Applications Guaranteed Loan Board, U.S. will not be accepted via facsimile Department of Commerce, Washington, This rule has been determined to be machine transmission or electronic D.C. 20230. not major for purposes of the mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 * * * * * Chales E. Hall, Executive Director, et seq. Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed [FR Doc. 00–700 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Loan Board, U.S. Department of Intergovernmental Review BILLING CODE 1310±FP±M Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, No intergovernmental consultations (202) 219–0584. with State and local officials are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On required because the rule is not subject DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 23, 1999 the Emergency Oil to the provisions of Executive Order Federal Aviation Administration and Gas Guaranteed Loan Board 12372 or Executive Order 12875. published amendments to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 14 CFR Part 23 Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Board regulations. Three changes This rule contains to Federal [Docket No. CE158, Special Condition 23± to the Board’s regulations were made in mandates, as that term is defined in the 101±SC] this notice. An error in drafting Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, on Special Conditions; Ayres Corporation § 500.205(a), Application Process, State, local and tribal governments or Model LM±200 Loadmaster; Protection occurred. This notice corrects the private sector. of Systems for High Intensity Radiated § 500.205(a) to reflect the intent of the Executive Order 13132 Fields (HIRF) Board. In response to industry concerns over This rule does not contain policies AGENCY: Federal Aviation the time frame for the submission of having federalism implications Administration (FAA), DOT.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1759

ACTION: Final special conditions; request Comments Invited or appropriate safety standards because for comments. Interested persons are invited to of a novel or unusual design feature of submit such written data, views, or an airplane, special conditions are SUMMARY: These special conditions are arguments as they may desire. prescribed under the provisions of issued to Ayres Corporation, One Ayres Communications should identify the § 21.16. Special conditions, as Way, Post Office Box 3090, Albany, regulatory docket or notice number and appropriate, are normally issued in Georgia 31706–3090, for a Type be submitted in duplicate to the address accordance with § 11.49, as required by Certificate for the Ayres Corporation specified above. All communications §§ 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become a Model LM–200 Loadmaster airplane. received on or before the closing date part of the type certification basis in This airplane will have novel and for comments will be considered by the accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). unusual design features when compared Administrator. The special conditions Special conditions are initially to the state of technology envisaged in may be changed in light of the applicable to the model for which they the applicable airworthiness standards. comments received. All comments are issued. Should the type certificate These novel and unusual design received will be available in the Rules for that model be amended later to features include the installation of Docket for examination by interested include any other model that electronic flight instrument system persons, both before and after the incorporates the same novel or unusual (EFIS) displays for which the applicable closing date for comments. A report design feature, the special conditions regulations do not contain adequate or summarizing each substantive public would also apply to the other model appropriate airworthiness standards for contact with FAA personnel concerning under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1). the protection of these systems from the this rulemaking will be filed in the Novel or Unusual Design Features effects of high intensity radiated fields docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to The Ayres Corporation Model LM– (HIRF). These special conditions acknowledge receipt of their comments contain the additional safety standards 200 Loadmaster will incorporate certain submitted in response to this notice novel and unusual design features into that the Administrator considers must include a self-addressed, stamped an airplane for which the airworthiness necessary to establish a level of safety postcard on which the following standards do not contain adequate or equivalent to the airworthiness statement is made: ‘‘Comments to appropriate safety standards for standards applicable to these airplanes. Docket No. CE158.’’ The postcard will protection from the effects of HIRF. be date stamped and returned to the DATES: The effective date of these These features include EFIS, which are commenter. special conditions is December 23, susceptible to the HIRF environment, 1999. Comments must be received on or Background that were not envisaged by the existing before February 11, 2000. On May 6, 1996, Ayres Corporation regulations for this type of airplane. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed made an application to the FAA for a Protection of Systems from High in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Type Certificate for their new Ayres Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Administration, Regional Counsel, Corporation Model LM–200 Loadmaster Recent advances in technology have ACE–7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, airplane with re-application made on Docket No. CE158, Room 506, 901 March 12, 1999. The Ayres Corporation given rise to the application in aircraft Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All Model LM–200 commuter category designs of advanced electrical and comments must be marked: Docket No. airplane has a twin turbine LHTEC electronic systems that perform CE158. Comments may be inspected in CTP800–4T powerplant with a functions required for continued safe the Rules Docket weekdays, except maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 flight and landing. Due to the use of Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and pounds. The airplane incorporates a sensitive solid state advanced 4:00 p.m. novel or unusual design feature, such as components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: digital avionics consisting of an EFIS, systems are readily responsive to the Ervin Dvorak, Aerospace Engineer, that is vulnerable to HIRF external to transient effects of induced electrical Standards Office (ACE–110), Small the airplane. current and voltage caused by the HIRF. Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Type Certification Basis The HIRF can degrade electronic Certification Service, Federal Aviation systems performance by damaging Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Under the provisions of 14 CFR part components or upsetting system Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone 21, § 21.17, Ayres Corporation must functions. (816) 329–4123, or Les Taylor, show that the Ayres Corporation Model LM–200 Loadmaster aircraft meets the Furthermore, the HIRF environment Aerospace Engineer, at the same has undergone a transformation that was address, telephone (816) 329–4134. applicable provisions of Part 23 as amended by Amendment 23–1 through not foreseen when the current SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 23–53; Part 34 effective September 10, requirements were developed. Higher has determined that notice and 1990, as amended by the amendment in energy levels are radiated from opportunity for prior public comment effect on the date of certification; Part 36 transmitters that are used for radar, hereon are impracticable because these effective December 1, 1969, as amended radio, and television. Also, the number procedures would significantly delay by the amendment in effect on the date of transmitters has increased issuance of the approval design and of certification; The Noise Control Act significantly. There is also uncertainty thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In of 1972; exemptions, if any; other concerning the effectiveness of airframe addition, the substance of these special special conditions applicable to this shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, conditions has been subject to the airplane; and the special conditions coupling to cockpit-installed equipment public comment process in several prior adopted by this rulemaking action. through the cockpit window apertures is instances with no substantive comments undefined. received. The FAA, therefore, finds that Discussion The combined effect of the good cause exists for making these If the Administrator finds that the technological advances in airplane special conditions effective upon applicable airworthiness standards (i.e., design and the changing environment issuance. 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate has resulted in an increased level of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.131 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations vulnerability of electrical and electronic test to show compliance with the HIRF because a delay would significantly systems required for the continued safe requirements, no credit is given for affect the certification of the airplane, flight and landing of the airplane. signal attenuation due to installation. which is imminent, the FAA has Effective measures against the effects of A preliminary hazard analysis must determined that prior public notice and exposure to HIRF must be provided by be performed by the applicant, for comment are unnecessary and the design and installation of these approval by the FAA, to identify either impracticable, and good cause exists for systems. The accepted maximum energy electrical or electronic systems that adopting these special conditions upon levels in which civilian airplane system perform critical functions. The term issuance. The FAA is requesting ‘‘critical’’ means those functions whose installations must be capable of comments to allow interested persons to failure would contribute to, or cause, a operating safely are based on surveys submit views that may not have been and analysis of existing radio frequency failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the submitted in response to the prior emitters. These special conditions opportunities for comment described require that the airplane be evaluated airplane. The systems identified by the above. under these energy levels for the hazard analysis that perform critical protection of the electronic system and functions are candidates for the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 its associated wiring harness. These application of HIRF requirements. A external threat levels, which are lower system may perform both critical and Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and than previous required values, are non-critical functions. Primary symbols. electronic flight display systems, and believed to represent the worst case to Citation which an airplane would be exposed in their associated components, perform the operating environment. critical functions such as attitude, The authority citation for these These special conditions require altitude, and airspeed indication. The special conditions is as follows: qualification of systems that perform HIRF requirements apply only to critical critical functions, as installed in aircraft, functions. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and to the defined HIRF environment in Compliance with HIRF requirements 44701; 14 CFR part 21, §§ 21.16 and 21.17; paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, and 14 CFR part 11, §§ 11.28 and 11.49. value using laboratory tests, in models, similarity with existing The Special Conditions paragraph 2, as follows: systems, or any combination of these. (1) The applicant may demonstrate Service experience alone is not Accordingly, pursuant to the that the operation and operational acceptable since normal flight authority delegated to me by the capability of the installed electrical and operations may not include an exposure Administrator, the following special electronic systems that perform critical to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a conditions are issued as part of the type functions are not adversely affected system with similar design features for certification basis for the Ayres when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF redundancy as a means of protection Corporation Model 200 Loadmaster environment defined below: against the effects of external HIRF is airplane. generally insufficient since all elements Field of a redundant system are likely to be 1. Protection of Electrical and Strength exposed to the fields concurrently. Electronic Systems from High Intensity (volts per Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system Frequency meter) Applicability that performs critical functions must be As discussed above, these special designed and installed to ensure that the Peak Aver- age conditions are applicable to the Ayres operations, and operational capabilities Corporation Model LM–200 Loadmaster of these systems to perform critical 10 kHz±100 kHz ...... 50 50 airplane. Should Ayres Corporation functions, are not adversely affected 100 kHz±500 kHz ...... 50 50 apply at a later date for a change to the 500 kHz±2 MHz ...... 50 50 when the airplane is exposed to high 2 MHz±30 MHz ...... 100 100 type certificate to include another intensity radiated electromagnetic fields 30 MHz±70 MHz ...... 50 50 model incorporating the same novel or external to the airplane. unusual design feature, the special 70 MHz±100 MHz ...... 50 50 2. For the purpose of these special 100 MHz±200 MHz ...... 100 100 conditions would apply to that model as 200 MHz±400 MHz ...... 100 100 well under the provisions of conditions, the following definition 400 MHz±700 MHz ...... 700 50 § 21.101(a)(1). applies: Critical Functions: Functions 700 MHz±1 GHz ...... 700 100 whose failure would contribute to, or 1 GHz±2 GHz ...... 2000 200 Conclusion cause, a failure condition that would 2 GHz±4 GHz ...... 3000 200 This action affects only certain novel prevent the continued safe flight and 4 GHz±6 GHz ...... 3000 200 or unusual design features on one model landing of the airplane. 6 GHz±8 GHz ...... 1000 200 of airplane. It is not a rule of general 8 GHz±12 GHz ...... 3000 300 Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on 12 GHz±18 GHz ...... 2000 200 applicability and affects only the December 23, 1999. 18 GHz±40 GHz ...... 600 200 applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the Marvin Nuss, The field strengths are expressed in terms airplane. Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate of peak root-mean-square (rms) values. The substance of these special Aircraft Certification Service. or, conditions has been subjected to the [FR Doc. 00–690 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] (2) The applicant may demonstrate by notice and comment period in several BILLING CODE 4910±13±U a system test and analysis that the prior instances and has been derived electrical and electronic systems that without substantive change from those perform critical functions can withstand previously issued. It is unlikely that a minimum threat of 100 volts per prior public comment would result in a meter, peak electrical field strength, significant change from the substance from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this contained herein. For this reason, and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.132 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1761

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION published in the Federal Register on responsibilities among the various November 15, 1999 (64 FR 61801). That levels of government. Federal Aviation Administration action proposed to require a Therefore, it is determined that this measurement of the extension of the final rule does not have federalism 14 CFR Part 39 piston in the retract actuator of the main implications under Executive Order [Docket No. 99±NM±126±AD; Amendment landing gear (MLG); and corrective 13132. 39±11500; AD 2000±01±03] action, if necessary. That action also For the reasons discussed above, I proposed to require repetitive RIN 2120±AA64 certify that this action (1) is not a replacement of the retract actuator with ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model a repaired retract actuator, or repetitive Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a SAAB 2000 Series Airplanes replacement of the piston in the retract ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT actuator with a new piston. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 AGENCY: Federal Aviation FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) Comments Administration, DOT. will not have a significant economic ACTION: Final rule. Interested persons have been afforded impact, positive or negative, on a an opportunity to participate in the substantial number of small entities SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a making of this amendment. No under the criteria of the Regulatory new airworthiness directive (AD), comments were submitted in response Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB to the proposal or the FAA’s been prepared for this action and it is 2000 series airplanes, that requires a determination of the cost to the public. contained in the Rules Docket. A copy measurement of the extension of the of it may be obtained from the Rules Conclusion piston in the retract actuator of the main Docket at the location provided under landing gear (MLG); and corrective The FAA has determined that air the caption ADDRESSES. action, if necessary. This amendment safety and the public interest require the also requires repetitive replacement of adoption of the rule as proposed. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 the retract actuator with a repaired Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Interim Action retract actuator, or repetitive safety, Incorporation by reference, replacement of the piston in the retract This is considered to be interim Safety. actuator with a new piston. This action until final action is identified, at Adoption of the Amendment amendment is prompted by issuance of which time the FAA may consider mandatory continuing airworthiness further rulemaking. Accordingly, pursuant to the information by a foreign civil authority delegated to me by the airworthiness authority. The actions Cost Impact Administrator, the Federal Aviation specified by this AD are intended to The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes of Administration amends part 39 of the prevent fatigue failure of the piston in U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR the retract actuator of the MLG, and It will take approximately 1 work part 39) as follows: reduced structural integrity of the MLG. hour per airplane to accomplish the DATES: Effective February 16, 2000. required measurement, at an average PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS The incorporation by reference of labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based DIRECTIVES certain publications listed in the on these figures, the cost impact of the 1. The authority citation for part 39 regulations is approved by the Director measurement rrequired by this AD on continues to read as follows: of the Federal Register as of February U.S. operators is estimated to be $180, 16, 2000. or $60 per airplane. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. ADDRESSES: The service information It will take approximately 5 work § 39.13 [Amended] referenced in this AD may be obtained hours per airplane to accomplish the from Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft 2. Section 39.13 is amended by ¨ required replacement, at an average Product Support, S–581.88, Linkoping, labor rate of $60 per work hour. adding the following new airworthiness Sweden. This information may be Required parts will be provided to the directive: examined at the Federal Aviation operators at no cost by the 2000–01–03 Saab Aircraft AB: Amendment Administration (FAA), Transport manufacturer. Based on these figures, 39–11500. Docket 99–NM–126–AD. Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, the cost impact of the replacement Applicability: Model SAAB 2000 series 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, required by this AD on the U.S. airplanes, serial numbers 004 through 063 Washington; or at the Office of the operators is estimated to be $900, or inclusive, certificated in any category. Federal Register, 800 North Capitol $300 per airplane, per replacement. Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. identified in the preceding applicability The cost impact figures discussed provision, regardless of whether it has been FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: above are based on assumptions that no modified, altered, or repaired in the area Norman B. Martenson, Manager, operator has yet accomplished any of subject to the requirements of this AD. For International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, the proposed requirements of this AD airplanes that have been modified, altered, or Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 action, and that no operator would repaired so that the performance of the Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington accomplish those actions in the future if requirements of this AD is affected, the 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110; this AD were not adopted. owner/operator must request approval for an fax (425) 227–1149. alternative method of compliance in Regulatory Impact accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A The request should include an assessment of proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal The regulations adopted herein will the effect of the modification, alteration, or Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) not have a substantial direct effect on repair on the unsafe condition addressed by to include an airworthiness directive the States, on the relationship between this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab the national Government and the States, been eliminated, the request should include Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes was or on the distribution of power and specific proposed actions to address it.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless Incorporation by Reference service door due to incorrect installation accomplished previously. (f) The actions shall be done in accordance of the aft exterior light, which could To prevent fatigue failure of the piston in with Saab Service Bulletin 2000–A32–052, result in injury to the passengers or the retract actuator of the main landing gear Revision 01, dated March 16, 1999, including crew members during an emergency (MLG) and reduced structural integrity of the Attachment 1, dated March 16, 1999, and evacuation. MLG, accomplish the following: Attachment 2, dated March 1999, which DATES: Effective February 16, 2000. Inspection includes the following list of effective pages: The incorporation by reference of (a) Within 3 days after the effective date of Page certain publications listed in the this AD, perform a measurement of the Revision level Date shown on regulations is approved by the Director num- shown on page page extension of the piston (ramrod) in the retract ber of the Federal Register as of February actuator of the MLG in accordance with Saab 16, 2000. Service Bulletin 2000–A32–052, Revision 01, 1±10 01ÐAttachment 1 March 16, 1999. ADDRESSES: The service information dated March 16, 1999, including Attachment 1±3 .. 1ÐAttachment 2 March 16, 1999. 1±5 .. 2 ...... March 1999. referenced in this AD may be obtained 1, dated March 16, 1999, and Attachment 2, from Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft ¨ dated March 1999. If the extension of the Product Support, S–581.88, Linkoping, piston is less than 0.59 inches (15 This incorporation by reference was millimeters), prior to further flight, perform approved by the Director of the Federal Sweden. This information may be the action required by either paragraph (b)(1) Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) examined at the Federal Aviation or (b)(2) of this AD. and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained Administration (FAA), Transport from Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft ¨ Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, Replacement Product Support, S–581.88, Linkoping, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, (b) Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total Sweden. Copies may be inspected at the Washington; or at the Office of the flight cycles, or within 2 months after the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at effective date of this AD, whichever occurs Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. later, accomplish the requirement specified the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, in accordance with Saab Service Bulletin DC. Norman B. Martenson, Manager, 2000–A32–052, Revision 01, dated March 16, Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 1999, including Attachment 1, dated March in Swedish airworthiness directive SAD No. Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 16, 1999, and Attachment 2, dated March 1–138, dated March 16, 1999. Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 1999. Thereafter, repeat the action required (g) This amendment becomes effective on 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110; by either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD February 16, 2000. fax (425) 227–1149. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 4, 2000. (1) Replace the retract actuator with a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal repaired retract actuator. Donald L. Riggin, Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to (2) Replace the piston in the retract Acting Manager, Transport Airplane include an airworthiness directive (AD) actuator with a new piston. Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. that is applicable to all Saab Model Spares [FR Doc. 00–502 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] SAAB 2000 series airplanes was (c) As of the effective date of this AD, no BILLING CODE 4910±13±U published in the Federal Register on person shall install on any airplane, a retract November 15, 1999 (64 FR 61794). That actuator, part number (P/N) AIR86482–1 action proposed to require a one-time through AIR86482–4 inclusive, unless it has DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION general visual inspection to verify the been repaired in accordance with Saab Federal Aviation Administration proper orientation of the aft exterior Service Bulletin 2000–A32–052, Revision 01, light; and corrective actions, if dated March 16, 1999, including Attachment necessary. 1, dated March 16, 1999, and Attachment 2, 14 CFR Part 39 dated March 1999. [Docket No. 99±NM±244±AD; Amendment Comments Alternative Methods of Compliance 39±11501; AD 2000±01±04] Interested persons have been afforded (d) An alternative method of compliance or RIN 2120±AA64 an opportunity to participate in the adjustment of the compliance time that making of this amendment. No provides an acceptable level of safety may be Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model comments were submitted in response used if approved by the Manager, SAAB 2000 Series Airplanes to the proposal or the FAA’s International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, determination of the cost to the public. Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators AGENCY: Federal Aviation shall submit their requests through an Administration, DOT. Conclusion appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance ACTION: Final rule. The FAA has determined that air Inspector, who may add comments and then safety and the public interest require the send it to the Manager, International Branch, SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a adoption of the rule as proposed. ANM–116. new airworthiness directive (AD), Note 2: Information concerning the applicable to all Saab Model SAAB 2000 Cost Impact existence of approved alternative methods of series airplanes, that requires a one-time The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes of compliance with this AD, if any, may be general visual inspection to verify the U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, obtained from the International Branch, proper orientation of the aft exterior that it will take approximately 1 work ANM–116. light; and corrective actions, if hour per airplane to accomplish the Special Flight Permits necessary. This amendment is prompted required inspection, and that the by issuance of mandatory continuing (e) Special flight permits may be issued in average labor rate is $60 per work hour. accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 airworthiness information by a foreign Based on these figures, the cost impact of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR civil airworthiness authority. The of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to actions specified by this AD are to be $180, or $60 per airplane. a location where the requirements of this AD intended to prevent improper The cost impact figure discussed can be accomplished. illumination of the ground under the above is based on assumptions that no

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.111 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1763 operator has yet accomplished any of requirements of this AD is affected, the dated April 21, 1999. This incorporation by the proposed requirements of this AD owner/operator must request approval for an reference was approved by the Director of the action, and that no operator would alternative method of compliance in Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. accomplish those actions in the future if accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be The request should include an assessment of obtained from Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB this AD were not adopted. the effect of the modification, alteration, or Aircraft Product Support, S–581.88, Regulatory Impact repair on the unsafe condition addressed by Linkping, Sweden. Copies may be inspected this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, The regulations adopted herein will been eliminated, the request should include 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, not have a substantial direct effect on specific proposed actions to address it. Washington; or at the Office of the Federal the States, on the relationship between Compliance: Required as indicated, unless Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite the national Government and the States, accomplished previously. 700, Washington, DC. or on the distribution of power and To prevent improper illumination of the Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed responsibilities among the various ground under the service door due to in Swedish airworthiness directive No. 1– levels of government. Therefore, it is incorrect installation of the aft exterior light, 140, dated April 21, 1999. which could result in injury to the determined that this final rule does not passengers or crew members during an (e) This amendment becomes effective on have federalism implications under emergency evacuation, accomplish the February 16, 2000. Executive Order 13132. following: Issued in Renton, Washington, on January For the reasons discussed above, I (a) Within 4 months after the effective date 4, 2000. certify that this action: (1) Is not a of this AD, perform a one-time general visual Donald L. Riggin, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under inspection of the aft exterior light to verify Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a proper orientation, in accordance with Saab Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Service Bulletin 2000–33–016, dated April 21, 1999. [FR Doc. 00–501 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 (1) If the aft exterior light is correctly BILLING CODE 4910±13±U FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) installed, as specified in the service bulletin, will not have a significant economic reinstall the lens in accordance with the impact, positive or negative, on a service bulletin. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION substantial number of small entities (2) If the aft exterior light is incorrectly under the criteria of the Regulatory installed, as specified in the service bulletin, Federal Aviation Administration Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has prior to further flight, correct the orientation been prepared for this action and it is of the aft exterior light in accordance with 14 CFR Part 39 the service bulletin. contained in the Rules Docket. A copy [Docket No. 99±NM±177±AD; Amendment Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a of it may be obtained from the Rules 39±11505; AD 2000±01±08] Docket at the location provided under general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A visual examination of an interior or exterior RIN 2120±AA64 the caption ADDRESSES. area, installation, or assembly to detect List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This Airworthiness Directives; British level of inspection is made under normally Aerospace BAe Model ATP Airplanes Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation available lighting conditions such as safety, Incorporation by reference, daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop- AGENCY: Federal Aviation Safety. light, and may require removal or opening of Administration, DOT. access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or Adoption of the Amendment platforms may be required to gain proximity ACTION: Final rule. Accordingly, pursuant to the to the area being checked.’’ SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a authority delegated to me by the Alternative Methods of Compliance new airworthiness directive (AD), Administrator, the Federal Aviation applicable to all British Aerospace BAe Administration amends part 39 of the (b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that Model ATP airplanes, that requires a Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR provides an acceptable level of safety may be one-time inspection of the orientation of part 39) as follows: used if approved by the Manager, certain bolts of the rudder standby International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS control system (SCS), and reinstallation Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators of the bolts, if necessary. This DIRECTIVES shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance amendment is prompted by issuance of 1. The authority citation for part 39 Inspector, who may add comments and then mandatory continuing airworthiness continues to read as follows: send it to the Manager, International Branch, information by a foreign civil Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. ANM–116. airworthiness authority. The actions Note 3: Information concerning the specified by this AD are intended to § 39.13 [Amended] existence of approved alternative methods of prevent uncommanded engagement of 2. Section 39.13 is amended by compliance with this AD, if any, may be the rudder SCS, which could result in adding the following new airworthiness obtained from the International Branch, reduced controllability of the airplane. ANM–116. directive: DATES: Effective February 16, 2000. 2000–01–04 Saab Aircraft AB: Amendment Special Flight Permits The incorporation by reference of 39–11501. Docket 99–NM–244–AD. (c) Special flight permits may be issued in certain publications listed in the Applicability: All Model SAAB 2000 series accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the regulations is approved by the Director airplanes, certificated in any category. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 of the Federal Register as of February Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a 16, 2000. identified in the preceding applicability location where the requirements of this AD ADDRESSES: The service information provision, regardless of whether it has been can be accomplished. modified, altered, or repaired in the area referenced in this AD may be obtained subject to the requirements of this AD. For Incorporation by Reference from British Aerospace Regional airplanes that have been modified, altered, or (d) The actions shall be done in accordance Aircraft American Support, 13850 repaired so that the performance of the with Saab Service Bulletin 2000–33–016, Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.113 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

20171. This information may be have federalism implications under To prevent uncommanded engagement of examined at the Federal Aviation Executive Order 13132. the rudder standby control system (SCS), Administration (FAA), Transport For the reasons discussed above, I accomplish the following: Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, certify that this action (1) is not a (a) Within one year after the effective date 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under of this AD, perform a one-time general visual inspection of the orientation of the bolts in Washington; or at the Office of the Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a the rudder SCS, in accordance with British Federal Register, 800 North Capitol ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Aerospace Service Bulletin ATP–27–86, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 dated May 15, 1999. If any bolt is incorrectly FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) installed, as specified by Figure 1 of the Norman B. Martenson, Manager, will not have a significant economic service bulletin, prior to further flight, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, impact, positive or negative, on a remove and reinstall the bolt in accordance Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 substantial number of small entities with the service bulletin. Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington under the criteria of the Regulatory Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110; Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A fax (425) 227–1149. been prepared for this action and it is visual examination of an interior or exterior SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A contained in the Rules Docket. A copy area, installation, or assembly to detect proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal of it may be obtained from the Rules obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to Docket at the location provided under level of inspection is made under normally include an airworthiness directive (AD) the caption ADDRESSES. available lighting conditions such as that is applicable to all British daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop- Aerospace BAe Model ATP airplanes List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 light, and may require removal or opening of was published in the Federal Register Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or on November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60748). safety, Incorporation by reference, platforms may be required to gain proximity That action proposed to require a one- Safety. to the area being checked.’’ time inspection of the orientation of Alternative Methods of Compliance certain bolts of the rudder standby Adoption of the Amendment (b) An alternative method of compliance or control system (SCS), and reinstallation Accordingly, pursuant to the adjustment of the compliance time that of the bolts, if necessary. authority delegated to me by the provides an acceptable level of safety may be Comments Administrator, the Federal Aviation used if approved by the Manager, Administration amends part 39 of the International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Interested persons have been afforded Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators an opportunity to participate in the part 39) as follows: shall submit their requests through an making of this amendment. No appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance comments were submitted in response PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS Inspector, who may add comments and then to the proposal or the FAA’s DIRECTIVES send it to the Manager, International Branch, determination of the cost to the public. ANM–116. 1. The authority citation for part 39 Conclusion Note 3: Information concerning the continues to read as follows: existence of approved alternative methods of The FAA has determined that air Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. compliance with this AD, if any, may be safety and the public interest require the obtained from the International Branch, adoption of the rule as proposed. § 39.13 [Amended] ANM–116. Cost Impact 2. Section 39.13 is amended by Special Flight Permits adding the following new airworthiness The FAA estimates that 10 airplanes (c) Special flight permits may be issued in directive: of U.S. registry will be affected by this accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 AD, that it will take approximately 3 2000–01–08 British Aerospace Regional of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR work hours per airplane to accomplish Aircraft [Formerly Jetstream Aircraft 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to the required inspection, and that the Limited; British Aerospace (Commercial a location where the requirements of this AD Aircraft) Limited]: Amendment 39– can be accomplished. average labor rate is $60 per work hour. 11505. Docket 99–NM–177–AD. Based on these figures, the cost impact Applicability: All BAe Model ATP Incorporation by Reference of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated airplanes, certificated in any category. (d) The actions shall be done in accordance to be $1,800, or $180 per airplane. with British Aerospace Service Bulletin The cost impact figure discussed Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability ATP–27–86, dated May 15, 1999. This above is based on assumptions that no provision, regardless of whether it has been incorporation by reference was approved by operator has yet accomplished any of modified, altered, or repaired in the area the Director of the Federal Register in the proposed requirements of this AD subject to the requirements of this AD. For accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR action, and that no operator would airplanes that have been modified, altered, or part 51. Copies may be obtained from British accomplish those actions in the future if repaired so that the performance of the Aerospace Regional Aircraft American this AD were not adopted. requirements of this AD is affected, the Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, owner/operator must request approval for an Virginia 20171. Copies may be inspected at Regulatory Impact alternative method of compliance in the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, The regulations adopted herein will accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, not have a substantial direct effect on The request should include an assessment of Washington; or at the Office of the Federal the States, on the relationship between the effect of the modification, alteration, or Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite repair on the unsafe condition addressed by 700, Washington, DC. the national Government and the States, this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not or on the distribution of power and been eliminated, the request should include Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed responsibilities among the various specific proposed actions to address it. in British airworthiness directive 005–05–99. levels of government. Therefore, it is Compliance: Required as indicated, unless (e) This amendment becomes effective on determined that this final rule does not accomplished previously. February 16, 2000.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.115 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1765

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January the FAA, Transport Airplane accomplishment of the actions specified 4, 2000. Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., in the service bulletin is intended to Donald L. Riggin, Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, adequately address the identified unsafe Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Engine and Propeller Directorate, New condition. TCCA approved this service Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 bulletin and issued Canadian [FR Doc. 00–500 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, airworthiness directive CF–99–15R1, BILLING CODE 4910±13±U New York; or at the Office of the Federal dated December 6, 1999, in order to Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., assure the continued airworthiness of suite 700, Washington, DC. these airplanes in Canada. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Related Rulemaking Serge Napoleon, Aerospace Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration On November 16, 1998, the FAA Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE– issued AD 98–24–18, amendment 39– 171, FAA, Engine and Propeller 14 CFR Part 39 10903 (63 FR 64609, November 23, Directorate, New York Aircraft 1998), applicable to certain Bombardier [Docket No. 99±NM±357±AD; Amendment Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Model DHC–8–100 and –300 series 39±11504; AD 2000±01±07] Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York airplanes equipped with Canadian 11581; telephone (516) 256–7512; fax RIN 2120±AA64 Aviation Products (CAP) horizontal (516) 568–2716. stabilizers having serial numbers 003 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Transport through 214, that requires repetitive Model DHC±8±100, ±200, and ±300 Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is ultrasonic inspections to detect Series Airplanes the airworthiness authority for Canada, disbonding of the upper and lower skin notified the FAA that an unsafe AGENCY: Federal Aviation panels of the horizontal stabilizer, and condition may exist on certain Administration, DOT. repair, if necessary. Based on the Bombardier Model DHC–8–100, –200, information provided by TCCA, the ACTION: Final rule; request for and –300 series airplanes. TCCA advises FAA has determined that an additional comments. that it received results of previous disbonding test of the skin panels is inspections to detect disbonding of the SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a needed on airplanes equipped with CAP new airworthiness directive (AD) that is upper and lower skin panels of the horizontal stabilizers having serial applicable to certain Bombardier Model horizontal stabilizer. Results of these numbers 003 through 050, the repetitive DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series inspections indicate that certain ultrasonic inspections required by AD airplanes. This action requires the doublers and stringers were disbonded 98–24–18 may not be adequate to detect removal and testing of sections of from their skin panels. The subject disbonding of the upper and lower skin bonded skin from the upper and lower doublers and stringers are installed on panels of the horizontal stabilizer, and, skin panels of the horizontal stabilizer, the upper and lower skin panels of the therefore, may not be providing an repair of those areas, and follow-on horizontal stabilizer at stations Yh6.15– adequate level of safety for the transport corrective actions, if necessary. This 139.00 between the front spar and rear airplane fleet. This AD affects the amendment is prompted by issuance of spar. The cause of such disbonding has requirements of that AD. For certain mandatory continuing airworthiness been attributed to an improper bonding airplanes, the corrective actions of this information by a foreign civil process of the skin panels of the AD eliminate the need for the repetitive airworthiness authority. The actions doublers and stringers during inspections required by AD 98–24–18. manufacturing. This condition, if not specified in this AD are intended to FAA’s Conclusions prevent reduced strength capability and corrected, could result in reduced consequent failure of the horizontal strength capability and consequent This airplane model is manufactured stabilizer, which could result in loss of failure of horizontal stabilizer, which in Canada and is type certificated for controllability of the airplane. could further result in loss of operation in the United States under the controllability of the airplane. provisions of section 21.29 of the DATES: Effective January 27, 2000. TCCA has recommended further Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR The incorporation by reference of testing on sample coupons of the 21.29) and the applicable bilateral certain publications listed in the sections of skin panels to determine the airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to regulations is approved by the Director bonding integrity of the skin panels. A this bilateral airworthiness agreement, of the Federal Register as of January 27, destructive peel test would be TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the 2000. conducted on the removed sections of situation described above. The FAA has Comments for inclusion in the Rules bonded skin (test coupons) by the examined the findings of TCCA, Docket must be received on or before manufacturer. This type of testing reviewed all available information, and February 11, 2000. would determine how much force is determined that AD action is necessary ADDRESSES: Submit comments in necessary in order to separate the for products of this type design that are triplicate to the Federal Aviation bonded layers of the skin panel. certificated for operation in the United Administration (FAA), Transport States. Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Explanation of Relevant Service Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM– Information Explanation of Requirements of Rule 357–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., The manufacturer has issued Since an unsafe condition has been Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8–55– identified that is likely to exist or The service information referenced in 24, dated February 26, 1998, which develop on other airplanes of the same this AD may be obtained from describes procedures for replacement of type design registered in the United Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional the horizontal stabilizer with a new States, this AD is being issued to Aircraft Division, Garratt Boulevard, horizontal stabilizer. prevent reduced strength capability of Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. Accomplishment of the test on the the horizontal stabilizer and consequent This information may be examined at sample coupons and, if necessary, failure of the horizontal stabilizer,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.116 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations which could result in loss of Docket Number 99–NM–357–AD.’’ The Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane controllability of the airplane. This AD postcard will be date stamped and identified in the preceding applicability requires removal and testing of the returned to the commenter. provision, regardless of whether it has been sections of bonded skin from the upper modified, altered, or repaired in the area Regulatory Impact subject to the requirements of this AD. For and lower skin panels of the horizontal airplanes that have been modified, altered, or stabilizer, repair of those areas, and The regulations adopted herein will repaired so that the performance of the follow-on corrective actions, if not have a substantial direct effect on requirements of this AD is affected, the necessary. Certain actions (removal and the States, on the relationship between owner/operator must request approval for an repair) are required to be accomplished the national Government and the States, alternative method of compliance in in accordance with a method approved or on the distribution of power and accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. by the Manager, FAA, Engine and responsibilities among the various The request should include an assessment of Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft the effect of the modification, alteration, or levels of government. Therefore, it is repair on the unsafe condition addressed by Certification Office (ACO). Other actions determined that this final rule does not this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not (replacement) are required to be have federalism implications under been eliminated, the request should include accomplished in accordance with the Executive Order 13132. specific proposed actions to address it. service bulletin described previously. The FAA has determined that this Compliance: Required as indicated, unless Determination of Rule’s Effective Date regulation is an emergency regulation accomplished previously. that must be issued immediately to To prevent reduced strength capability of Since a situation exists that requires correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, the horizontal stabilizer and consequent the immediate adoption of this and that it is not a ‘‘significant failure of the horizontal stabilizer, which regulation, it is found that notice and could result in loss of controllability of the regulatory action’’ under Executive airplane, accomplish the following: opportunity for prior public comment Order 12866. It has been determined hereon are impracticable, and that good further that this action involves an Removal of Skin Sections cause exists for making this amendment emergency regulation under DOT (a) Within 2 months after the effective date effective in less than 30 days. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 of this AD, accomplish the requirements of Comments Invited FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD. determined that this emergency (1) Remove sections of bonded skin (test Although this action is in the form of coupons) from the upper panel P/N a final rule that involves requirements regulation otherwise would be 85510026, and the lower skin panel P/N affecting flight safety and, thus, was not significant under DOT Regulatory 85510025, of the horizontal stabilizer port preceded by notice and an opportunity Policies and Procedures, a final and starboard side, at stations Yh77.50–90.90 for public comment, comments are regulatory evaluation will be prepared between stringer number 6 and the rear spar, and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy in accordance with a method approved by invited on this rule. Interested persons the Manager, FAA, Engine and Propeller are invited to comment on this rule by of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided Directorate, New York Aircraft Certification submitting such written data, views, or Office (ACO); and ADDRESSES. arguments as they may desire. under the caption (2) Mark and send for testing the removed Communications shall identify the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 sections of bonded skin to the attention of M. Rules Docket number and be submitted Elliott X3177 or M. Clark X3092, Bombardier Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation in triplicate to the address specified Aerospace Mailroom (A.O.G.), 123 Garratt safety, Incorporation by reference, Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, under the caption ADDRESSES. All Safety. M3K–1Y5; and communications received on or before (3) Repair the areas where the sections of the closing date for comments will be Adoption of the Amendment bonded skin were removed, in accordance considered, and this rule may be Accordingly, pursuant to the with a method approved by the Manager, amended in light of the comments FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New authority delegated to me by the York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). received. Factual information that Administrator, the Federal Aviation supports the commenter’s ideas and After the repair, the airplane may be returned Administration amends part 39 of the to service while awaiting test results. suggestions is extremely helpful in Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR evaluating the effectiveness of the AD Note 2: The Manager, FAA, Engine and part 39) as follows: Propeller Directorate, New York ACO, has action and determining whether approved Bombardier Repair Drawing RD8– additional rulemaking action would be PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS 55–669, Issue 3, dated March 17, 1999, as an needed. DIRECTIVES acceptable method for accomplishing the Comments are specifically invited on actions required by paragraph (a) of this AD. the overall regulatory, economic, 1. The authority citation for part 39 Operators should note that the repair environmental, and energy aspects of continues to read as follows: drawing recommends a one-time ultrasonic inspection to detect disbonding on the the rule that might suggest a need to Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. modify the rule. All comments stringers and doublers of the horizontal submitted will be available, both before stabilizer. However, the approved method of § 39.13 [Amended] compliance does not require the ultrasonic and after the closing date for comments, 2. Section 39.13 is amended by inspection. in the Rules Docket for examination by adding the following new airworthiness Corrective Actions interested persons. A report that directive: (b) Within 30 days following the removal summarizes each FAA-public contact 2000–01–07 Bombardier, INC. (Formerly de of the sections of bonded skin (test coupons) concerned with the substance of this AD Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39–11504. from the upper and lower skin panels of the will be filed in the Rules Docket. Docket 99–NM–357–AD. Commenters wishing the FAA to horizontal stabilizer, determine the test Applicability: Model DHC–8–100, –200, acknowledge receipt of their comments results and accomplish paragraph (b)(1) or and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any (b)(2) of this AD, as applicable. submitted in response to this rule must category; equipped with Canadian Aviation (1) For airplanes on which all sections of submit a self-addressed, stamped Products (CAP) horizontal stabilizers having bonded skin (test coupons) pass the test postcard on which the following serial numbers CAP 003 through CAP 050 required by this AD, no further action is statement is made: ‘‘Comments to inclusive. required by this AD.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1767

(2) For airplanes on which any section of Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed Federal Register, 800 North Capitol bonded skin (test coupon) fails the test, prior in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–99– Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. to further flight, either replace the horizontal 15R1, dated December 6, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: stabilizer with a new horizontal stabilizer in (g) This amendment becomes effective on accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin January 27, 2000. Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, S.B. 8–55–24, dated February 26, 1998, or Issued in Renton, Washington, on January repair in accordance with a method approved 4, 2000. 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, by the Manager, New York ACO. Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– Donald L. Riggin, (c) Model DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. series airplanes, equipped with Canadian Acting Manager, Transport Airplane SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aviation Products (CAP) horizontal Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. stabilizers having serial numbers CAP 003 [FR Doc. 00–499 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Events Leading to the Issuance of This through CAP 050 inclusive: Passing the test BILLING CODE 4910±13±U AD on all sections of bonded skin constitutes terminating action for the repetitive A proposal to amend part 39 of the inspections required by AD 98–24–18, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR amendment 39–10903. Accomplishment of part 39) to include an AD that would either the replacement or an approved repair, Federal Aviation Administration apply to certain Pilatus PC–7 airplanes as required by paragraph (b)(2) of this AD, on was published in the Federal Register any airplane on which any section of bonded 14 CFR Part 39 as a notice of proposed rulemaking skin fails the test also constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required [Docket No. 99±CE±61±AD; Amendment 39± (NPRM) on September 28, 1999 (64 FR by AD 98–24–18, amendment 39–10903. 11508; AD 2000±01±10] 52260). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 98–08–07, Amendment Note 3: Following accomplishment of the RIN 2120±AA64 requirements of this AD, the horizontal 39–10456 (63 FR 17323, April 9, 1998). stabilizer remains subject to the normal AD 98–08–07 currently requires Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus replacing the rudder and elevator pivot bonding integrity inspection program, which Aircraft Ltd. Model PC±7 Airplanes is performed in accordance with de arms with parts of improved design. Havilland Product Support Manual (PSM) 1– AGENCY: Federal Aviation Accomplishment of AD 98–08–07 was 8–7. Administration, DOT. required in accordance with Pilatus Alternative Methods of Compliance ACTION: Final rule. Service Bulletin No. PC7–55-001, (d) An alternative method of compliance or Revision No. 1, dated June 20, 1995. adjustment of the compliance time that SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes AD 98–08–07 was the result of reports provides an acceptable level of safety may be Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98–08–07, of cracks in the elevator and rudder trim used if approved by the Manager, New York which currently requires replacing the tab pivot arms on the above-referenced ACO. Operators shall submit their requests rudder and elevator pivot arms with airplanes. through an appropriate FAA Principal parts of improved design on certain The NPRM proposed to require Maintenance Inspector, who may add Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC– replacing the rudder and elevator pivot comments and then send it to the Manager, 7 airplanes. This AD requires replacing arms with parts that have been New York ACO. the rudder and elevator pivot arms with improved since issuance of AD 98–08– Note 4: Information concerning the parts that have been improved since 07. existence of approved alternative methods of issuance of AD 98–08–07. This AD is compliance with this AD, if any, may be Accomplishment of the proposed the result of mandatory continuing obtained from the New York ACO. action as specified in the NPRM would airworthiness information (MCAI) be required in accordance with Pilatus Special Flight Permits issued by the airworthiness authority for Service Bulletin No. 55–003, dated July (e) Special flight permits may be issued in Switzerland. The actions specified by 7, 1999. accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 this AD are intended to prevent failure The NPRM was the result of of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR of the elevator and rudder caused by mandatory continuing airworthiness 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to fatigue cracking of the pivot arms, information (MCAI) issued by the a location where the requirements of this AD which could result in reduced airplane can be accomplished. airworthiness authority for Switzerland. controllability and possible loss of Interested persons have been afforded Incorporation by Reference control of the airplane. an opportunity to participate in the (f) Except as provided by paragraphs (a)(1) DATES: Effective March 3, 2000. making of this amendment. No and (a)(3) of this AD, the actions shall be The incorporation by reference of comments were received on the done in accordance with Bombardier Service certain publications listed in the proposed rule or the FAA’s Bulletin S.B. 8–55–24, dated February 26, regulations is approved by the Director determination of the cost to the public. 1998, as applicable. This incorporation by of the Federal Register as of March 3, reference was approved by the Director of the 2000. The FAA’s Determination Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be ADDRESSES: Service information that After careful review of all available obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier applies to this AD may be obtained from information related to the subject Regional Aircraft Division, Garratt Boulevard, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison presented above, the FAA has Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland; determined that air safety and the Copies may be inspected at the FAA, telephone: +41 41 619 65 09; facsimile: public interest require the adoption of Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind +41 41 610 33 51. This information may the rule as proposed except for minor Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the also be examined at the Federal editorial corrections. The FAA has FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Aviation Administration (FAA), Central determined that these minor corrections Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York; Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, will not change the meaning of the AD or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–CE–61– and will not add any additional burden North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, upon the public than was already Washington, DC. Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the proposed.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.119 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Cost Impact evaluation prepared for this action is and including MSN 614, certificated in any The FAA estimates that 8 airplanes in contained in the Rules Docket. A copy category. the U.S. registry will be affected by this of it may be obtained by contacting the Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane AD, that it will take approximately 6 Rules Docket at the location provided identified in the preceding applicability workhours per airplane to accomplish under the caption ADDRESSES. provision, regardless of whether it has been the required action, and that the average List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 modified, altered, or repaired in the area labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. subject to the requirements of this AD. For Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Parts cost approximately $300 per airplanes that have been modified, altered, or safety, Incorporation by reference, airplane. Based on these figures, the repaired so that the performance of the Safety. total cost impact of this AD on U.S. requirements of this AD is affected, the operators is estimated to be $5,280, or Adoption of the Amendment owner/operator must request approval for an $660 per airplane. alternative method of compliance in Accordingly, pursuant to the accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. Regulatory Impact authority delegated to me by the The request should include an assessment of The regulations adopted herein will Administrator, the Federal Aviation the effect of the modification, alteration, or not have a substantial direct effect on Administration amends part 39 of the repair on the unsafe condition addressed by the States, on the relationship between Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not the national Government and the States, part 39) as follows: been eliminated, the request should include or on the distribution of power and specific proposed actions to address it. PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS Compliance: Required as indicated in the responsibilities among the various DIRECTIVES levels of government. Therefore, it is body of this AD, unless already determined that this final rule does not 1. The authority citation for part 39 accomplished. have federalism implications under continues to read as follows: To prevent fatigue failure of the elevator and rudder trim tab pivot arms because of Executive Order 13132. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. For the reasons discussed above, I cracks, which could result in the loss of certify that this action (1) is not a § 39.13 [Amended] airplane control, accomplish the following: ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 2. Section 39.13 is amended by (a) Within the next 100 hours time-in- Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) service (TIS) after the effective date of this ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 98–08–07, Amendment 39–10456, and AD, replace the rudder and elevator pivot Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 by adding a new AD to read as follows: arms with parts of improved design (or FAA- FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) approved equivalent part numbers), as 2000–01–10 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: specified in and in accordance with Pilatus will not have a significant economic Amendment 39–11508; Docket No. 99– Service Bulletin No. 55–003, dated July 7, impact, positive or negative, on a CE–61–AD; Supersedes AD 98–08–07, substantial number of small entities Amendment 39–10456. 1999. The part numbers of the improved design pivot arms are reflected in the under the criteria of the Regulatory Applicability: Model PC–7 airplanes, all Flexibility Act. A copy of the final manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) up to following chart:

Previous part number installed per AD 98±08± Designation 07 New part number

Pivot arm, inner elevator ...... 113.50.07.108 ...... 113.50.07.108 (green paint). Pivot arm, outer elevator ...... 113.50.07.109 ...... 113.50.07.109 (green paint). Pivot arm, upper rudder ...... 113.40.07.084 ...... 113.40.07.084 (green paint). Pivot arm, lower rudder ...... 113.40.07.083 ...... 113.40.07.083 (green paint).

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no Note 2: Information concerning the Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri, or person may install, on any of the affected existence of approved alternative methods of at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 airplanes, an elevator or rudder pivot arm compliance with this AD, if any, may be North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, that is not of the improved design specified obtained from the Small Airplane Washington, DC. in paragraph (a) of this AD. Directorate. Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed (c) Special flight permits may be issued in (e) Questions or technical information in Swiss Airworthiness Directive HB 99–412, accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 related to Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 55– of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 003, dated July 7, 1999, should be directed Effective Date: August 31, 1999. 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison (g) This amendment supersedes AD 98–08– a location where the requirements of this AD Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland; 07, Amendment 39–10456. telephone: +41 41 619 65 09; facsimile: +41 can be accomplished. (h) This amendment becomes effective on 41 610 33 51. This service information may (d) An alternative method of compliance or be examined at the FAA, Central Region, March 3, 2000. adjustment of the compliance times that Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January provides an equivalent level of safety may be Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 4, 2000. approved by the Manager, Small Airplane (f) The replacements required by this AD Michael Gallagher, Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas shall be done in accordance with Pilatus City, Missouri 64106. Service Bulletin No. 55–003, dated July 7, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft (1) The request shall be forwarded through 1999. This incorporation by reference was Certification Service. an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, approved by the Director of the Federal [FR Doc. 00–498 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] who may add comments and then send it to Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) BILLING CODE 4910±13±U the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate. and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained (2) Alternative methods of compliance from Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison approved in accordance with AD 98–08–07 Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland. are not considered approved as alternative Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Central methods of compliance for this AD. Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.120 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1769

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION facsimile: ++49 6103 45526. You may deflector for sailplanes equipped with examine this information at the FAA, an instrument panel that is 27 Federal Aviation Administration Central Region, Office of the Regional centimeters (10.6 inches) wide if Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. proper clearance is not met. 14 CFR Part 39 99–CE–76–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, The Foreign Airworthiness Authority’s Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the [Docket No. 99±CE±76±AD; Amendment 39± Action 11503; AD 2000±01±06] Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, What action did the LBA take? The RIN 2120±AA64 Washington, DC. LBA classified this service bulletin as Airworthiness Directives; Rolladen FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. mandatory and issued German AD Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 1999–266, dated July 6, 1999, in order LS6±c Sailplanes Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, to assure the continued airworthiness of Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; these sailplanes in Germany. AGENCY: Federal Aviation telephone: (816) 329–4144; facsimile: Was this in accordance with the Administration, DOT. (816) 329–4090. bilateral airworthiness agreement? Yes. This sailplane model is manufactured in ACTION: Final rule; request for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: comments. Germany and is type certificated for Discussion operation in the United States under the SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a provisions of section 21.29 of the What events have caused this AD? new airworthiness directive (AD) that Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which applies to certain Rolladen Schneider 21.29) and the applicable bilateral is the airworthiness authority for Flugzeugbau GmbH (Rolladen airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to Germany, recently notified the FAA that Schneider) Model LS6–c sailplanes. this bilateral airworthiness agreement, an unsafe condition may exist on certain This AD requires that you accomplish the LBA has kept the FAA informed of Rolladen Schneider Model LS6–c the following: the situation described above. sailplanes. The LBA advises that the —install a deflector on the cockpit potential exists for the instrument panel The FAA’s Determination and an instrument panel for sailplanes to jam against the canopy frame of the Explanation of the Provisions of the AD equipped with an instrument panel emergency jettison system. The that is 40 centimeters (15.75 inches) What has the FAA decided? After potential for the unsafe condition is wide; examining the circumstances and greater for sailplanes equipped with an —inspect the canopy emergency jettison reviewing all available information instrument panel that is 40 centimeters system on all sailplanes; and related to the incidents described above (15.75 inches) wide. However, the —adjust the system, as necessary, for all including that received from the LBA, potential also exists for sailplanes sailplanes, including installing a the FAA has determined that: equipped with an instrument panel that deflector for sailplanes equipped with —an unsafe condition exists or could is 27 centimeters (10.6 inches) wide. an instrument panel that is not 40 develop on Rolladen Schneider Model What are the consequences if the centimeters (15.75 inches) wide if LS6-c sailplanes of the same type condition is not corrected? The proper clearance is not met. design to those referenced above; instrument panel jamming against the This AD is the result of mandatory —the actions of the above-referenced canopy frame of the emergency jettison continuing airworthiness information service bulletin should be system could restrict the pilot’s ability (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness accomplished on the affected to safely exit the sailplane. authority for Germany. The actions sailplanes; and What is the cause of the problem? The specified by this AD are intended to —AD action should be taken to assure potential for the unsafe condition is assure that the instrument panel does that the instrument panel does not inherent in the design of the instrument not jam against the canopy frame of the jam against the canopy frame of the panels that are 40 centimeters (15.75 emergency jettison system. This could emergency jettison system. This could inches) wide. Modifications made to restrict the pilot’s ability to safely exit restrict the pilot’s ability to safely exit instrument panels that are 27 the sailplane. the sailplane. centimeters (10.6 inches) wide could What does this AD require? This AD DATES: Effective February 4, 2000. create the potential for the condition to requires you to accomplish the The Director of the Federal Register exist or develop. following: approved the incorporation by reference Relevant Service Information —install a deflector on the cockpit of certain publications listed in the instrument panel for sailplanes regulation as of February 4, 2000. Is there service information that equipped with an instrument panel The FAA must receive any comments applies to this subject? Yes. Rolladen that is 40 centimeters (15.75 inches) on this rule on or before February 15, Schneider has issued Technical Bulletin wide; 2000. No. 6036, dated June 8, 1999. —inspect the canopy emergency jettison ADDRESSES: Submit comments in What are the provisions of this service system on all sailplanes; and triplicate to the Federal Aviation bulletin? The service bulletin specifies —adjust the system, as necessary, for all Administration (FAA), Central Region, and/or includes procedures for: sailplanes, including installing a Office of the Regional Counsel, —installing a deflector on the cockpit deflector for sailplanes equipped with Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–CE–76– instrument panel for sailplanes an instrument panel that is not 40 AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, equipped with an instrument panel centimeters (15.75 inches) wide if Missouri 64106. that is 40 centimeters (15.75 inches) proper clearance is not met. You may get the service information wide; referenced in this AD from Rolladen- —inspecting the canopy emergency Compliance Time of This AD Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH, jettison system on all sailplanes; and What is the compliance time of this Muhlstrasse 10, D–63329 Egelsbach, —adjusting the system, as necessary, for AD? Within 30 calendar days after the Germany; phone: ++49 6103 204126; all sailplanes, including installing a effective date of this AD. Since a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations situation exists that requires the improve the clarity of FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR immediate adoption of this regulation, communications that affect you. You part 39) as follows: the FAA finds that notice and can get more information about the opportunity for public prior comment Presidential memorandum and the plain PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS hereon are impracticable, and that good language initiative at http:// DIRECTIVES cause exists for making this amendment www.plainlanguage.gov. 1. The authority citation for part 39 effective in less than 30 days. The FAA specifically invites continues to read as follows: Why is the compliance time in comments on the overall regulatory, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. calendar time instead of hours time-in- economic, environmental, and energy service? The FAA has determined that a aspects of the rule that might suggest a § 39.13 [Amended] calendar time for compliance is need to modify the rule. You may 2. Section 39.13 is amended by necessary because the unsafe condition examine all comments we receive before adding a new airworthiness directive described by this AD is not directly and after the closing date of the rule in (AD) to read as follows: related to sailplane operation. The the Rules Docket. We will file a report chance of this situation occurring is the 2000–01–06 Rolladen Schneider in the Rules Docket that summarizes Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39– same for a sailplane with 10 hours time- each FAA contact with the public that 11503; Docket No. 99–CE–76–AD. in-service (TIS) as it is for a sailplane concerns the substantive parts of this (a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? with 500 hours TIS. For this reason, the AD. Model LS6–c sailplanes, serial numbers 6149 FAA has determined that a compliance If you want us to acknowledge the through 6382, certificated in any category. based on calendar time should be receipt of your comments, you must (b) Who must comply with this AD? utilized in this AD in order to assure include a self-addressed, stamped Anyone who wishes to operate any of the that the unsafe condition is addressed above airplanes on the U.S. Register. postcard. On the postcard, write on all sailplanes in a reasonable time (c) What problem does this AD address? ‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–CE–76– period. The actions specified by this AD are intended Why is the compliance time of this AD AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the to assure that the instrument panel does not different than the German AD and the postcard back to you. jam against the canopy frame of the service information? The service emergency jettison system. This could Regulatory Impact restrict the pilot’s ability to safely exit the information specifies the actions These regulations will not have a sailplane. required in this AD ‘‘prior to further (d) What must I do to address this flight’’ and the German AD mandates substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national problem? To address this problem, you must these actions ‘‘prior to further flight’’ for accomplish all actions of either paragraph sailplanes registered for operation in Government and the States, or on the (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Germany. The FAA does not have distribution of power and (1) For Any Sailplane Equipped With an justification for requiring the action responsibilities among the various Instrument Panel That is 40 Centimeters prior to further flight. Instead, the FAA levels of government. Therefore, the (15.75 Inches) Wide. has determined that 30 calendar days is FAA has determined that this final rule (i) What actions must I take? Install a deflector on the cockpit instrument panel; a reasonable time period for does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. and inspect the canopy emergency jettison accomplishing the actions in this AD. system and adjust the system as necessary. The FAA has determined that this Comments Invited (ii) What procedures must I use? The regulation is an emergency regulation procedures contained in Rolladen Schneider Although this action is in the form of that must be issued immediately to Technical Bulletin No. 6036, dated June 8, a final rule and was not preceded by correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, 1999. notice and opportunity for public and is not a significant regulatory action (iii) When must I comply with these comment, the FAA invites comments on under Executive Order 12866. We actions? this rule. You may submit whatever determined that this action involves an (A) Installation and Inspection: Within the written data, views, or arguments you emergency regulation under DOT next 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD; and choose. You need to include the rule’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 (B) Adjustment, as necessary: Prior to docket number and submit your FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If the further flight after the required inspection. comments in triplicate to the address FAA determines that this emergency (2) For Any Sailplane Equipped With an specified under the caption ADDRESSES. regulation otherwise would be Instrument Panel That Is Not 40 Centimeters The FAA will consider all comments significant under DOT Regulatory (15.75 Inches) Wide; i.e., 27 Centimeters received on or before the closing date. Policies and Procedures, we will (10.6 Inches) Wide. We may amend this rule in light of prepare a final regulatory evaluation (i) What actions must I take? Inspect the comments received. Factual information and place it in the Rules Docket canopy emergency jettison system, adjust the (otherwise, an evaluation is not system as necessary, and install a deflector if that supports your ideas and suggestions proper clearance is not met. is extremely helpful in evaluating the required). You may obtain a copy of this (ii) What procedures must I use? The effectiveness of the AD action and evaluation, if filed, from the Rules procedures contained in Rolladen Schneider determining whether we need to take Docket. Technical Bulletin No. 6036, dated June 8, additional rulemaking action. 1999. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 The FAA is re-examining the writing (iii) When must I comply with these style we currently use in regulatory Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation actions? documents, in response to the safety, Incorporation by reference, (A) Inspection: Within the next 30 calendar Presidential memorandum of June 1, Safety. days after the effective date of this AD; and 1998. That memorandum requires (B) Adjustment and Installation, as Adoption of the Amendment necessary: Prior to further flight after the federal agencies to communicate more required inspection. clearly with the public. We are Accordingly, pursuant to the (e) Can I comply with this AD in any other interested in your comments on whether authority delegated to me by the way? Yes. the style of this document is clearer, and Administrator, the Federal Aviation (1) You may use an alternative method of any other suggestions you might have to Administration amends part 39 of the compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1771

(i) Your alternative method of compliance Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On or provides an equivalent level of safety; and 3, 2000. about October 20, 1999, an investigation (ii) The Manager, Small Airplane Michael Gallagher, jointly conducted by the Department of Directorate, approves your alternative. Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Transportation Inspector General and Submit your request through an FAA Certification Service. the Federal Bureau of Investigation Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may [FR Doc. 00–497 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] concluded that the airworthiness add comments and then send it to the documentation accompanying certain Manager. BILLING CODE 4910±13±U (2) This AD applies to each sailplane parts distributed contained false and identified in the preceding applicability inaccurate data. Some airworthiness provision, regardless of whether it has been DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION approvals appear to contain signature modified, altered, or repaired in the area blocks that were electronically scanned subject to the requirements of this AD. For Federal Aviation Administration from a signature block obtained from a sailplanes that have been modified, altered, previous airworthiness approval form. 14 CFR Part 39 or repaired so that the performance of the The scanned signature block was then requirements of this AD is affected, the [Docket No. 99±NE±58±AD; Amendment 39± electronically applied to other owner/operator must request approval for an 11506; AD 2000±01±09] airworthiness approval forms, which alternative method of compliance in contained fictitious cycle counts. In RIN 2120±AA64 accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. addition, documents appear to have The request should include an assessment of been created by splicing together several the effect of the modification, alteration, or Airworthiness Directives; GE Aircraft Engines CJ610 Series Turbojet items then photocopying the created repair on the unsafe condition addressed by document to make the copy appear as this AD; and, if you have not eliminated the Engines and CF700 Turbofan Engines unsafe condition, specific actions you an original document. Thus, the AGENCY: propose to address it. Federal Aviation airworthiness of those parts is suspect. (f) Where can I get information about any Administration, DOT. The FAA has identified 127 rotating already-approved alternative methods of ACTION: Final rule; request for parts, identified in Appendix 1 by part compliance? Contact the Small Airplane comments. number and serial number, that are Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas determined to be unapproved parts. City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a Continued operation of these 4121; facsimile: (816) 329–4091. new airworthiness directive (AD) that is unapproved parts may result in life (g) What if I need to fly the sailplane to applicable to GE Aircraft Engines limited parts exceeding the FAA another location to comply with this AD? The (GEAE) CJ610 series turbojet and CF700 approved low-cycle fatigue life limits. FAA can issue a special flight permit under series turbofan engines. This action This condition, if not corrected, could §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation requires removal of certain unapproved lead to an uncontained engine failure Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to parts before further flight. This and damage to the airplane. operate your sailplane to a location where amendment is prompted by findings you can accomplish the requirements of this Required Actions AD. that life-limited parts, with forged and (h) Who should I contact if I have questions inaccurate records, have been Since an unsafe condition has been regarding the service information? Questions introduced into the field and might be identified that is likely to exist or or technical information related to Rolladen installed on the affected engines. The develop on other GE CJ610 series Schneider Technical Bulletin No. 6036, dated actions specified in this AD are turbojet and CF700 series turbofan June 8, 1999, should be directed to Rolladen- intended to prevent the use of engines of the same type design, this AD Schneider Flugzeugbau GmbH, Muhlstrasse unapproved parts. This condition, if not is being issued to prevent use of 10, D–63329 Egelsbach, Germany; corrected, could lead to an uncontained unapproved parts, which could lead to phone: ++ 49 6103 204126; facsimile: ++ 49 engine failure and damage to the an uncontained engine failure. This AD 6103 45526. This service information may be airplane. requires removal of parts listed in examined at the FAA, Central Region, Office Appendix 1 of this AD before further of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room DATES: Effective February 11, 2000. flight and replacement with serviceable 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments for inclusion in the Rules (i) Are any service bulletins incorporated Docket must be received on or before parts. into this AD by reference? Yes. Actions March 13, 2000. Immediate Adoption required by this AD must be done in ADDRESSES: Submit comments in Since a situation exists that requires accordance with Rolladen Schneider triplicate to the Federal Aviation Technical Bulletin No. 6036, dated June 8, the immediate adoption of this Administration (FAA), New England regulation, it is found that notice and 1999. The Director of the Federal Register Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, approved this incorporation by reference opportunity for prior public comment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You Attention: Rules Docket No.99–NE–58– hereon are impracticable, and that good can get copies from Rolladen-Schneider AD, 12 New England Executive Park, cause exists for making this amendment Flugzeugbau GmbH, Muhlstrasse 10, Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments effective in less than 30 days. D–63329 Egelsbach, Germany. You can look may also be sent via the Internet using at copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office the following address: ‘‘9-ane- Comments Invited of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room [email protected].’’ Comments sent Although this action is in the form of 506, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office via the Internet must contain the docket a final rule that involves requirements of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol number in the subject line. affecting flight safety and, thus, was not Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: preceded by notice and an opportunity (j) Has the airworthiness authority for the State of Design addressed this action? Yes. Kevin Donovan, Aerospace Engineer, for public comment, comments are The subject of this AD is addressed in Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine invited on this rule. Interested persons German AD 1999–266, dated July 6, 1999. and Propeller Directorate, 12 New are invited to comment on this rule by (k) When does this amendment become England Executive Park, Burlington, MA submitting such written data, views, or effective? This amendment becomes effective 01803–5299; telephone (781) 238–7743, arguments as they may desire. on February 4, 2000. fax (781) 238–7199. Communications should identify the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:46 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 12JAR1 1772 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Rules Docket number and be submitted Regulatory Impact List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 in triplicate to the address specified This final rule does not have Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation under the caption ADDRESSES. All safety, Safety. communications received on or before federalism implications, as defined in the closing date for comments will be Executive Order 13132, because it does Adoption of the Amendment not have a substantial direct effect on considered, and this rule may be Accordingly, pursuant to the amended in light of the comments the States, on the relationship between authority delegated to me by the received. Factual information that the national government and the States, Administrator, the Federal Aviation supports the commenter’s ideas and or on the distribution of power and Administration amends part 39 of the suggestions is extremely helpful in responsibilities among the various Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR evaluating the effectiveness of the AD levels of government. Accordingly, the part 39) as follows: action and determining whether FAA has not consulted with state additional rulemaking action would be authorities prior to publication of this PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS needed. final rule. DIRECTIVES Comments are specifically invited on The FAA has determined that this the overall regulatory, economic, 1. The authority citation for part 39 regulation is an emergency regulation environmental, and energy aspects of continues to read as follows: that must be issued immediately to the rule that might suggest a need to Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. modify the rule. All comments correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, § 39.13 [Amended] submitted will be available, both before and is not a ‘‘significant regulatory and after the closing date for comments, action’’ under Executive Order 12866. It 2. Section 39.13 is amended by in the Rules Docket for examination by has been determined further that this adding the following new airworthiness interested persons. A report that action involves an emergency regulation directive: summarizes each FAA-public contact under DOT Regulatory Policies and 2000–01–09 General Electric Aircraft concerned with the substance of this AD Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, Engines (GEAE): Amendment 39–11506. will be filed in the Rules Docket. 1979). If it is determined that this Docket 99–NE–58–AD. Commenters wishing the FAA to emergency regulation otherwise would Applicability: CJ610 series turbojet and acknowledge receipt of their comments be significant under DOT Regulatory CF700 series turbofan engines, with parts submitted in response to this notice Policies and Procedures, a final listed by part number (P/N) and serial must submit a self-addressed, stamped regulatory evaluation will be prepared number (SN) in Appendix 1, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, postcard on which the following and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy the Dassault-Aviation Fan Jet Falcon 20 statement is made: ‘‘Comments to of it, if filed, may be obtained from the series, Sabreliner NA265 series, Learjet 20 Docket Number 99–NE–58–AD.’’ The Rules Docket at the location provided series, Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind postcard will be date stamped and under the caption ADDRESSES.’ series, Hansa Jet, Aero Commander, and Jet returned to the commenter. Commander.

Appendix 1

Part number Part name Serial number

3007T98G01 ...... Shaft, compressor drive ...... HPCTQA11693 3007T98G01 ...... Shaft, compressor drive ...... HPCTQA11929 3007T98G01 ...... Shaft, compressor drive ...... HPCTQA1929 3007T98G01 ...... Shaft, compressor drive ...... HPGTQA9947 3007T98G01 ...... Shaft, compressor drive ...... TQA14300 37D401014P101 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... GGM681 37D401014P101 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... GGMCBK1977 37D401014P101 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... GGMWZA1230 37D401014P101 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... GGMWZA2322 37D401014P101 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... GGMWZA4665 37D401014P101 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... PMB08403P 37D401014P102 ...... Torque ring, turbine ...... PMB19204 37D401302P101 ...... Spacer, stage 2 ...... GATI2099WYR 37D401302P101 ...... Spacer, stage 2 ...... GATWZA09656 37D401302P101 ...... Spacer, stage 2 ...... GATWZA10002 37D401302P101 ...... Spacer, stage 2 ...... GATWZA10148 37D401302P101 ...... Spacer, stage 2 ...... GATWZA5419 37D401303P102 ...... Spacer, stage 3 ...... GATCBK02192 37D401303P102 ...... Spacer, stage 3 ...... GATWZA12030 37D401303P102 ...... Spacer, stage 3 ...... GGMWZA1022 37D401303P104 ...... Spacer, stage 3 ...... GATWYR5364 37D401304P104 ...... Spacer, stage 4 ...... GATANWA2378 37D401305P103 ...... Spacer, stage 5 ...... GATANW9528 37D401305P103 ...... Spacer, stage 5 ...... GATANWA7441 37D401305P103 ...... Spacer, stage 5 ...... GATANWA8542 37D401305P103 ...... Spacer, stage 5 ...... GGMANW3172 37D401306P103 ...... Spacer, stage 6 ...... GATANW6380 37D401306P103 ...... Spacer, stage 6 ...... GGMANW2331 37D401306P105 ...... Spacer, stage 6 ...... GATCDY71386 37D401306P105 ...... Spacer, stage 6 ...... GATO7040CDY 37D401307P103 ...... Spacer, stage 7 ...... GAT59653 37D401307P103 ...... Spacer, stage 7 ...... GATANW7170

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4706 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.091 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1773

Part number Part name Serial number

37D401307P103 ...... Spacer, stage 7 ...... GATANWA7134 37D401307P103 ...... Spacer, stage 7 ...... GGMANW3104 37D401312P101 ...... Disc, stage 2 ...... GATI0156WZA 37D401312P101 ...... Disc, stage 2 ...... GATO8253WZA 37D401312P101 ...... Disc, stage 2 ...... GATWZA3983 37D401312P101 ...... Disc, stage 2 ...... GATWZA6604 37D401312P101 ...... Disc, stage 2 ...... GGMCBK620 37D401312P101 ...... Disc, stage 2 ...... GGMLBA4491 37D401313P101 ...... Disc, stage 3 ...... GATI3249WYI 37D401313P101 ...... Disc, stage 3 ...... GATO7644WZA 37D401313P101 ...... Disc, stage 3 ...... GATWZA6522 37D401313P101 ...... Disc, stage 3 ...... GATWZA6723 37D401313P101 ...... Disc, stage 3 ...... GGMLBA2102 37D401314P102 ...... Disc, stage 4 ...... GAT05572WZA 37D401314P102 ...... Disc, stage 4 ...... GATO4383WZA 37D401314P102 ...... Disc, stage 4 ...... GGMWZA6818 37D401315P101 ...... Disc, stage 5 ...... GAT12406WZA 37D401315P101 ...... Disc, stage 5 ...... GATWZA4753 37D401315P101 ...... Disc, stage 5 ...... GATWZA7093 37D401316P101 ...... Disc, stage 6 ...... GAT10162WZA 37D401316P101 ...... Disc, stage 6 ...... GATWZA4435 37D401316P101 ...... Disc, stage 6 ...... GATWZA7208 37D401316P101 ...... Disc, stage 6 ...... GGMWZA3376 37D401317P101 ...... Disc, stage 7 ...... GAT10013WZA 37D401317P101 ...... Disc, stage 7 ...... GAT13322WZA 37D401317P101 ...... Disc, stage 7 ...... GATI5009WYR 37D401709P101 ...... Disc, stage 8 ...... GATO3900WZA 37D401709P101 ...... Disc, stage 8 ...... GATO5381WZA 37D401709P101 ...... Disc, stage 8 ...... GGMWZA6906 37D401709P101 ...... Disc, stage 8 ...... GGMWZA6942 37E501428P102 ...... Disc and shaft, stage 1 ...... GATI2001WZA 37E501428P102 ...... Disc and shaft, stage 1 ...... GATWZA8639 37E501428P106 ...... Disc and shaft, stage 1 ...... GATO8474WZA 37E501428P106 ...... Disc and shaft, stage 1 ...... GGMWZA3231 4010T01P01 ...... Seal labyrinth, stage 8 ...... JADCSF334P59 4010T01P01 ...... Seal labyrinth, stage 8 ...... JADCSF5222 4010T01P01 ...... Seal labyrinth, stage 8 ...... JADCSF5444P21 4010T01P01 ...... Seal labyrinth, stage 8 ...... JADMCI3214 4036T24P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATWYR14035 4036T24P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATWYR14655 5013T79P01 ...... Disc, stage 5 ...... GATI1679WZA 5013T82P01 ...... Disc, stage 7 ...... GATI7662WYR 5013T88P01 ...... Spacer, stage 4 ...... GAT69935 5013T88P01 ...... Spacer, stage 4 ...... GATCDY66715 5013T89P01 ...... Spacer, stage 5 ...... GAT60180CDY 5013T90P01 ...... Spacer, stage 7 ...... GAT81678CDY 5013T90P01 ...... Spacer, stage 7 ...... GATCDY82036 5018T16P01 ...... Disc, stage 4 ...... GAT12222WYR 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT11900 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT13094 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT14749 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT15160 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT15396WYR 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT15703 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT15821 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT15899 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT59743 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT60190 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT60197 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT60483 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT7321 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATA8475 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATA8492 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATAJ204 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATB6925 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATBE998 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATE2150 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATE2259 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATE2291 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATE2336 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATF4496 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATF4507 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATFE953 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATG6470

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4706 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.093 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Part number Part name Serial number

6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATV6541 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATV6588 6028T44P01 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATW1573 634E583P04 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWZA4994 634E583P5 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT10650 634E583P5 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT13048 646C596P2 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATCBK01912 646C596P2 ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATWYR12725 646C596P2 * ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATWZA9723 646C594P2 * ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATWZA9723 646C594P1 * ...... Turbine wheel, stage 2 ...... GATWZA9723 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GAT9383WZA 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATMKF07225 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWYR12358 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWYR13457 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWYR13677 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWZA8110 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWZA8263 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... GATWZA9182 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... OJL0145 841B690P7 ...... Assy, Turbine wheel, stage 1 ...... WDBMKF07219 * The FAA has determined that up to three Stage 2 Turbine wheels, SN GATWZA9723, may have been distributed with three different P/N's. Therefore, while only P/N 646C596P1 is an approved P/N for the CJ610 and CF700 model engine, all three part numbers are listed.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) Effective Date of This AD and NDB RWY 36 SIAPs in controlled applies to each engine identified in the (c) This amendment becomes effective on airspace. The extension of the north is preceding applicability provision, regardless February 11, 2000. eliminated. of whether it has been modified, altered, or Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on In addition, a minor revision to the repaired in the area subject to the January 5, 2000. Airport Reference Point (ARP) and NDB requirements of this AD. For engines that Jay J. Pardee, coordinates is included in this have been modified, altered, or repaired so Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, document. that the performance of the requirements of The intended effect of this rule is to Aircraft Certification Service. this AD is affected, the owner/operator must provide controlled Class E airspace for request approval for an alternative method of [FR Doc. 00–597 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] aircraft executing GPS RWY 18, GPS compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) BILLING CODE 4910±13±P RWY 36 and NDB RWY 36 SIAPs, revise of this AD. The request should include an the ARP and NDB coordinates, assessment of the effect of the modification, eliminate the extension to the north and alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION to segregate aircraft using instrument addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe approach procedures in instrument condition has not been eliminated, the Federal Aviation Administration request should include specific proposed conditions from aircraft operating in actions to address it. 14 CFR Part 71 visual conditions. Compliance: Required as indicated, unless [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±51] DATES: This direct final rule is effective accomplished previously. on 9091 UTC, April 20, 2000. To prevent the use of unapproved parts, Amendment to Class E Airspace; Comments for inclusion in the Rules which could lead to an uncontained engine Marshall, MO Docket must be received on or before February 16, 2000. failure and damage to the airplane, AGENCY: Federal Aviation ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding accomplish the following: Administration (FAA), DOT. the rule in triplicate to: Manager, Replacement of Unapproved Parts ACTION: Direct final rule; request for Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, (a) Before further flight after the effective comments. ACE–520, DOT Regional Headquarters date of this AD, remove any part listed SUMMARY: This action amends the Class Building, Federal Aviation by P/N and SN in Appendix 1 of this AD, E airspace area at Marshall Memorial Administration, Docket Number 99– and replace it with a serviceable part. Municipal Airport, Marshall, MO. The ACE–49, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Mo Alternate Methods of Compliance FAA has developed Global Positioning 64106. The official docket may be examined (b) An alternative method of compliance or System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 18, GPS adjustment of the compliance time that RWY 36 Standard Instrument Approach in the Office of the Regional Counsel for provides an acceptable level of safety may be Procedures (SIAPs), and amended the the Central Region at the same address used if approved by the Manager, Engine Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall RWY 36 SIAP to serve Marshall through Friday, except Federal holidays. submit their requests through an appropriate Memorial Municipal Airport, MO. An informal docket may also be FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who Additional controlled airspace examined during normal business hours may add comments and then send it to the extending upward from 700 feet Above in the Air Traffic Division at the same Manager, ECO. Ground Level (AGL) is needed to address listed above. Note 2: Information concerning the accommodate these SIAPs and for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: existence of approved alternative methods of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, compliance with this airworthiness directive, at this airport. The enlarged area will Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, DOT if any, may be obtained from the ECO. contain the GPS RWY 18, GPS RWY 36, Regional Headquarters Building, Federal

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.093 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1775

Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Comment Invited promulgated, will not have a significant Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: Although this action is in the form of economic impact, positive or negative, (816) 329–2525. a final rule and was not preceded by a on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA notice of proposed rulemaking, has developed GPS RWY 18, GPS RWY comments are invited on this rule. Flexibility Act. 36 SIAPs, and amended the NDB RWY Interested persons are invited to List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 36 SIAP to serve the Marshall Memorial comment on this rule by submitting Municipal Airport, MO. The such written data, views, or arguments Airspace, Incorporation by reference, amendment to Class E airspace at as they may desire. Communications Navigation (air). Marshall, MO, will provide additional should identify the Rules Docket Adoption of the Amendment controlled airspace at and above 700 number and be submitted in triplicate to feet AGL in order to contain the SIAPs the address specified under the caption Accordingly, the Federal Aviation ADDRESSES. All communications within controlled airspace, and thereby Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 received on or before the closing date facilitate separation of aircraft operating as follows: under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). for comments will be considered, and The amendment at Marshall Memorial this rule may be amended or withdrawn PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Municipal Airport, MO, will provide in light of the comments received. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND additional controlled airspace for Factual information that supports the CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; commenter’s ideas and suggestions is aircraft operating under IFR. The area AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING extremely helpful in evaluating the will be depicted on appropriate POINTS aeronautical charts. Class E airspace effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional areas extending upward from 700 feet or 1. The authority citation for part 71 rulemaking action would be needed. more above the surface of the earth are continues to read as follows: published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Comments are specifically invited on Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, the overall regulatory, economic, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, environmental, and energy-related 1963 Comp., p. 389. which is incorporated by reference in 14 aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments CFR 71.1 The Class E airspace § 71.1 [Amended] designation listed in this document will submitted will be available, both before be published subsequently in the Order. and after the closing date for comments, 2. The incorporation by reference in in the Rules Docket for examination by 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation The Direct Final Rule Procedure interested persons. A report that Administration Order 7400.9G Airspace summarizes each FAA-public contact Designations and Reporting Points, The FAA anticipates that this concerned with the substance of this dated September 10, 1999, and effective regulation will not result in advise or action will be filed in the Rules Docket. September 16, 1999, is amended as negative comment and, therefore, is Commenters wishing the FAA to follows: issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous acknowledge receipt of their comments actions of this nature have not been submitted in response to this rule must Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas controversial and have not resulted in submit a self-addressed, stamped extending upward from 700 feet or more adverse comments or objections. The postcard on which the following above the surface of the earth. amendment will enhance safety for all statement is made: ‘‘Comments to * * * * * flight operations by designating an area Docket No. 99–ACE–51.’’ The postcard ACE MO E5 Marshall, MO [Revised] where VFR pilots may anticipate the will be date stamped and returned to the presence of IFR aircraft at lower commenter. Marshall Memorial Municipal Airport, MO altitudes, especially during inclement (Lat. 39°05′44′′N., long. 93°12′02′′W.) weather conditions. A greater degree of Agency Findings Marshall NDB safety is achieved by depicting the area The regulations adopted herein will (Lat. 39°02′31′′N., long. 93°11′44′′W.) on aeronautical charts. Unless a written not have a substantial direct effect on That airspace extending upward from 700 adverse or negative comment, or a the States, on the relationship between feet above the surface within a 6.4 mile written notice of intent to submit an the national Government and the States, radius of Marshall Memorial Municipal adverse or negative comment is received or on the distribution of power and Airport and within 3.5 miles each side of the ° within the comment period, the responsibilities among the various 175 bearing from the Marshall NDB regulation will become effective on the levels of government. Therefore, it is extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles date specified above. After the close of determined that this final rule does not south of the NDB. the comment period, the FAA will have federalism implications under * * * * * publish a document in the Federal Executive Order 13132. Issued in Kansas City, MO, on December Register indicating that no adverse or The FAA has determined that this 22, 1999. negative comments were received and regulation is noncontroversial and Donovan D. Schardt, confirming the date on which the final unlikely to result in adverse or negative Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central rule will become effective. If the FAA comments. For the reasons discussed in Region. does receive, within the comment the preamble, I certify that this [FR Doc. 00–582 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] period, an adverse or negative comment, regulation (1) is not a ‘‘significant BILLING CODE 4910±13±M or written notice of intent to submit regulatory action’’ under Executive such a comment, a document Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant withdrawing the direct final rule will be rule’’ under Department of published in the Federal Register, and Transportation (DOT) Regulatory a notice of proposed rulemaking may be Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, published with a new comment period. February 26, 1979); and (3) if

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.095 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1776 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND the agency will delete from the authority delegated to the Commissioner HUMAN SERVICES documents any materials that are not of Food and Drugs and redelegated to available for public disclosure before the Director, Center for Food Safety and Food and Drug Administration making the documents available for Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 173 is inspection. amended as follows: 21 CFR Part 173 In the notice of filing, FDA gave [Docket No. 99F±2907] interested parties an opportunity to PART 173ÐSECONDARY DIRECT submit comments on the petitioner’s FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN Secondary Direct Food Additives environmental assessment. FDA FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION Permitted in Food for Human received no comments in response to 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR Consumption that notice. The agency has carefully considered part 173 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, the potential environmental effects of 2. Section 173.325 is amended by HHS. this action. FDA has concluded that the revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: ACTION: Final rule. action will not have a significant impact on the human environment, and that an § 173.325 Acidified sodium chlorite SUMMARY: The Food and Drug environmental impact statement is not solutions. Administration (FDA) is amending the required. The agency’s finding of no * * * * * food additive regulations to provide for significant impact and the evidence (c) The additive is used as an the safe use of acidified sodium chlorite supporting that finding, contained in an antimicrobial agent in accordance with solutions as an antimicrobial agent on environmental assessment, may be seen current industry practice in the red meat parts and organs. This action in the Dockets Management Branch processing of red meat, red meat parts, is in response to a petition filed by (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 and organs as a component of a spray Alcide Corp. p.m., Monday through Friday. or in the processing of red meat parts DATES: This rule is effective January 12, This final rule contains no collection and organs as a component of a dip. 2000; written objections and requests for of information. Therefore, clearance by Applied as a dip or spray, the additive a hearing by February 11, 2000. the Office of Management and Budget is used at levels that result in sodium ADDRESSES: Written objections may be under the Paperwork Reduction Act of chlorite concentrations between 500 and sent to the Dockets Management Branch 1995 is not required. 1,200 ppm in combination with any (HFA–305), Food and Drug Any person who will be adversely GRAS acid at levels sufficient to achieve Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. affected by this regulation may at any a solution pH of 2.5 to 2.9. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. time on or before February 11, 2000, file with the Dockets Management Branch * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (address above) written objections Dated: December 30, 1999. Robert L. Martin, Center for Food Safety thereto. Each objection shall be Janice F. Oliver, and Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Food separately numbered, and each and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Deputy Director for Operations, Center for numbered objection shall specify with Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Washington, DC 20204–0001, 202–418– particularity the provisions of the 3074. [FR Doc. 00–691 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] regulation to which objection is made BILLING CODE 4160±01±F SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice and the grounds for the objection. Each published in the Federal Register of numbered objection on which a hearing August 30, 1999 (64 FR 47193), FDA is requested shall specifically so state. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND announced that a food additive petition Failure to request a hearing for any HUMAN SERVICES (FAP 9A4692) had been filed by Alcide particular objection shall constitute a Corp., 8561 154th Ave. NE., Redmond, waiver of the right to a hearing on that Food and Drug Administration WA 98052. The petition proposed to objection. Each numbered objection for amend the food additive regulation in which a hearing is requested shall 21 CFR Part 314 21 CFR 173.325 (§ 173.325) to provide include a detailed description and [Docket No. 94N±0449] for the safe use of acidified sodium analysis of the specific factual RIN 0910±AA78 chlorite solutions as an antimicrobial information intended to be presented in agent on red meat parts and organs. support of the objection in the event New Drug Applications; Drug Master FDA has evaluated data in the that a hearing is held. Failure to include Files petition and other relevant material. such a description and analysis for any Based on this information, the agency particular objection shall constitute a AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, concludes that the proposed use of the waiver of the right to a hearing on the HHS. additive is safe, that the additive will objection. Three copies of all documents ACTION: Final rule. achieve its intended technical effect, are to be submitted and are to be and therefore, that the regulation in identified with the docket number SUMMARY: The Food and Drug § 173.325 should be amended as set found in brackets in the heading of this Administration (FDA) is revising its forth below. document. Any objections received in regulation governing drug master files In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR response to the regulation may be seen (DMF’s). FDA is removing the provision 171.1(h)), the petition and the in the Dockets Management Branch for submitting Type I DMF’s and will no documents that FDA considered and between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday longer permit information submitted in relied upon in reaching its decision to through Friday. a Type I DMF to be incorporated by approve the petition are available for reference in investigational new drug inspection at the Center for Food Safety List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 173 applications (IND’s), new drug and Applied Nutrition by appointment Food additives. applications (NDA’s), abbreviated new with the information contact person Therefore, under the Federal Food, drug applications (ANDA’s), or listed above. As provided in § 171.1(h), Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under amendments or supplements to any of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.155 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1777 these. This rule is intended to eliminate Manufacturing, and Controls II. Comments on the Proposed Rule submissions of information that are not Coordinating Committee (CMCCC) of The agency received seven comments necessary either to conduct inspections the Center for Drug Evaluation and on the proposed rule and several of of manufacturing facilities or to review Research (CDER) established a DMF task these raised multiple issues. A number the chemistry, manufacturing, and force to review DMF procedures and of comments expressed general support controls sections of IND’s, NDA’s, and consider ways of improving the DMF for the proposal. A summary of the abbreviated applications. system. One of the task force comments and the agency’s responses recommendations was that Type I EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2000. follows. DMF’s be eliminated. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. One firm stated that it will be Lee D. Korb, Center for Drug recommendation was based on a manufacturing drug products for other Evaluation and Research (HFD–7), number of factors: U.S. and non-U.S. companies and needs Food and Drug Administration, 1. The information contained in Type a means to submit confidential, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD I DMF’s was often outdated. technical information to FDA (e.g., 20857, 301–594–2041, or 2. The Type I DMF was not always Arthur B. Shaw, Center for Drug easily accessible to FDA investigators. information regarding the firm’s new Evaluation and Research (HFD– 3. The review divisions in CDER do manufacturing facility, including, but 180), Food and Drug not review the information in most Type not limited to, air handling systems, Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, I DMF’s. Although information from milling, blending, and filling Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827– Type I DMF’s has often been technology). The firm emphasized that 7310, or incorporated by reference into IND’s, if Type I DMF’s are eliminated, Robert A. Yetter, Center for Biologics NDA’s, and abbreviated applications, confidential information regarding the Evaluation and Research (HFM–10), the information is not required for facilities, processes, or articles used in Food and Drug Administration, review of the chemistry, manufacturing, the manufacturing, processing, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD and controls section of an application. packaging, and storing of drugs for 20852–1448, 301–827–0373. Under 21 CFR 314.50(d)(1)(i) and human use would not be available for referencing by sponsors of IND’s or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (d)(1)(ii), a drug product applicant is required to furnish in the application NDA’s with which the firm will I. Background the name and location of facilities used contract. In addition, FDA’s review A DMF is a voluntary submission to in the manufacture of the drug divisions will not be able to rely on the FDA that may be used to provide substance or drug product. applications themselves for information confidential, detailed information about 4. Information concerning the facility typically included in a Type I DMF. The the facilities, processes, or articles used is maintained onsite where it is firm noted that without a Type I DMF, in the manufacturing, processing, available for the investigator. a Type II DMF (intermediates, drug packaging, and storing of one or more The CMCCC adopted the substances, and drug products) might be human drug products. The regulations recommendation of the DMF Task Force the only alternative for supplying the in 21 CFR 314.420(a) describe five types and, subsequently, FDA proposed agency with certain information and of DMF’s according to the kind of eliminating Type I DMF’s in the Federal that it would be forced to file a Type II information to be submitted. Type I Register of July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34486). DMF for each company for which it submissions include manufacturing site, FDA also proposed to implement a does drug product manufacturing. The facilities, operating procedures, and procedure by which DMF holders could firm also stated that the submission of personnel information. Type II request that certain information multiple Type II DMF’s instead of a submissions include information currently contained in Type I DMF’s be single Type I would place an regarding drug substances, drug transferred to Types II through V. unnecessary paper burden on the substance intermediates, and materials FDA is finalizing its proposal to agency. The firm further noted that if used to prepare them, or drug products. eliminate Type I DMF’s. In so doing, the the agency relies on preapproval Type III submissions include agency will no longer accept Type I inspections, it faces the possibility of information about packaging materials. DMF’s or correspondence updating multiple inspections in any given year, Type IV submissions include existing Type I DMF’s and will no placing unnecessary burdens on information concerning excipients, longer permit information previously valuable FDA resources (i.e., multiple colorants, flavors, essences, or materials submitted in a Type I DMF to be inspections of the same facility). used in their preparation. Type V incorporated by reference in IND’s, One comment noted that it is submissions, detailed in the guidance NDA’s, ANDA’s, and supplemental irrelevant that field investigators do not for industry entitled ‘‘Drug Master applications for drugs approved under use Type I DMF’s and that, since Type Files’’ (September 1, 1989), include section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, I submissions are voluntary, the agency FDA-accepted reference information. and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355). should continue to allow firms the DMF’s allow regulated industry to The Center for Biologics Evaluation convenience of referencing Type I submit to FDA information that may be and Research (CBER) has used Type I submissions. Another comment used to support an IND, NDA, ANDA, Master Files in a manner different from suggested that instead of FDA another DMF, an export application, or that used by CDER. Certain biological eliminating Type I DMF’s, industry amendments or supplements to any of products, such as gene therapy should be required to keep the these. DMF information may be products, require review of some facility information current. The comment incorporated by reference into a drug information to assess their safety for use stated that the privilege of incorporating application or supplement without in clinical trials under IND. CBER will Type I DMF information by reference public disclosure. accept facility information for such should be denied on a case-by-case basis FDA intended to use information products in Type V Master Files. CBER to those firms that do not keep submitted in a Type I DMF to plan its intends to issue a guidance on the information current. on-site inspections of and travel to information that may be submitted in a The agency believes that several of foreign drug manufacturing facilities. In Type V Master File without previously these comments are based on a December 1992, the Chemistry, obtaining permission. misunderstanding of the agency’s

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1778 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations reliance on information contained in a facility enhances FDA’s ability to longer be reported in a Type I DMF and Type I DMF’s during the drug identify facilities that do not meet FDA incorporated by reference. application review process. Information criteria. Because FDA investigators and CDER contained in Type I DMF’s is not CDER believes that a current, accurate review divisions do not rely on reviewed by CDER reviewers, and it facility description at the manufacturing information in a Type I DMF document plays no role in processing a drug site and an inspection of the facility are for inspection or approval purposes, the product application. the best sources of information for agency finds that the mere withdrawal The Type I DMF was intended to assessing a facility’s ability to meet FDA of inactive Type I DMF’s would not assist FDA in conducting onsite standards. Current, accurate information address the agency’s concern that the inspections of foreign manufacturing is particularly important when a facility Type I DMF is an inadequate vehicle for facilities. As noted above, the agency is remote. information. To address this concern, determined that the Type I DMF was not 3. One comment noted that agency the agency is eliminating the production always easily accessible to investigators investigators of foreign manufacturers and maintenance of all Type I DMF and that information in the document had stated that the Type I DMF was of documents. Therefore, based on FDA’s was often out-of-date. The drug product immense value because of the experience, the agency concludes that it application is required to provide information provided. The comment is reasonable to anticipate a reduction in information on the location of noted that ‘‘having more information the paperwork burden by eliminating manufacturing facilities and it is this was preferable to having none,’’ and that the requirement that industry produce current, product-specific information the Type I format was superior in and maintain the Type I DMF that is used by CDER review divisions. providing that information. document. 6. One comment asserted that the Continuing to maintain Type I DMF’s The agency agrees that accurate proposal would require a rewrite of the when the information is not used by the manufacturing information is important current guidance to provide industry agency provides no benefit to either in evaluating drug product applications with information regarding the format regulated industry or the agency. and preparing for inspections. FDA does If a firm is performing different and content of the Type V DMF’s. The not agree, for reasons explained above processing steps for a customer, a Type agency notes that the guidance for and in the proposed rule, that the Type I DMF would not provide the industry on DMF’s is currently I DMF is the most effective method of information necessary for adequate undergoing revision and any changes providing this information. review. Moreover, the elimination of regarding Type V DMF’s will require no Type I DMF’s does not mean that a firm 4. One comment stated that the significant additional resources. The would be required to file a Type II DMF proposed rule should be reconsidered agency advises that the only Type I for each company for which it because it is not globally oriented. The DMF’s that may be converted to Type manufactures drug products. Reviewers comment stated that, at the present V’s are those covering sterile processing examine the details of the time, several foreign governments link facilities and other special cases. As manufacturing process as they apply to approval and acceptance of U.S. detailed in the discussion on each individual product and procedures products to the data listed in Type I implementation below, these will be used in the manufacture of more than DMF’s. examined on a case-by-case basis to one drug product may be included in It is not clear from the comment how decide if transferring them is justified. the same Type II DMF. foreign governments link approval and The agency does not anticipate that Concerns about a possible strain on acceptance of U.S. products to the data substantial agency resources will be FDA resources because of multiple listed in Type I DMF’s since these data required to evaluate requests for the inspections are not relevant to the Type are not reviewed in the approval process transfer of information currently I DMF issue since inspections are for U.S. products. Foreign governments included in Type I DMF’s to Types II, conducted in accordance with current that have previously relied on the III, IV, or V DMF’s. agency inspection policy, which applies information in a Type I DMF can whether or not a firm has a Type I DMF. request that the firm provide a III. Implementation of the Rule The current agency policy on description of the manufacturing facility 7. One comment suggested that the inspections is described in the agency’s to them. proposed implementation date of 60 Investigations Operations Manual. Prior 5. One comment asserted that days after publication should be to the approval of a drug product, the switching information from one type of reconsidered because this timeframe facility that will manufacture the DMF to another would not result in a does not permit adequate time to revise product will generally be inspected by reduction in paperwork, because there operating procedures. One comment FDA unless there has been a recent would be no basic change in the system. suggested that the proposed rule should inspection for other reasons. The comment suggested that a proposal be implemented in conjunction with an 2. One comment stated that the to prompt industry to withdraw inactive educational effort, including a production of ‘‘Generic Compounds’’ Type I Master Files might be more workshop on DMF’s and publicity to (which could conceivably be appropriate. The comment observed that prepare those affected by the new manufactured in smaller, stand-alone there would be a reduction in requirements. One comment asserted facilities possibly located in remote paperwork if the amount of information that the transfer of information from a areas) is generally not adequately incorporated in a Type I DMF were Type I DMF to another type would described in drug product applications limited to that specified in the proposed require a review of written requests by and other written material submitted to rule as appropriate for transfer to a Type the DMF staff and that this could result FDA. The comment stated that such V DMF. Another comment observed that in a significant economic impact on the inadequate descriptions could increase the elimination of Type I DMF’s will agency. One comment asserted that the the risk of problems resulting from increase the paperwork burden for proposed rule did not address those admixing imported products that may industry if information about facilities, current applications which reference not have been manufactured in a facility processes, or articles used in the Type I DMF’s. for which a DMF has been filed. The manufacturing, processing, packaging, Based on comments and FDA’s own comment noted that a full description of and storing of human drugs can no evaluation, the agency has concluded

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.154 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1779 that the proposed implementation IV) under which manufacturing Based on industry response and period is inadequate, particularly for information for the specific item is filed. requests for further information, FDA foreign firms seeking approval where For instance, DMF’s concerned with will determine whether to provide Type I DMF’s were referenced. Some sterilization procedures for rubber further educational opportunities such firms will need time to develop stoppers would be reclassified as Type as workshops. III DMF’s (packaging materials). alternative procedures. The agency has IV. Environmental Impact determined that the effective date will Contract manufacturers of sterile drug be 180 days after the date of publication substances and sterile finished drug The agency has determined under 21 of the final rule in the Federal Register. products including biotechnology CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type After the effective date of the rule, the products filed as DMF’s, contract that does not individually or agency will no longer accept new Type sterilization firms (e.g., ethylene oxide, cumulatively have a significant effect on I DMF’s or correspondence updating gamma radiation, and electron beam the human environment. Therefore, existing Type I DMF’s. Type I DMF’s radiation), and manufacturers of sterile neither an environmental assessment will be transferred to the Federal finished drug products that are the nor an environmental impact statement Records Center and the information in subject of a drug product application is required. Type I DMF’s currently on file may no may request a transfer from Type I to V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 longer be incorporated by reference into Type V DMF of nonproduct-specific new applications, amendments, or information and procedures that are This final rule contains no collections supplements. These changes will submitted to support a claim of sterility. of information. Therefore, clearance by supersede all information regarding Where applicable, the content and the Office of Management and Budget Type I DMF’s detailed in the current format of such transferred information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of guidance for industry on DMF’s. should follow FDA’s guidance for 1995 is not required. To accommodate firms that have industry entitled ‘‘Submission of VI. Analysis of Impacts submitted information under a Type I Documentation for Sterilization Process FDA has examined the impacts of the DMF that should have been filed under Validation Applications for Human and final rule under Executive Order 12866 DMF Types II through V, a list of all Veterinary Drug Products’’ (November 1, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 CDER Type I DMF’s is available for 1994). U.S.C. 601–612). Executive Order 12866 public review in the Dockets CBER intends to administratively directs agencies to assess all costs and Management Branch (HFA–305), Food recategorize current Type I Master Files benefits of available regulatory and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers that are still needed to other Master File alternatives and, when regulation is Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, Types as appropriate. CBER will make necessary, to select regulatory under the docket number found in a list of those Type I Master Files that approaches that maximize net benefits brackets in the heading of this have not been recategorized available (including potential economic, document. The list is also available on for public review in the Dockets environmental, public health and safety, the CDER Internet site at http:// Management Branch (address above), and other advantages; distributive www.fda.gov/cder/dmf/index.htm. If a under the docket number found in impacts; and equity). The agency DMF holder believes that its Type I brackets in the heading of this believes that this final rule is consistent DMF should be recategorized or document, no later than 30 days after with the regulatory philosophy and transferred to another type of DMF, the date of publication of this document in principles identified in the Executive DMF holder may contact the Drug the Federal Register. The list will also Order. In addition, the final rule is not Master File Staff within 180 days of be available on the CBER Internet site at a significant regulatory action as defined publication of this rule in the Federal www.fda.gov/CBER. If a holder of a by the Executive Order and so is not Register 1. FDA will consider Type I Master File believes that the subject to review under the Executive recategorizing an entire Type I DMF to Master File should be recategorized, the holder may contact the Division of Order. another type only if the Type I DMF The Regulatory Flexibility Act contains substantive information other Manufacturing and Product Quality (DMPQ) (HFM–207), Office of requires agencies to analyze regulatory than information concerning options that would minimize any manufacturing site, facilities, operating Compliance and Biologics Quality, CBER, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, significant impact of a rule on small procedures, and personnel. MD 20852–1448. DMPQ may also be entities. Because the final rule will Some Type I DMF’s currently on file lessen paperwork and recordkeeping contain information concerning reached at 301–827–3031. The agency advises that applicants burdens and impose no significant new sterilization process validation and who have current approved applications burdens, the agency certifies that the other information relevant to the review, that reference Type I DMF’s transferred regulation will not have a significant evaluation, and assurance of the sterility to Type V DMF’s may notify the agency economic impact on a substantial of sterile products. For sterile items that of this change in an annual report as number of small entities. Therefore, are not the subject of an IND, NDA, or provided in 21 CFR 314.70. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no ANDA and that are sold to a second FDA has examined the possible further analysis is required. party (e.g., rubber closures that are impact of these changes and believes The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act sterilized by the manufacturer and sold that a review of requests to transfer (Public Law 104–4) requires that to a second party), CDER will consider DMF’s can be handled without placing agencies prepare a written statement transferring product-specific and a significant burden on the agency. including an assessment of anticipated general information concerning The agency agrees with the suggestion costs and benefits before proposing any sterilization process validation to the that the final rule should be rule that may result in an annual DMF file or DMF type (i.e., II through implemented in conjunction with an expenditure by State, local, and tribal educational effort and will work with governments, in the aggregate, or by the 1 Food and Drug Administration, 12229 Wilkins Ave., Rockville, MD 20852. The Drug Master File the press and industry trade private sector, of $100 million or more. Staff may also be reached at 301–827–4210 or at associations to publicize the obligations This final rule does not impose any [email protected]. and options provided by the regulation. mandates on State, local, or tribal

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.154 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1780 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations governments, or the private sector that DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The new Teacher Quality will result in an annual expenditure of Enhancement Grants Program consists $100 million or more. 34 CFR Part 611 of three different competitive grant FDA has analyzed this final rule in RIN 1840±AC65 programs. Together, the State Grants accordance with the principles set forth Program, the Partnership Grants for in Executive Order 13132. FDA has Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Improving Teacher Preparation determined that the rule does not Program Program, and the Teacher Recruitment contain policies that have federalism Program, these programs are designed to AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary increase student achievement by implications as defined in the order Education, Department of Education. and, consequently, a Federalism supporting comprehensive approaches ACTION: Final regulations. summary impact statement is not to improving teacher quality. required. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for One key aspect of the Teacher Recruitment Grants Program is the VII. Federalism Postsecondary Education issues regulations to implement a requirement availability of scholarships to students FDA has analyzed this final rule in of section 204(e) of the Higher who are enrolled in teacher preparation accordance with the principles set forth Education Act (HEA), as amended by programs at the grantee institutions of in Executive Order 13132. FDA has the Higher Education Amendments of higher education (IHEs) (or at IHEs determined that the rule does not 1998. Section 204(e) requires that working with State Teacher Recruitment contain policies that have federalism students in teacher preparation Program grantees), and who agree to implications as defined in the order programs funded under the Teacher teach in high-need school districts. As and, consequently, a federalism Recruitment Program must repay provided in section 204(e) of the HEA, summary impact statement is not scholarships provided with program in exchange for scholarship support required. funds if they do not teach in high-need recipients must agree to incur a local educational agencies for the period contractual obligation, under terms the List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 314 of time for which they receive Department establishes, to teach in high-need LEAs for a period equivalent Administrative practice and scholarship assistance. These regulations also would apply to any to the period for which they receive the procedure, Confidential business scholarship. information, Drugs, Reporting and scholarships awarded to students in teacher preparation programs funded On November 5, 1999, the Secretary recordkeeping requirements. under the State and Partnership published a notice of proposed Therefore, under the Federal Food, Programs authorized in sections 202 and rulemaking (NPRM) for this part in the Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 203 of the HEA. Federal Register (64 FR 60632). In the authority delegated to the Commissioner DATES: These regulations are effective preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 314 is January 12, 2000. discussed on pages 60632 through amended as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 60638 the proposed terms and Louis Venuto, Higher Education conditions of this contractual PART 314ÐAPPLICATIONS FOR FDA agreement. The major issues addressed APPROVAL TO MARKET A NEW DRUG Programs, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning, by the NPRM included— • Whether all with Teacher 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR and Innovation, 1990 K Street, NW., Recruitment Program scholarship part 314 continues to read as follows: Washington, DC 20006–8525: Telephone: (202) 502–7763. Inquiries recipients should have to meet their Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, also may be sent by e-mail to: service obligations by teaching in high- 353, 355, 371, 374, 379e. [email protected] or by FAX to: need schools of high-need LEAs; • 2. Section 314.420 is amended by (202) 502–7699. If you use a The definition of a ‘‘high-need removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1) telecommunications device for the deaf LEA’’ and a ‘‘high-need school’’ in and by revising the second sentence of (TDD), you may call the Federal which scholarship recipients would paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– need to teach in order to avoid 800–877–8339. responsibility for repaying their § 314.420 Drug master files. Individuals with disabilities may scholarships; • (a) * * * obtain this document in an alternate How, in order to retain the financial format (e.g., Braille, large print, assistance as a scholarship, the (1) [Reserved] audiotape, or computer diskette) on Department will calculate the period of * * * * * request to the contact person listed in time in which the scholarship recipient (5) * * * (A person wishing to submit the preceding paragraph. must teach in a high-need school of a information and supporting data in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: high-need LEA; drug master file (DMF) that is not • Conditions under which the covered by Types II through IV DMF’s Background Department may defer a scholarship must first submit a letter of intent to the On October 8, 1998, the President recipient’s service obligation; Drug Master File Staff, Food and Drug signed into law the Higher Education • The amount of the scholarship Administration, 12229 Wilkins Ave., Amendments of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–244). recipient’s indebtedness to the Federal Rockville, MD 20852). * * * Title II of this law addresses the government for failure to meet the * * * * * Nation’s need to ensure that new service obligation, terms of repayment, teachers enter the classroom prepared to and any limited circumstances under Dated: September 1, 1999. teach all students to high standards by which the Department would discharge Margaret M. Dotzel, authorizing, as Title II of the Higher this indebtedness; Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy. Education Act (HEA), Teacher Quality • The content of the scholarship [FR Doc. 00–648 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Enhancement Grants for States and agreement that the scholarship recipient BILLING CODE 4160±01±F Partnerships. would execute;

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1781

• The respective responsibilities of Corresponding changes also have Assessment of Educational Impact the scholarship recipient, teacher been made to the proposed terms and preparation program in which the conditions of the scholarship agreement In the NPRM we requested comments recipient is enrolled, and the LEA in and LEA reporting form, which were on whether the proposed regulations which he or she is later employed, to included in the November 5, 1999 would require transmission of provide periodically to the Department notice as Appendices A and B to the information that any other agency or basic employment and other NPRM, respectively. In all other authority of the United States gathers or information on the recipient until the respects, these regulations are the same makes available. Department has determined that the as those published in the NPRM. Based on the response to the NPRM recipient has fulfilled the service Analysis of Comments and Changes and on our review, we have determined obligation or has repaid the scholarship, that these final regulations do not In response to the Assistant interest, and any costs of collection; and require transmission of information that • Secretary’s invitation in the NPRM, we Whether the rules governing the any other agency or authority of the receipt of scholarships provided under received eight comments. An analysis of these comments and of the changes in United States gathers or makes the Teacher Recruitment Program available. should also apply to the receipt of the regulations since publication of the scholarships that grantees provide NPRM is published in an appendix at Waiver of Delayed Effective Date under the State and Partnership the end of these final regulations. Programs. Generally, we do not address technical 5 U.S.C. 553(d) provides that the In response to public comment and other minor changes—and effective date of regulations generally received on the NPRM, these final suggested changes the law does not must be at least 30 days after their regulations have been renumbered to authorize the Secretary to make. publication in the Federal Register, but enhance clarity. They also contain three Goals 2000: Educate America Act permits the Secretary to establish an changes to the proposed regulations earlier effective date for good cause announced in the NPRM. These The Goals 2000: Educate America Act found and published with the regulations now— (Goals 2000) focuses the Nation’s regulations. The Secretary makes thee education reform efforts on the eight (1) Clarify that a middle or secondary regulations effective as of the date of National Education Goals and provides school may be considered ‘‘high need’’ publication because program grantees a framework for meeting them. Goals if it either has at least 50 percent of its need them immediately in order to 2000 promotes new partnerships to enrolled students eligible for free and strengthen schools and expands the award scholarships with grant funds for reduced lunch subsidies, or is otherwise Department’s capacities for helping the academic term beginning January eligible to operate as a schoolwide communities to exchange ideas and 2000. program under Title I of the Elementary obtain information needed to achieve and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Electronic Access to This Document the goals. (§ 611.1); These proposed regulations would You may review this document, as (2) Require program grantees offering address the National Education Goal well as all other Department of teacher recruitment scholarships, in that the Nation’s teaching force will Education documents published in the collaboration with the high-need LEA(s) have the content knowledge and participating in their projects, to ensure Federal Register, in text or portable teaching skills needed to instruct all document format (PDF) on the World that scholarship recipients are placed, to American students for the next century. the extent possible, in the highest-need Wide Web at either of the following schools of those LEAs (§ 611.52(c)); and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 sites: http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm, http://www.ed.gov/news.html. To use (3) Provide two ways in which a The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the PDF you must have the Adobe scholarship recipient may meet his or does not require you to respond to a Acrobat Reader Program with Search, her responsibility to ensure that the collection of information unless it Department has timely information displays a valid OMB control number. which is available free at either of these confirming that the recipient is meeting We display the valid OMB control sites. If you have questions about using the service obligation. The first, as numbers assigned to the collections of the PDF, call the U.S. Government proposed in the NPRM, is by having the information in these final regulations at Printing Office at (202) 512–1530 or, toll LEA in which he or she teaches submit the end of the affected sections of the free, at 1–888–293–6498. the needed employment information to regulations. Note: The official version of the document the Department in the time periods the Intergovernmental Review is the document published in the Federal regulation specifies. The second is by Register. Free Internet access to the official submitting to the Department, within This program is subject to the edition of the Federal Register and the Code the required time periods, a notarized requirements of Executive Order 12372 of Federal Regulations is available on GPO statement that the recipient has asked and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. Access at: the LEA to provide this information to The objective of the Executive order is http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ the Department along with a copy of the to foster an intergovernmental index.html information the LEA has been asked to partnership and a strengthened (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance provide. Where a scholarship recipient federalism by relying on processes Number 84.336: Teacher Quality chooses the second option, the developed by State and local Enhancement Grants Program) Department’s determination that he or governments for coordination and she is meeting the service obligation is review of proposed Federal financial List of Subjects in 34 CFR part 611 only provisional; the recipient assistance. maintains a responsibility to work to In accordance with the order, we Colleges and universities, Elementary have the LEA submit the needed intend this document to provide early and secondary education, Grant information as soon as possible notification of specific plans and actions programs—education. (§§ 611.46(a) and 611.47(a)). for this program.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.099 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: January 6, 2000. Subpart AÐGeneral Provisions equivalent to the period for which the A. Lee Fritschler, individual receives the scholarship; or § 611.1 What definitions apply to the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary (2) Repay, as set forth in § 611.43, the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Education. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program? Program funds provided as a For the reasons stated in the The following definitions apply to scholarship. preamble, the Secretary amends Chapter this part: (b) Content of the scholarship VI of title 34 of the Code of Federal High-need local educational agency agreement. To implement the service- Regulations by revising part 611 to read (LEA) means an LEA that meets one of obligation requirement, the scholarship as follows: the following definitions: agreement must include terms, (1) An LEA with at least one school— conditions, and other information PART 611ÐTEACHER QUALITY (i) In which 50 percent or more of the consistent with §§ 611.42–611.49 that ENHANCEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM enrolled students are eligible for free the Secretary determines to be and reduced lunch subsidies; or Subpart AÐGeneral Provisions (ii) That otherwise is eligible, without necessary. Sec. receipt of a waiver, to operate as a (Approved by the Office of Management 611.1 What definitions apply to the Teacher schoolwide program under Title I of the and Budget under control number 1840– Quality Enhancement Grants Program? Elementary and Secondary Education 0753) Subpart B [Reserved] Act. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) (2) An LEA that has one school Subpart C [Reserved] § 611.42 How does the Secretary calculate where— the period of the scholarship recipient's Subpart D [Reserved] (i) More than 34 percent of academic service obligation? classroom teachers overall (across all (a) Calculation of period of Subpart EÐScholarships academic subjects) do not have a major, scholarship assistance. 611.41 Under what circumstances may an minor, or significant course work in individual receive a scholarship of (1) The Secretary calculates the period their main assignment field; or of time for which a student received program funds to attend a teacher (ii) More than 34 percent of the main scholarship assistance on the basis of training program? assignment faculty in two of the core- 611.42 How does the Secretary calculate the information provided by the grantee subject departments do not have a period of the scholarship recipient’s under § 611.50. service obligation? major, minor, or significant work in (2) The period for which the recipient 611.43 What are the consequences of a their main assigned field. received scholarship assistance is the (3) An LEA that serves a school whose scholarship recipient’s failure to meet period during which an individual attrition rate among classroom teachers the service obligation? enrolled in the teacher preparation 611.44 Under what circumstances may the was 15 percent or more over the last program on a full-time basis, excluding Secretary defer a scholarship recipient’s three school years. service obligation? High-need school means an the summer period, would have 611.45 Under what circumstances does the elementary, middle, or secondary school completed the same course of study. (b) Calculation of period needed to Secretary discharge a scholarship operated by a high-need LEA in which teach to meet the service obligation. (1) recipient’s obligation to repay for failure the school’s students or teaching staff to meet the service obligation? The period of the scholarship recipient’s meet the elements in paragraphs (1), (2), 611.46 What are a scholarship recipient’s service obligation is the period of the or (3) of the definition of a high-need reporting responsibilities upon individual’s receipt of scholarship graduation from the teacher preparation LEA. Main assignment field means the assistance as provided in paragraph (a) program? of this section. 611.47 What are a scholarship recipient’s academic field in which teachers have (2) The Secretary calculates the period reporting responsibilities upon the close the largest percentage of their classes. of the LEA’s academic year? Significant course work means four or that a scholarship recipient must teach 611.48 What are a scholarship recipient’s more college-or graduate-level courses in a high-need school of a high-need reporting responsibilities upon failure to in the content area. LEA in order to fulfill his or her service graduate or withdrawal of scholarship obligation by— support? (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) (i) Comparing the period in which the 611.49 What are a grantee’s responsibilities recipient received a scholarship as Subparts B±D [Reserved] for implementing the scholarship provided in paragraph (a) of this section requirements before awarding a with the information provided by the Subpart EÐScholarships scholarship? high-need LEA under §§ 611.46 and 611.50 What are a grantee’s reporting responsibilities? § 611.41 Under what circumstances may 611.47 on the period the recipient has 611.51 How does a grantee ensure that a an individual receive a scholarship of taught in one of its high-need schools; scholarship recipient understands the program funds to attend a teacher training and terms and conditions of the scholarship program? (ii) Adjusting the period in which the before the recipient leaves the teacher (a) General: The service obligation. An recipient has taught in a high-need preparation program? individual, whom a grantee finds school to reflect the individual’s 611.52 What are a grantee’s programmatic eligible to receive a scholarship funded employment, if any, as a teacher on a responsibilities for ensuring that under this part to attend a teacher part-time basis relative to classroom scholarship recipients become successful preparation program, may receive the teachers the LEA employs on a full-time teachers in high-need schools? scholarship only after executing a basis under the LEA’s standard yearly Subpart FÐOther Grant Conditions binding agreement with the institution contract (excluding any summer or 611.61 What is the maximum indirect cost of higher education (IHE) offering the intersession period). rate for States and local educational scholarship that, after completing the (c) The Secretary adjusts the period of agencies? program, the individual will either— a scholarship recipient’s service Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq. and (1) Teach in a high-need school of a obligation as provided in paragraph (b) 1024(e), unless otherwise noted. high-need LEA for a period of time of this section to reflect information the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.100 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1783 high-need LEA provides under scholarship recipient may repay the (b) To obtain a deferment of the §§ 611.46 and 611.47 that the scholarship and accrued interest service obligation, the recipient must scholarship recipient also has taught in according to a payment schedule that provide the Secretary satisfactory a high-need school in a summer or the Secretary establishes. information of one or more of the intersession period. (2) A payment schedule must permit following circumstances: (Approved by the Office of Management the full amount of the scholarship and (1) Serious physical or mental and Budget under control number 1840– accrued interest to be repaid within ten disability that prevents or substantially 0753) years. The minimum monthly payment impairs the scholarship recipient’s (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) is $50 unless a larger monthly payment employability as a teacher. is needed to enable the full amount that (2) The scholarship recipient’s § 611.43 What are the consequences of a is due to be paid within this timeframe. inability, despite due diligence (for scholarship recipient's failure to meet the (d) Interest. In accordance with 31 reasons that may include the failure to service obligation? U.S.C. 3717 and 34 CFR part 30, the pass a required teacher certification or (a) Obligation to repay: General. (1) A Secretary charges interest on the unpaid licensure examination), to secure scholarship recipient who does not balance that the scholarship recipient employment as a teacher in a high-need fulfill his or her service obligation owes. (The grantee offering the school of a high-need school LEA. must— scholarship must ensure that (3) Membership in the armed forces of (i) Repay the Department the full scholarship agreement the recipient the United States on active duty for a amount of the scholarship, including executes includes the current rate of period not to exceed three years. the principal balance, accrued interest, interest, as provided by the (4) Other extraordinary circumstances and any collection costs charged under Department.) However, except as that the Secretary accepts. paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; or provided in § 611.44(d), the Secretary (c) Unless the Secretary determines (ii) Be discharged of any repayment does not charge interest for the period otherwise— obligation as provided in § 611.45. of time that precedes the date on which (1) A scholarship recipient must (2) Unless the service obligation is the scholarship recipient is required to apply to renew a deferment of the deferred as provided in § 611.44 or the begin repayment. service obligation on a yearly basis; and repayment requirement is discharged, (2) The recipient has 60 days from the (e) Failure to meet requirements. A the obligation to repay the amount end of the deferment period to begin scholarship recipient’s failure to satisfy provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this teaching in a high-need school of a high- the requirements of §§ 611.42–611.48 in section begins six months after the date need LEA or become liable for a timely manner results in the recipient the recipient— repayment of the scholarship, any being— (i) Completes the teacher training accrued interest, and any costs of program without beginning to teach in (1) In non-compliance with the terms collection. a high-need school of a high-need LEA; of the scholarship; (d)(1) As provided in § 611.43(a)(2), or (2) Liable for repayment of the during periods for which the Secretary (ii) Is no longer enrolled in the teacher scholarship and accrued interest; and defers a scholarship recipient’s service training program. (3) Subject to collection action. obligation, the scholarship recipient (3) The Secretary determines whether (f) Action by reason of default. The does not have an obligation to repay the a scholarship recipient has fulfilled the Secretary may take any action scholarship. However, interest service obligation on the basis of authorized by law to collect the amount continues to accrue on the amount of information that the Department of scholarship, accrued interest and the scholarship. receives as provided in §§ 611.46 and collection costs, if any, on which a (2) If the scholarship recipient fulfills 611.47. scholarship recipient obligated to repay his or her service obligation after the (b) Obligation to Repay: Partial under this section has defaulted. This end of the deferment, the Secretary performance of the service obligation. action includes, but is not limited to, waives the obligation to repay accrued (1) A scholarship recipient who teaches filing a lawsuit against the recipient, interest. reporting the default to national credit in a high-need school of a high-need (Approved by the Office of Management school district for less than the period bureaus, and requesting the Internal and Budget under control number 1840– of his or her service obligation must Revenue Service to offset the recipient’s 0753) repay— Federal income tax refund. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) (i) The amount of the scholarship that (Approved by the Office of Management is proportional to the unmet portion of and Budget under control number 1840– § 611.45 Under what circumstances does the service obligation; 0753) the Secretary discharge a scholarship (ii) Interest that accrues on this (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) recipient's obligation to repay for failure to portion of the scholarship beginning six meet the service obligation? months after the recipient’s graduation § 611.44 Under what circumstances may (a) The Secretary discharges the from the teacher preparation program; the Secretary defer a scholarship obligation of a scholarship recipient to recipient's service obligation? and repay the scholarship, interest, and any (iii) Costs of collection, if any. (a) Upon written request, the costs for failure to meet the service (2) Unless the service obligation is Secretary may defer a service obligation obligation based on information deferred or the repayment requirement for a scholarship recipient who— acceptable to the Secretary of— is discharged, the obligation to repay the (1) Has not begun teaching in a high- (1) The recipient’s death; or amount provided in paragraph (b)(1) of need school of a high-need LEA as (2) The total and permanent physical this section begins six months after the required by § 611.41(a); or or mental disability of the recipient that date the recipient is no longer employed (2) Has begun teaching in a high-need prevents the individual from being as a teacher in a high-need school of a school of a high-need LEA, and who employable as a classroom teacher. high-need LEA. requests the deferment within six (b) Upon receipt of acceptable (c) Availability of payment schedule. months of the date he or she no longer documentation and approval of the (1) Upon request to the Secretary, the teaches in this school. discharge request, the Secretary returns

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1784 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations to the scholarship recipient, or for a (Approved by the Office of Management § 611.48 What are a scholarship recipient's discharge based on death to the and Budget under control number 1840– reporting responsibilities upon failure to recipient’s estate, those payments 0753) graduate or withdrawal of scholarship received after the date the eligibility (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) support? requirements for discharge were met. (a)(1) Within six months of the date § 611.47 What are a scholarship recipient's the scholarship recipient is no longer The Secretary returns these payments reporting responsibilities upon the close of whether they are received before or after the LEA's academic year? enrolled in the teacher training program, the date the discharge was approved. or within six months of the IHE’s (a) At the close of the LEA’s academic withdrawal of scholarship support for (Approved by the Office of Management year, a scholarship recipient whose LEA failure to maintain good academic and Budget under control number 1840– reports under § 611.46(a) that he or she 0753) standing, the recipient must submit to is teaching in a high-need school of a (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) the Department— high-need LEA must— (i) The required repayment of the § 611.46 What are a scholarship recipient's (1) Have the LEA provide information scholarship; reporting responsibilities upon graduation to the Department, as the Secretary may (ii) A request that the Secretary from the teacher preparation program? require, that confirms the recipient’s establish a binding schedule under (a) Within six months of graduating actual employment status for the which the recipient is obligated to repay from a teacher preparation program, a preceding period; or the scholarship, accrued interest, and scholarship recipient must either— (2) Provide the Department— any costs of collection; or (1) Have the LEA in which the (i) A notarized statement that the (iii) A request that the Secretary defer recipient is employed as a teacher scholarship recipient has asked the LEA the service obligation as permitted by provide the Department information, to provide the Department the § 611.44. which the Secretary may require, to information identified in paragraph (2) Upon review of the repayment or confirm— (a)(1) of this section, including the name information provided under paragraph (i) The home address, phone number, and telephone number of the LEA (a)(1) of this section, the Department social security number, and other official to whom the request was made; notifies the recipient of the status of the identifying information about the and recipient’s obligations and of any recipient; (ii) A copy of the information schedule under which the recipient (ii) That he or she is teaching in a identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this must repay the scholarship. high-need school of a high-need LEA; (b) Until the Secretary determines that and section that the recipient has asked the the individual either has satisfied his or (iii) Whether the individual is LEA to provide to the Department. her service obligation or has repaid the teaching full- or part-time and, if part- (b) If the recipient provides the time, the full-time equivalency of this Department the notarized statement and full amount of the scholarship, accrued teaching compared to the LEA’s full- accompanying information identified in interest, and any costs, the recipient time teachers; paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the also remains responsible for providing (2) Provide the Department— Department accepts the information the Department— (i) A notarized statement that the provisionally, but the recipient retains (1) The information identified in this scholarship recipient has asked the LEA an ongoing responsibility for working to part; and to provide the Department the have the LEA submit the information (2) A current home address and information identified in paragraph directly to the Department. telephone number, and a current work (a)(1) of this section, including the name (c) In subsequent school years, the address and work telephone number. and telephone number of the LEA recipient must have the LEA continue to (Approved by the Office of Management official to whom the request was made; provide information to the Department and Budget under control number 1840– and on the recipient’s employment as the 0753) (ii) A copy of the information Secretary may require, until the (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this Department notifies the recipient that § 611.49 What are a grantee's section that the recipient has asked the the service obligation has been fulfilled. LEA to provide to the Department; or responsibilities for implementing the The alternative procedures in paragraph scholarship requirements before awarding (3) Provide the Department a current (a)(2) of this section also apply in a scholarship? home address and telephone number, a subsequent years. Before awarding scholarship work address and telephone number, (d)(1) The Secretary provides a the recipient’s social security number, assistance with funds provided under scholarship recipient with credit toward this part to any student attending a and one of the following: the service obligation for teaching in a (i) The required repayment of the teacher preparation program, a grantee high-need school of a high-need LEA must— scholarship. during a summer or intersession period (ii) A request that the Secretary permit (a) Ensure that the student (for LEAs that operate year-round the recipient to repay the scholarship understands the terms and conditions programs). and accrued interest in installments as that the Secretary has determined must permitted by § 611.43(c). (2) To receive this credit, the recipient be included in the scholarship (iii) A request that the Secretary defer must have the LEA at the end of the agreement; the service obligation as permitted by summer or intersession period provide (b) Have the student and the § 611.44. information to the Department, as the institution awarding the scholarship (b) If the recipient provides the Secretary may require, that confirms execute a scholarship agreement that Department the information identified that the recipient has taught during this contains these terms and conditions; in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the period in a high-need school. and Department accepts the information (Approved by the Office of Management (c) Establish policies for— provisionally, but the recipient retains and Budget under control number 1840– (1) The withdrawal of scholarship responsibility for working to have the 0753) support for any student who does not LEA submit the information. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) remain in good academic standing; and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 17:49 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1785

(2) Determining when and if re- conference the institution must give the follow-up services and assistance during negotiation of a student’s scholarship recipient a copy of any scholarship their first three years of teaching; package over an extended period of time agreement the recipient has executed. (b) Provide LEAs with which the is appropriate. (b) The institution also must review grantees collaborate in teacher (Approved by the Office of Management with the recipient the terms and recruitment activities with information and Budget under control number 1840– conditions of the scholarship, and other assistance they need to recruit 0753) including— highly-qualified teachers effectively; (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) (1) The recipient’s service obligation; and (2) How the recipient can confirm (c) Work with the high-need LEAs § 611.50 What are a grantee's reporting whether a school and LEA in which he participating in its project to ensure that responsibilities? or she would teach will satisfy the scholarship recipients are placed, to the (a) Within 30 days of the beginning of service obligation; extent possible, in highest-need schools the teacher preparation program’s (3) Information that the recipient will of those LEAs. academic term or within 30 days of the need to have the LEA provide to the (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) execution of any scholarship agreement, Department to enable the Secretary to whichever is later, the grantee must confirm that the recipient is meeting the Subpart FÐOther Grant Conditions provide to the Department the following service obligation; information: (4) How the recipient may request a § 611.61 What is the maximum indirect (1) The identity of each scholarship deferment of the service obligation, and cost rate for States and local educational agencies? recipient. information that the recipient should (2) The amount of the scholarship provide the Department in any Notwithstanding 34 CFR 75.560– provided with program funds to each deferment request; 75.562 and 34 CFR 80.22, the maximum recipient. (5) The consequences of failing to indirect cost rate that a State or local (3) The full-time equivalency, over meet the service obligation including, at educational agency receiving funding each academic year, of each recipient’s a minimum, the amount of the under the Teacher Quality Enhancement enrollment in the teacher training recipient’s potential indebtedness; the Grants Program may use to charge program for which he or she receives possible referral of the indebtedness to indirect costs to these funds is the lesser scholarship assistance. a collection firm, reporting it to a credit of— (4) Other information as the Secretary bureau, and litigation; and the (a) The rate established by the may require. availability of a monthly payment negotiated indirect cost agreement; or (b) Within 30 days of a scholarship schedule; (b) Eight percent. recipient’s graduation or withdrawal (6) The amount of scholarship (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) from the teacher preparation program, assistance and interest charges that the Note: The following appendix will not the grantee must provide to the recipient must repay for failing to meet appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Department the following information: the service obligation; and Appendix—Analysis of Comments and (1) The date of the recipient’s (7) The recipient’s responsibility to Changes graduation or withdrawal. ensure that the Department has a home (2) The total amount of program funds address and telephone number, and a Comment: Proposed § 611.1 defines a high- the grantee awarded as a scholarship to work address and telephone number need school and a high-need local the recipient. until the Secretary has determined that educational agency (LEA). These definitions (3) The original of any scholarship the recipient has fulfilled the service are important because after graduating from agreement executed by the scholarship their teacher preparation programs, obligation or the recipient’s debt has scholarship recipients must teach in these recipient and the grantee (or its been paid or discharged; and schools and LEAs in order to meet their partnering IHE if the grantee is not an (8) The follow-up services that the service obligations. IHE) before the recipient was awarded a institution will provide the student Consistent with section 201(b)(2) of the scholarship with program funds. during his or her first three years of Higher Education Act (HEA), the definition (4) A statement of whether the teaching in a high-need school of a high- would offer three alternative criteria by institution has withdrawn scholarship need LEA. which a school (of a high-need LEA) can be considered high-need. Two commenters support because of the recipient’s (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) failure to maintain good academic urged us to expand these proposed criteria so standing. § 611.52 What are a grantee's that more schools could qualify as ones in programmatic responsibilities for ensuring which scholarship recipients can teach and (5) Other information as the Secretary meet their service obligations. Under one of may require. that scholarship recipients become successful teachers in high-need schools? these proposed criteria, a school would (Approved by the Office of Management qualify as high-need if at least 50 percent of In implementing its approved project, its enrolled students are eligible to receive and Budget under control number 1840– the grantee must— 0753) free and reduced lunch subsidies, i.e., if the (a) Provide scholarship recipients (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1024(e)) school is eligible to operate a schoolwide both before and after graduation with program under Title I of the Elementary and § 611.51 How does a grantee ensure that a appropriate support services, including Secondary Education Act (ESEA). One scholarship recipient understands the academic assistance, job counseling, commenter supported this proposal, but terms and conditions of the scholarship placement assistance, and teaching noted that many secondary schools do not before the recipient leaves the teacher support that will help to ensure that— have reliable data on student eligibility for preparation program? (1) Upon graduation, scholarship free-and reduced-lunch subsidies. The (a) An institution that provides a recipients are able to secure teaching commenter proposed, therefore, that a secondary school qualify as one in which scholarship with funds provided under positions in high-need schools of high- scholarship recipients can meet their service this part must conduct an exit need LEAs; and obligations through alternative factors. These conference with each scholarship (2) After beginning to teach in a high- factors would include having (a) multiple recipient before that individual leaves need school of a high-need LEA, former elementary and middle schools in its feeder the institution. During the exit scholarship recipients have appropriate system that meet this 50-percent test; (b) a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.105 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1786 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations drop-out rate that exceeds a specified Part A, Policy Guidance: Improving Basic section 203 of the HEA, asserts that there are amount; (c) more than 15 percent of teachers Programs Operated by Local Educational many contractual and budgetary issues teaching out of files; and (d) a teacher Agencies. This guidance is available on the affecting the LEA that are beyond the IHE’s turnover rate exceeding ten percent. Internet at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ control. The commenter recommends that the Another commenter urged that the ESEA/Title I/. Further information also is regulations instead require the IHE to provide criterion related to the percentage of the available from those in the State educational induction services during the teacher’s first school’s teachers teaching out-of-field be agency who administer the Title I program. year, and otherwise make services available expanded. In this regard, section 201(b)(2) of (The ESEA authorizes waivers of most Title to the teacher, upon request, for up to three the HEA provides that a school can be I program requirements, including the years after graduation. considered high-need if there is a high requirement that schools that wish to be Discussion: Section 204(d)(1)(C) of the percentage of secondary school teachers who schoolwide programs serve an area with a HEA requires that Teacher Recruitment are not teaching in the content area in which specified level of poverty. The HEA contains Program grantees provide follow-up services the teachers were trained to teach. As no comparable waiver authority. Therefore, a to former scholarship recipients during their proposed, § 611.1 would define this element middle or high school that lacks data to first three years of teaching. For the other two to mean that more than 34 percent of either confirm its eligibility to operate as a Title I Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant academic classroom teacher overall, or main schoolwide program cannot become eligible Programs, the State Grant Program and the assignment faculty in two core subject to be a high-need school through a waiver of Partnership Grants for Improving Teacher departments, do not have a major, minor, or the Title I schoolwide program Education Program, the law authorizes significant course work in their main requirements.) grantees to use program funds for ‘‘[a]ctivities assignment field. The proposed regulation Beyond this clarification, we are unable to described in section 204(d).’’ See sections goes on to define ‘‘significant coursework’’ to accept the commenter’s recommendations for 202(d)(7) and 203(d)(7) of the HEA, mean ‘‘four or more college or graduate-level alternative factors that the regulations would respectively. As section 204(d)(1)(C) courses in the content area.’’ identify as making a secondary school one in authorizes scholarship assistance to The commenter notes that his State now which a scholarship recipient may meet the individuals attending teacher preparation requires teaching candidates to have taken service obligation. Simply having some programs, State and Partnership Program more than four courses to earn a teaching feeder schools meet the 50 percent threshold grantees may use grant funds to award these certificate in a particular content area. The for free- and reduced-lunch subsidies may scholarships. commenter, therefore, recommends that the not adequately address the level of poverty However, by authorizing State and definition also permit a school to qualify as in the entire area the high school serves. The Partnership Program grantees to use program a high-need school if more than 34 percent school’s drop-out rate is not sufficiently funds for activities described in section of academic classroom teachers do not have related to the permissible criteria in section 207(d), we believe Congress intended that certification to teach in their main 201(b)(2) of the statute. those who receive scholarship assistance assignment field. Finally, we believe that the standards of (1) under these two programs would benefit Discussion: We agree that clarification is 15 percent of teachers teaching out-of-field, before and after graduation from the same needed on how a secondary school may and (2) a teacher turnover rate exceeding ten range of IHE services that recipients of qualify, on the basis of the percent of poverty percent, which the commenter proposes, scholarships funded under the Teacher in the area it serves, as one in which a would permit too many schools to be Recruitment Program must receive. Hence, scholarship recipient may meet his or her considered high need. Aside from the we also believe that it is appropriate to service obligation. As the first commenter poverty criterion, the law permits high need require, through these regulations, State and notes, we know from experience that high to be based on a ‘‘high’’ percentage of Partnership grantees to provide former school and middle school students are less secondary school teachers teaching out-of- scholarship recipients with the same level of likely to participate in free- and reduced- field, or a ‘‘high’’ teacher turnover rate. In the follow-up services after graduation as is price lunch programs than are elementary application package available in February required under the Teacher Recruitment school students. Hence, those schools often 1999 for the initial Teacher Quality Program. These services would include, as may not be identified as eligible for Title I Enhancement Grant Program competitions, required by section 204(d)(1)(c), follow-up services, or not qualify to operate Title I, we explained that 34 percent (incorrectly activities during these new teachers’ first ESEA, schoolwide programs, despite the printed as ‘‘35 percent’’) teaching out-of-field three years of teaching. actual poverty rates in the area they serve. and a 15 percent attrition rate reflect the best We do note that the law does not specify However, if a school—elementary, middle, available national data on what these the degree of these services. Consistent with or secondary—is to meet the statutory statutory terms mean. More specifically, 34 a grantee’s approved applications, we believe criterion of high need because it serves an percent teaching out-of-field reflects an that the form, content, and extent of these area with a high percentage of individuals average of the percentage of public school follow-up services will be determined from families with incomes below the teachers without a major or minor in their through collaboration among the LEA, poverty line, we continue to believe that the main assignment field and the percentage of scholarship recipient(s), and the program school still must be eligible under Title I teachers in high-poverty schools teaching grantee. requirements to operate a Title I schoolwide out-of-field. A 15 percent teacher attrition Action: None. program. In this regard, the Department has rate reflects nationwide data on the Comment: One commenter stated that all issued guidance for the Title I program that percentage of teachers in all schools, States and partnerships using program funds addresses alternative measures for including in high-poverty schools, who do to award teacher recruitment scholarships determining a secondary school’s eligibility not return to the same school the following should prioritize placements in ways that to participate in Title I. This guidance year. assure that schools in the States with greatest clarifies that a school district may use Action: The definition of ‘‘high-need LEA’’ need have the best opportunities to hire well- comparable data to data for free- and in § 611.1 has been modified. It now clarifies trained teachers. Therefore, the commenter reduced-lunch eligibility (or other measures that the term includes an LEA with at least recommended that all States and permitted under Title I) that are collected one school (1) in which at least 50 percent partnerships, in collaboration with high-need through alternative means such as a survey. of enrolled students are eligible for free- and LEAs, be required to give priority in placing Also, an LEA may use the feeder pattern reduced lunch subsidies, or (2) that scholarship recipients in LEAs and schools concept. This concept would allow the LEA otherwise is eligible, without a waiver, to that demonstrate the greatest need according to project the number of low-income children operate as a schoolwide program under Title to one of the three criteria with which 611.1 in a middle school or high school based on I of the ESEA. defines ‘‘high need.’’ the average poverty rate of the elementary Comment: One commenter stated that it is Discussion: We agree with the thrust of the school attendance areas that feed into that not practical for an IHE to provide follow-up comment. The purpose of the Teacher school. More specific information on these services to former scholarship recipients for Recruitment Program is to address chronic alternative measures for secondary and three years after the individual becomes a shortages of qualified teachers in high-need middle school eligibility under Title I may be teacher. The commenter, from a grantee schools and school districts. IHEs and LEAs found in part two of the April 1996 Title I, awarded a Partnership Program grant under should work together to encourage teaching

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.106 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1787 candidates who receive scholarship obligation are too limited. The commenter both proposed § 611.39 (‘‘What are a assistance with Teacher Quality recommends that deferments also be scholarship recipient’s reporting Enhancement Program funds to fulfill their available for students who currently are responsibilities?’’) and proposed § 611.40 service obligations by becoming teachers in attending two-year institutions and cannot be (‘‘What are a grantee’s responsibilities for the highest need schools and school districts. admitted to the continuing, and certifying, helping to implement the scholarship However, we are concerned that the higher education program due to changes in requirements?’’) would be clearer if broken commenter’s recommendations would (1) admission standards that were implemented into a series of shorter regulations. burden IHEs unduly with the responsibility after the student had received a Title II Action: The final regulations have been for securing data on literally scores of schools scholarship. revised accordingly. and then somehow ranking those schools by Discussion: A scholarship recipient’s We also have made these regulations relative need, and (2) involve the IHE too responsibility for repaying the scholarship, applicable to all three of the Teacher Quality intimately in hiring decisions that are better accrued interest, and costs of collection, if Enhancement Grant Programs by (1) left to the scholarship recipients and LEA any, only arises if the scholarship recipient renumbering them, (2) moving them to a new and school officials. For this reason, we (1) graduates from a teacher preparation and generally applicable subpart E, believe that the better approach is to require program and fails to confirm to the ‘‘Scholarships,’’ and (3) thereby eliminating, the IHE, in collaboration with the high-need Department that he or she has fulfilled the as no longer necessary, proposed § 611.42 LEA(s) with which it partners, to ensure that service obligation, (2) withdraws from the (‘‘What rules govern scholarships funded by scholarship recipients are placed, to the teacher preparation program, or (3) is found the State or Partnership Programs for extent possible, in the highest-need schools to be no longer in good standing. We see no individuals attending teacher preparation of those LEAs. reason to expand the proposed areas in programs?’’) Action: Section 611.52(c) (proposed which deferment of the service obligation, or 611.40(d)(3)) has been modified accordingly. responsibility to repay the indebtedness, is [FR Doc. 00–646 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Comment: As proposed, § 611.39(a) would available. One of the conditions of the BILLING CODE 4000±01±U require former scholarship recipients who are scholarship is that the recipient will repay fulfilling their service obligations to have the scholarship amount plus accrued interest high-need LEAs in which they teach submit if he or she does not remain in good ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION employment information periodically to the academic standing. Assuming that the AGENCY Department confirming that they are, in fact, recipient remains in good academic standing, meeting their service obligation. One we believe that the appropriate response to 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 commenter expressed concern that if, the situation the commenter posed is for the through no fault of the teacher, the LEA does grantee to continue working with the [MO 091±1091; FRL±6519±9] not forward the information to the scholarship recipient to permit him or her to Department, the former scholarship recipient meet any new admission requirements that Approval and Promulgation of could be wrongly held responsible for the continuing institution may adopt. Implementation Plans and Part 70 repaying the scholarship assistance he or she We add only that we believe the situations Operating Permits Program; State of had received. The commenter recommended the commenter describes should be quite Missouri that we accept, on an interim basis if rare. First, the kinds of changes in admission necessary, evidence such as a notarized standards that the commenter describes are AGENCY: Environmental Protection statement that the scholarship recipient had likely to be very infrequent. Beyond this, Agency (EPA). requested the LEA to submit the information with regard to scholarship recipients, we ACTION: verifying employment. presume that program grantees are in a Direct final rule. Discussion: We agree with the commenter’s position to influence the admission standards SUMMARY: EPA is announcing it is concern and recommendation, except that we and decisions of the teacher preparation believe the recommendation does not programs they are implementing or with approving an amendment to the sufficiently encourage recipients to have which they are partnering. Missouri State Implementation Plan LEAs provide us with timely information that Action: None. (SIP). EPA is approving revisions to verifies the scholarship recipient’s Comment: One commenter asserted that Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.020, employment as a teacher in a high-need the proposed regulations would Definitions and Common Reference school of a high-need LEA. After considering inappropriately penalize scholarship Tables. These revisions will strengthen the matter, we are satisfied that the recipients who, upon graduation, fail the SIP with respect to attainment and scholarship recipient should be permitted to immediately to find employment as teachers maintenance of established air quality meet this responsibility to verify that he or in high-need schools and school districts. standards. The effect of this action is to she is meeting the service obligation in either The commenter also criticized the service of two ways. Specifically, in lieu of having obligation as a disincentive to minority ensure Federal enforceability of the the LEA provide the needed information to recruitment since students have other state’s air program rule revisions. EPA is us in a timely manner, the recipient may scholarship opportunities that do not attach also approving the rule as a revision to attach to the notarized statement a copy of these conditions. the Missouri part 70 operating permits the information that he or she has asked the Discussion: The law requires those who program. LEA to provide to the Department. receive scholarships with Teacher Quality DATES: This direct final rule is effective We will consider the timely receipt of this Enhancement Grant Program funds to meet on March 13, 2000, without further notarized statement and attachment as the service obligation. Moreover, as notice, unless EPA receives adverse satisfactory provisional evidence that the proposed, § 611.37(b)(2) would enable a individual is meeting the service obligation, scholarship recipient to have the service comment by February 11, 2000. If and so should not be responsible for its obligation deferred where, despite due adverse comment is received, EPA will repayment. However, the Department will be diligence, the recipient is unable to secure publish a timely withdrawal of the unable to determine finally that this is so employment as a teacher in a high-need direct final rule in the Federal Register without the signed statement from the LEA. school of a high-need LEA. and inform the public that the rule will Therefore, the scholarship recipient will have Action: None. not take effect. a continuing responsibility to work to get the Comment: One commenter stated that ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to LEA to submit this information. while most of the regulations were clearly Wayne Kaiser, Environmental Action: Sections 611.46 and 611.47 stated, the regulations would be easier to (proposed § 611.39(a) and (b)) have been read if they were divided into more, but Protection Agency, Air Planning and modified accordingly. shorter, sections. Development Branch, 901 North 5th Comment: One commenter stated that the Discussion: Some of the regulations do not Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. proposed reasons for which the Department seem appropriate for dividing into parts. Copies of the state submittal(s) are would defer a scholarship recipient’s service However, we agree with the commenter that available at the following addresses for

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.108 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1788 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations inspection during normal business submits it to us for inclusion into the year or more of volatile organic hours: Environmental Protection SIP. We must provide public notice and compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, Agency, Air Planning and Development seek additional public comment sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas regarding the proposed Federal action PM10; those that emit 10 tons per year City, Kansas 66101; and the on the state submission. If adverse of any single hazardous air pollutant Environmental Protection Agency, Air comments are received, they must be (HAP) (specifically listed under the and Radiation Docket and Information addressed prior to any final Federal CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, action by us. year or more of a combination of HAPs. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. All state regulations and supporting Revisions to the state and local FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information approved by us under agencies operating permits program are Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603. section 110 of the CAA are incorporated also subject to public notice, comment, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: into the Federally approved SIP. and our approval. Throughout this document whenever Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal What is being addressed in this ‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA. document? This section provides additional Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, information by addressing the following entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgations On September 30, 1999, we received questions: of Implementation Plans.’’ The actual a request to amend the Missouri SIP state regulations which are approved are which pertained to revisions to rule 10 What is a SIP? not reproduced in their entirety in the What is the Federal approval process for a CSR 10–6.020, Definitions and Common SIP? CFR outright but are ‘‘incorporated by Reference Tables. In this revision, the What does Federal approval of a state reference,’’ which means that we have MDNR made routine updates and regulation mean to me? approved a given state regulation with clarifications to its definitions rule. What is the Part 70 Operating Permits a specific effective date. Specifically, it revised the definitions of Program? ‘‘catalytic incinerator,’’ ‘‘multiple What is being addressed in this document? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? chamber incinerator,’’ ‘‘stack,’’ and Have the requirements for approval of a ‘‘Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). SIP revision been met? Enforcement of the state regulation What action is EPA taking? This rule is both a SIP and part 70 before and after it is incorporated into program approved rule and thus is being What is a SIP? the Federally approved SIP is primarily approved under both programs. Section 110 of the Clean Air Act a state responsibility. However, after the This amendment to the Missouri SIP (CAA) requires states to develop air regulation is Federally approved, we are and part 70 program was submitted by pollution regulations and control authorized to take enforcement action Stephen Mahfood, MDNR Director, on strategies to ensure that state air quality against violators. Citizens are also September 20, 1999. meets the national ambient air quality offered legal recourse to address A detailed discussion of the specific standards established by us. These violations as described in the CAA. rule revisions is contained in the ambient standards are established under What is the Part 70 Operating Permits technical support document prepared section 109 of the CAA, and they Program? for this action, which is available from the EPA contact listed above. currently address six criteria pollutants. The CAA Amendments of 1990 These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, require all states to develop operating Have the requirements for approval of nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, permits programs that meet certain a SIP revision been met? particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these Federal criteria. In implementing this The state submittal has met the public regulations and control strategies to us program, the states are to require certain notice requirements for SIP submissions for approval and incorporation into the sources of air pollution to obtain in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The Federally enforceable SIP. permits that contain all applicable submittal also satisfied the Each Federally approved SIP protects requirements under the CAA. One completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, air quality primarily by addressing air purpose of the part 70 operating permits appendix V. In addition, as explained pollution at its point of origin. These program is to improve enforcement by above and in more detail in the SIPs can be extensive, containing state issuing each source a single permit that technical support document which is regulations or other enforceable consolidates all of the applicable CAA part of this document, the revisions documents and supporting information requirements into a Federally meet the substantive SIP requirements such as emission inventories, enforceable document. By consolidating of the CAA, including section 110 and monitoring networks, and modeling all of the applicable requirements for a implementing regulations. demonstrations. facility into one document, the source, the public, and the permitting What action is EPA taking? What is the Federal approval process authorities can more easily determine EPA is processing this action as a for a SIP? what CAA requirements apply and how direct final action because the revisions In order for state regulations to be compliance with those requirements is make routine changes to the existing incorporated into the Federally determined. rule which are noncontroversial. enforceable SIP, states must formally Sources required to obtain an Therefore, we do not anticipate any adopt the regulations and control operating permit under this program adverse comments. strategies consistent with state and include: ‘‘major’’ sources of air Federal requirements. This process pollution and certain other sources Conclusion generally includes a public notice, specified in the CAA or in our Final action: EPA is approving an public hearing, public comment period, implementing regulations. For example, amendment to the Missouri SIP related and a formal adoption by a state- all sources regulated under the acid rain to rule 10 CSR 10–6.020, Definitions authorized rulemaking body. program, regardless of size, must obtain and Common Reference Tables. This Once a state rule, regulation, or permits. Examples of major sources rule is also being approved under the control strategy is adopted, the state include those that emit 100 tons per part 70 operating permits program. This

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.125 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1789 direct final rule is effective on March C. Executive Order 13045 section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 13, 2000, without further notice, unless Protection of Children from do not apply to this rule. EPA receives adverse comment by Environmental Health Risks and Safety E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) February 11, 2000. If adverse comment Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) is received, EPA will publish a timely applies to any rule that: (1) is The RFA generally requires an agency withdrawal of the direct final rule in the determined to be ‘‘economically to conduct a regulatory flexibility Federal Register and inform the public significant’’ as defined under Executive analysis of any rule subject to notice that the rule will not take effect. Order 12866, and (2) concerns an and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a will not have a significant economic A. Executive Order 12866 disproportionate effect on children. If impact on a substantial number of small the regulatory action meets both criteria, entities. Small entities include small The Office of Management and Budget the Agency must evaluate the businesses, small not-for-profit (OMB) has exempted this regulatory environmental health or safety effects of enterprises, and small governmental action from Executive Order 12866, the planned rule on children, and jurisdictions. This final rule will not entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and explain why the planned regulation is have a significant impact on a Review.’’ preferable to other potentially effective substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section B. Executive Order 13132 and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 110 and Subchapter I, Part D of the CAA Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, This rule is not subject to Executive do not create any new requirements, but 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Order 13045 because it is not an simply approve requirements that the Order 12612 (Federalism) and Executive economically significant regulatory state is already imposing. Therefore, I Order 12875 (Enhancing the action as defined by Executive Order certify that this action will not have a Intergovernmental Partnership). 12866, and it does not establish a significant economic impact on a Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to further health or risk-based standard substantial number of small entities. develop an accountable process to because it approves provisions which Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by implement a previously promulgated CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis state and local officials in the health or safety-based standard. would constitute Federal inquiry into development of regulatory policies that D. Executive Order 13084 the economic reasonableness of state have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its that have federalism implications’’ is Under Executive Order 13084, actions concerning SIPs on such defined in the Executive Order to Consultation and Coordination with grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. include regulations that have Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 ‘‘substantial direct effects on the states, not issue a regulation that is not U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). on the relationship between the national required by statute, that significantly or government and the states, or on the uniquely affects the communities of F. Unfunded Mandates distribution of power and Indian tribal governments, and that Under section 202 of the Unfunded responsibilities among the various imposes substantial direct compliance Mandates Reform Act of 1995 levels of government.’’ Under Executive costs on those communities, unless the (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed Order 13132, EPA may not issue a Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must regulation that has federalism prepare a budgetary impact statement to implications, that imposes substantial costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with accompany any proposed or final rule direct compliance costs, and that is not that includes a Federal mandate that required by statute, unless the Federal those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 may result in estimated annual costs to Government provides the funds requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a state, local, or tribal governments in the necessary to pay the direct compliance separately identified section of the aggregate, or to the private sector, of costs incurred by state and local preamble to the rule, a description of $100 million or more. Under section governments, or EPA consults with state the extent of EPA’s prior consultation 205, EPA must select the most cost- and local officials early in the process with representatives of affected tribal effective and least burdensome of developing the proposed regulation. governments, a summary of the nature alternative that achieves the objectives EPA also may not issue a regulation that of their concerns, and a statement of the rule and is consistent with has federalism implications and that supporting the need to issue the statutory requirements. Section 203 preempts state law unless the Agency regulation. In addition, Executive Order requires EPA to establish a plan for consults with state and local officials 13084 requires EPA to develop an informing and advising any small early in the process of developing the effective process permitting elected governments that may be significantly proposed regulation. officials and other representatives of or uniquely impacted by the rule. This final rule will not have Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide EPA has determined that the approval substantial direct effects on the states, meaningful and timely input in the action promulgated does not include a on the relationship between the national development of regulatory policies on Federal mandate that may result in government and the states, or on the matters that significantly or uniquely estimated annual costs of $100 million distribution of power and affect their communities.’’ or more to either state, local, or tribal responsibilities among the various Today’s rule does not significantly or governments in the aggregate, or to the levels of government, as specified in uniquely affect the communities of private sector. This Federal action Executive Order 13132. Thus, the Indian tribal governments. This action approves preexisting requirements requirements of section 6 of the does not involve or impose any under state or local law, and imposes no Executive Order do not apply to this requirements that affect Indian tribes. new requirements. Accordingly, no rule. Accordingly, the requirements of additional costs to state, local, or tribal

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.127 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1790 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations governments, or to the private sector, action must be filed in the United States relations, Operating permits, Reporting result from this action. Court of Appeals for the appropriate and recordkeeping requirements. circuit by March 13, 2000. Filing a G. Submission to Congress and the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. petition for reconsideration by the Comptroller General Dated: December 7, 1999. Administrator of this final rule does not The Congressional Review Act, 5 affect the finality of this rule for the William Rice, U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small purposes of judicial review nor does it Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII. Business Regulatory Enforcement extend the time within which a petition Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides for judicial review may be filed, and that before a rule may take effect, the Federal Regulations is amended as shall not postpone the effectiveness of follows: agency promulgating the rule must such rule or action. This action may not submit a rule report, which includes a be challenged later in proceedings to PART 52Ð[AMENDED] copy of the rule, to each House of the enforce its requirements. (See section Congress and to the Comptroller General 307(b)(2).) 1. The authority citation for part 52 of the United States. EPA will submit a continues to read as follows: report containing this rule and other List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 required information to the United Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Environmental protection, Air States Senate, the United States House pollution control, Incorporation by of Representatives, and the United Subpart AAÐMissouri States Comptroller General prior to reference, Intergovernmental relations, publication of the rule in the Federal Particulate matter, Reporting and 2. In § 52.1320 the following entry for Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ recordkeeping requirements. paragraph (c), EPA-approved regulations, is revised to read as follows: as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 § 52.1320 Identification of plan. H. Petitions for Judicial Review Environmental protection, Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Administrative practice and procedure, * * * * * petitions for judicial review of this Air pollution control, Intergovernmental (c) EPA-approved regulations.

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanations

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

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

******* 10±6.020 ...... Definitions and common reference tables ...... 5/30/99 ...... January 12, 2000 and FR cite. *******

PART 70Ð[AMENDED] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION must be received by EPA on or before AGENCY March 13, 2000. 1. The authority citation for Part 70 ADDRESSES: Written objections and 40 CFR Part 180 continues to read as follows: hearing requests may be submitted by Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. [OPP±300962; FRL±6485±4] mail, in person, or by courier. Please RIN 2070±AB78 follow the detailed instructions for each 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended method as provided in Unit VI. of the by adding paragraph (f) to the entry for Mepiquat Chloride; Pesticide ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ Missouri to read as follows: Tolerance To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your Appendix A to Part 70—Approval objections and hearing requests must AGENCY: Environmental Protection identify docket control number OPP– Status of State and Local Operating Agency (EPA). Permits Program 300962 in the subject line on the first ACTION: Final rule. page of your response. * * * * * SUMMARY: This regulation establishes FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Missouri By tolerances for mepiquat chloride mail: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Registration * * * * * regulated as N,N-dimethylpiperidinium Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide (f) The Missouri Department of chloride in or on grapes and raisins. Programs, Environmental Protection Natural Resources submitted Missouri BASF Corporation requested these Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, rule 10 CSR 10–6.020, ‘‘Definitions and tolerances under the Federal Food, DC 20460; telephone number: 703 305– Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by Common Reference Tables,’’ on 7740; and e-mail address: giles- the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. September 30, 1999, approval effective [email protected]. May 30, 1999. DATES: This regulation is effective January 12, 2000. Objections and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 00–355 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] requests for hearings, identified by BILLING CODE 6560±50±P docket control number OPP–300962,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1791

I. General Information applicable comment period is available III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and for inspection in the Public Information Determination of Safety A. Does this Action Apply to Me? and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), You may be affected by this action if Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson you are an agricultural producer, food EPA has reviewed the available Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 scientific data and other relevant manufacturer, or pesticide a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, manufacturer. Potentially affected information in support of this action. excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB EPA has sufficient data to assess the categories and entities may include, but telephone number is (703) 305–5805. are not limited to: hazards of and to make a determination II. Background and Statutory Findings on aggregate exposure, consistent with Cat- Examples of Potentially section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for egories NAICS Affected Entities In the Federal Register of November residues of mepiquat chloride in or on 24, 1999 (64 FR 66181) (FRL–6396–4), grapes at 1.0 ppm, and raisins at 5.0 Industry 111 Crop production EPA issued a notice pursuant to section ppm. EPA’s assessment of the dietary 112 Animal production exposures and risks associated with 311 Food manufacturing 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 32532 Pesticide manufacturing Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a establishing the tolerance follows. as amended by the Food Quality A. Toxicological Profile This listing is not intended to be Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Law 104–170) announcing the filing of EPA has evaluated the available for readers regarding entities likely to be a pesticide petition (PP) for a tolerance toxicity data and considered its validity, affected by this action. Other types of by BASF Corporation. This notice completeness, and reliability as well as entities not listed in the table could also included a summary of the petition the relationship of the results of the be affected. The North American prepared by BASF Corporation the studies to human risk. EPA has also Industrial Classification System registrant. There were no comments considered available information (NAICS) codes have been provided to received in response to the notice of concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable assist you and others in determining filing. whether or not this action might apply subgroups of consumers, including The petition requested that 40 CFR to certain entities. If you have questions infants and children. The results of the 180.384 be amended by establishing regarding the applicability of this action toxicity studies for mepiquat chloride tolerances for residues of the plant to a particular entity, consult the person are listed below. listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER growth regulator mepiquat chloride, in 1. Subchronic toxicity study— Rat. INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ or on grapes at 1.0 parts per million The no-observed-adverse- effect level (ppm), and raisins at 5.0 ppm. (NOAEL) for males and females is 4,632 B. How Can I Get Additional Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA ppm (about 346 mg/kg/day) and the Information, Including Copies of this allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level Document and Other Related legal limit for a pesticide chemical (LOAEL) for males and females is Documents? residue in or on a food) only if EPA 12,000 ppm (about 889 mg/kg/day) 1. Electronically.You may obtain determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ based on tremors in all rats; decreased electronic copies of this document, and Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to body weight gain, food consumption certain other related documents that mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable and food efficiency; increase in might be available electronically, from certainty that no harm will result from thromboplastin time; decrease in serum the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// aggregate exposure to the pesticide calcium, creatinine glucose, total www.epa.gov/. To access this chemical residue, including all protein, albumin, globulin and the document, on the Home Page select anticipated dietary exposures and all triglycerides; reduced grip strength of ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look other exposures for which there is forelimbs and hindlimbs in both sexes; up the entry for this document under reliable information.’’ This includes prolonged reaction time in the hot-plate the ‘‘Federal Register--Environmental exposure through drinking water and in test on day 93 in males; decreased absolute weight of liver, kidneys and Documents.’’ You can also go directly to residential settings, but does not include the Federal Register listings at http:// adrenals in males, and liver and occupational exposure. Section www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. adrenals in females; decreased relative 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special 2. In person. The Agency has weight of liver in males; and increased consideration to exposure of infants and established an official record for this relative weight of kidneys and testes in children to the pesticide chemical action under docket control number males and of kidneys in females. residue in establishing a tolerance and OPP–300962. The official record 2. Subchronic toxicity study— dog. to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable consists of the documents specifically The LOAEL is 3,000 ppm (95.3 mg/kg/ certainty that no harm will result to referenced in this action, and other day), based on clinical signs of toxicity information related to this action, infants and children from aggregate (slight sedation), body weight loss (up to including any information claimed as exposure to the pesticide chemical 14%) and hematological effects (up to Confidential Business Information (CBI). residue....’’ 14% reduction in hemoglobin content This official record includes the EPA performs a number of analyses to and number of erythrocytes and reduced documents that are physically located in determine the risks from aggregate hematocrit). The NOAEL is 1,000 ppm the docket, as well as the documents exposure to pesticide residues. For (32.4 mg/kg/day). that are referenced in those documents. further discussion of the regulatory 3. Chronic toxicity study—rat. The The public version of the official record requirements of section 408 and a NOAEL is 2,316 ppm (106 mg/kg/day). does not include any information complete description of the risk The LOAEL is 5,790 ppm (268 mg/kg/ claimed as CBI. The public version of assessment process, see the final rule on day), based upon decreased body the official record, which includes Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR weights and body weight gains for both printed, paper versions of any electronic 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– males and females, increases in urinary comments submitted during an 7). crystals for males, and pathological

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.097 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations changes in the adrenal cortex in and female rats, based on neurological 95.3 mg/kg/day, based on clinical signs females. impairment, decreased body weight and of toxicity (sedation, abdominal and 4. Chronic toxicity Study— dog. Study body weight gain in the adults, and lateral positions and tonic/clonic 1 and 2. The NOAEL is 1,800 ppm (58.4 retarded growth of F1 and F2 pups. This spasms), decreased body weight, and mg/kg/day) and the LOAEL is 6,000 dose corresponds to dietary hematological changes. An oral dose ppm (170 mg/kg/day), based on concentrations of 499.3 and 574.5 mg/ was selected due to the lack of a dermal impaired neurological functions (slight kg/day, respectively, for F0 and F1 males toxicity study. An UF of 100 was sedation, abdominal/lateral positioning, and 530.0 and 626.5 mg/kg/day, selected, based on 10x for interspecies spasms, and salivation) and epithelial respectively, for F0 and F1 females. The extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies vacuolization of the renal distal tubules. corresponding NOAEL is 1500 ppm. variability. The Dermal Absorption 5. Carcinogenicity study—rat. The There were no treatment-related effects Factor (DAF) is 25%. The inhalation LOAEL for males (269 mg/kg/day) and on reproductive parameters. The LOAEL absorption factor is 100%.. females (370 mg/kg/day) is 5,790 ppm, for reproductive toxicity is greater than 3. Chronic toxicity. The chronic based upon decreased body weights, 5,000 ppm. This study did not establish dietary endpoint is the NOAEL of 58.4 body weight gains, food consumption, a reproductive NOAEL; however, the mg/kg/day from the 1–year and the 90– food efficiency, and macroscopic and systemic NOAEL of 1,500 ppm would day dog feeding studies for the general non-neoplastic findings. The NOAEL for also be regarded as the reproductive U.S. population. The LOAEL was 95.3 males (105 mg/kg/day) and females (141 NOAEL. mg/kg/day, based on clinical signs of mg/kg/day) is 2,316 ppm. There were no 10. Reverse Gene Mutation Assay. toxicity (sedation, abdominal and lateral treatment-related neoplastic findings for Negative. positions and tonic/clonic spasms), males or females treated with mepiquat 11. Structural Chromosome decreased body weight, and chloride. Thus, mepiquat chloride does Aberration Assay. Negative. hematological changes. An UF of 100 not exhibit carcinogenic potential in a 12. Unscheduled DNA Synthesis was selected, based on 10x for 2–year feeding study involving male Assay. Negative. interspecies extrapolation and 10x for and female, rats. 13. Metabolism study. Mepiquat intraspecies variability. The chronic 6. Carcinogenicity study— mice. The chloride did not accumulate in tissues RfD, 0.6 mg/kg/day is the chronic NOAEL for mepiquat chloride of rats. Urine, feces and bile samples NOAEL divided by the UF which equals administered for 2 years in food is 7,500 from various treatments were used for 58.4 mg/kg/day divided by 100. Since ppm for male (1,140 mg/kg/day) and studies of the metabolic fate of mepiquat the FQPA safety factor was reduced to female (1,348 mg/kg/day) B6C3F1 mice. chloride. In all cases, only the 1x the chronic population adjusted dose There were no treatment-related unchanged compound could be (cPAD) equals 0.6 mg/kg/day. neoplastic findings for males or females detected. There was no 4. Carcinogenicity. Mepiquat chloride treated with mepiquat chloride. Thus, biotransformation of mepiquat chloride is classified as a ‘‘not likely’’ human mepiquat chloride does not exhibit in vivo. The potential metabolites, such carcinogen. carcinogenic potential in a 2–year as 1-methylpiperidine or piperidine, C. Exposures and Risks feeding study involving male and were not detected. female B6C3F1 mice over this dose 1. From food and feed uses. range. Based upon the lack of treatment- B. Toxicological Endpoints Tolerances have been established (40 related findings, mepiquat chloride was The following endpoints were used in CFR 180.384) for the residues of not administered at the Maximum the risk assessments for mepiquat mepiquat chloride, in or on cotton seed, Tolerated Dose (MTD). However, the chloride. cotton forage, meat, milk, poultry and high dose (7,500 ppm) for the study was 1. Acute toxicity. The endpoint for the eggs. Tolerances are proposed on grapes sufficient to assess carcinogenicity since acute dietary risk assessment was and raisins. Risk assessments were the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day was estimated, based on the 1–year dog conducted by EPA to assess dietary exceeded. feeding study with the 90–day dog exposures from mepiquat chloride as 7. Developmental toxicity study— rat. feeding as a supporting study. The follows: Based on the clinical signs of toxicity NOAEL was 58.4 mg/kg/day, the i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute and decreases in the food consumption Uncertainty Factor (UF) was 100, and dietary risk assessments are performed and body weight gains, the maternal the FQPA safety factor was reduced to for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological toxicity LOAEL is 300 mg/kg/day and 1X and applies to all population study has indicated the possibility of an the maternal toxicity NOAEL is 150 mg/ subgroups. The endpoints were effect of concern occurring as a result of kg/day. Since developmental toxicity impaired neurological functions a 1–day or single exposure. The Dietary was not observed in this study, the (salivation, sedation, spasms, Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) developmental NOAEL is greater than or abdominal/lateral positioning), detailed acute analysis estimates the equal to 300 mg/kg/day, the highest epithelial vacuolation of renal distal distribution of single exposures for the dose tested. tubules, decrease in body weight, and overall U.S. population and certain 8. Developmental toxicity study—. hematology changes (decrease in RBC, subgroups. The analysis evaluates rabbit. The maternal LOAEL is 150 mg/ hemoglobin, and hematocrit). The acute individual food consumption as kg body weight/day, based on reduced reference dose (aRfD) was 0.6 mg/kg/ reported by respondents in the USDA body weight gains and reduced food day. Since the FQPA safety factor was 1989–1992 Continuing Survey of Food consumption. The maternal NOAEL is reduced to 1x the Acute Population Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and 100 mg/kg body weight/day. The Adjusted Dose (aPAD) was 0.6 mg/kg/ accumulates exposure to the chemical developmental LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/ day. for each commodity. Each analysis day, based on increased skeletal 2. Short- and intermediate-term assumes uniform distribution of variations. The developmental NOAEL toxicity. The oral NOAEL of 58.4 mg/kg/ mepiquat chloride in the commodity is 100 mg/kg/day. day from the combined chronic and supply. 9. Reproductive toxicity study—two- subchronic toxicity studies in dogs was A Tier 1 (assumptions: tolerance level generation—rat. The LOAEL for selected for the short- and intermediate- residues and 100 percent crop treated,) systemic toxicity is 5,000 ppm for male term dermal endpoint. The LOAEL was acute dietary risk assessment was

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.097 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1793 conducted via DEEM. The DEEM water estimate for mepiquat chloride in modify, or revoke a tolerance, the processing factor was set at 1.00 for ground water was generated by the Agency consider ‘‘available grape juice, based on the lack of screening concentratin in ground water information’’ concerning the cumulative concentration of residues therein; the (SCI-GROW) model. Conservative effects of a particular pesticide’s default ratio of 3.0 was applied to grape assumptions were built into the ground residues and ‘‘other substances that juice concentrate. The commodities water scenario used by the SCI-GROW have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ included in the acute DEEM analysis model, such as assuming shallow EPA does not have, at this time, were: cottonseed (meal, oil); grapes ground water, coarse soils and high available data to determine whether (grapes, juice, juice concentrate, leaves, levels of irrigation. The estimate from mepiquat chloride has a common raisins, wine and sherry); and, the meat, SCI-GROW (0.004 parts per billion mechanism of toxicity with other fat, and meat by-products of cattle, (ppb)) represents an upper bound on the substances or how to include this goats, hogs, horses (meat only), and concentration of mepiquat chloride in pesticide in a cumulative risk swine. Milk, egg, and poultry tolerances ground waters as a result of agricultural assessment. Unlike other pesticides for were not included, as these have use. which EPA has followed a cumulative recently been revoked, based upon the Estimates of concentrations of risk approach based on a common Regegistration Eligibility Determinations mepiquat chloride in surface water were mechanism of toxicity, mepiquat that the data indicate no finite residues made using the generic expected chloride does not appear to produce a are likely to occur in these commodities environmental concentration (GENEEC) toxic metabolite produced by other (40 CFR 180.6a(3)). model. The peak estimate for mepiquat substances. For the purposes of this The resulting dietary food exposures chloride using the GENEEC model is tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not (95th percentile) occupy up to 1.5% of 1.86 ppb. The 56–day average for assumed that mepiquat chloride has a the aPAD for the most highly exposed mepiquat chloride is 1.06 ppb. common mechanism of toxicity with population subgroup (Children 1–6 A Drinking Water Level of other substances. For information years). These results should be viewed Comparison (DWLOC) is a theoretical regarding EPA efforts to determine as conservative, health protective risk upper limit of a pesticide’s which chemicals have a common estimates. Refinements such as taking concentration in drinking water in light mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate into account that only two grape of total aggregate exposure to that the cumulative effects of such varieties are to be treated; the percent- pesticide in food and through chemicals, see the final rule for treated of their market share; and, residential uses. A DWLOC will vary Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR Monte Carlo analysis, would yield even depending on the toxic endpoint, 62961, November 26, 1997). lower estimates of acute dietary consumption and body weight. Different D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of exposure. populations will have different ii. Chronic exposure and risk. A Tier DWLOCs. EPA uses DWLOCs internally Safety for U.S. Population 1, chronic dietary risk assessment was in the risk assessment process as a 1. Acute risk. The acute aggregate risk conducted via DEEM. The DEEM surrogate measure of potential exposure is the sum of exposures resulting from processing factor settings for grape juice associated with pesticide exposure acute dietary food and acute dietary (1.0) and grape juice concentrate (3.0), through drinking water. In the absence drinking water. This acute aggregate risk and the commodities included in the of monitoring data for pesticides, the assessment was conducted for all chronic DEEM analysis, were exactly DWLOC is used as a point of population subgroups, and the aPAD the same as those included in the acute comparison against conservative model (0.6 mg/kg/day) was applied in DEEM analysis. estimates of potential pesticide determining exposures to all population The resulting dietary food exposures concentration in water. DWLOC values subgroups. The Estimated occupy up to 0.3% of the cPAD for the are not regulatory standards for drinking Environmental Concentrations (EEC) for most highly exposed population water. EPA has calculated DWLOCs for assessing acute aggregate dietary risk are subgroup (Children 1–6 years). These acute and chronic (non-cancer) 0.004 ppb (in ground water, based on results should be viewed as exposure to mepiquat chloride for the SCI-GROW) and 1.9 ppb (in surface conservative, health protective risk U.S. population and selected subgroups. water, based on the GENEEC peak estimates. Refinements such as taking The DWLOCs for acute and chronic value). The back-calculated DWLOCs for into account that only two grape risk range from 6,000 ppb for infants assessing acute aggregate dietary risk varieties are to be treated; the percent- and children to 21,000 ppb for the U.S. range from 6,000 ppb for the most treated of their market share; and, population. The estimated highly exposed population subgroup anticipated residues would yield even concentration of mepiquat chloride in (Non-nursing infants, < 1 year old, and lower estimates of chronic dietary ground water is 0.004 ppb and 1.86 ppb Children, 1–6 years old) to 21,000 ppb exposure. in surface water, which are less than the for the U.S. population (all seasons). iii. Cancer dietary risk from food DWLOCs as a contribution to acute and The SCI-GROW and GENEEC acute sources. Mepiquat chloride was chronic exposure. The estimated EEC values are less than the Agency’s classified as a ‘‘not likely human concentrations of mepiquat chloride in level of concern (the acute DWLOC carcinogen.’’ Therefore, a cancer risk ground and surface water are considered value for each population subgroup) for assessment was not conducted. conservative estimates. Therefore, EPA mepiquat chloride residues in drinking 2. From drinking water. EPA does not concludes with reasonable certainty that water as a contribution to acute have monitoring data available to residues of mepiquat chloride in food aggregate exposure. The Agency thus perform a quantitative drinking water and drinking water would not result in concludes with reasonable certainty that risk assessment for mepiquat chloride. an unacceptable estimate of acute or residues of mepiquat chloride in In the absence of reliable, available chronic (non-cancer) aggregate human drinking water will not contribute monitoring data, EPA uses models health risk. significantly to the aggregate acute which incorporate chemical-specific 3. Cumulative exposure to substances human health risk and that the acute data on the characteristics in question to with common mechanism of toxicity. aggregate exposure from mepiquat estimate concentrations of pesticides in Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, chloride residues in food and drinking ground and surface water. A drinking when considering whether to establish, water will not exceed the Agency’s level

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.097 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations of concern (100% of the aPAD) for acute The Agency selected a dose and raise concerns regarding the adequacy of dietary aggregate exposure by any toxicological endpoint for assessments the standard MOE/safety factor. population subgroup. EPA generally has of short- and intermediate-term dermal The Agency determined that the no concern for exposures below 100% and inhalation risk. However, since FQPA safety factor for mepiquat should of the aPAD. This risk assessment is there are no residential uses for be reduced to 1x for both acute and considered high confidence, mepiquat chloride, either established or chronic risk assessments for all conservative, and protective of human pending, at this time there is no population subgroups, because: health. exposure. Therefore, short-term and • The toxicology database is complete 2. Chronic risk. Chronic (non-cancer) intermediate risk were not performed. for the assessment of the effects aggregate risk is the sum of exposures 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. following in utero and/or postnatal resulting from chronic dietary food, population. Cancer aggregate risk is the exposure to mepiquat chloride. chronic dietary drinking water and sum of exposures resulting from chronic • The toxicity data provided no chronic residential uses. Mepiquat dietary food, chronic drinking water and indication of quantitative or qualitative chloride has no registered residential chronic residential uses. Mepiquat increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits uses. Therefore, this risk assessment is chloride is classified as a ‘‘not likely’’ to in utero and/or postnatal exposure. the aggregate of chronic dietary food human carcinogen and thus not • The requirement of a developmental and chronic dietary drinking water expected to pose a concer risk to neurotoxicity (DNT) study is not based exposures only. This chronic aggregate humans. on the criteria reflecting some special risk assessment was conducted for all 5. Determination of safety. Based on concern for the developing fetuses or population subgroups, and the cPAD these risk assessments, EPA concludes young which are generally used for was applied in determining exposures that there is a reasonable certainty that requiring a DNT study and an FQPA to all population subgroups. no harm will result from aggregate safety factor (e.g.: neuropathy in adult The EECs for assessing chronic exposure to residues. animals; CNS malformations following aggregate dietary risk are 0.004 ppb (in prenatal exposure; brain weight or ground water, based on SCI-GROW) and E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of sexual maturation changes in offspring; 1.1 ppb (in surface water, based on the Safety for Infants and Children and/or functional changes in offspring) GENEEC 56–day average value). The 1. Safety factor for infants and and therefore does not warrant an FQPA back-calculated DWLOCs for assessing children—i. In general. In assessing the safety factor. This is an interim step chronic aggregate dietary risk range potential for additional sensitivity of towards accordance with the proposed from 6,000 ppb for the most highly safety factors for use in the tolerance- exposed population subgroup (Non- infants and children to residues of mepiquat chloride, EPA considered data setting process which was presented to nursing infants and Children, 1–6 years the FIFRA SAP meeting in May, 1999 old) to 21,000 ppb for the U.S. from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2–generation and placed in the Docket for Public population (all seasons). Comment (64 FR 37001, July 8, 1999; The SCI-GROW and GENEEC chronic reproduction study in the rat. The Docket No. 37001). EEC values are less than the Agency’s developmental toxicity studies are • The exposure assessments will not level of concern (the chronic DWLOC designed to evaluate adverse effects on underestimate the potential dietary value for each population subgroup) for the developing organism resulting from (food and water) exposures for infants mepiquat chloride residues in drinking maternal pesticide exposure during and children from the use of mepiquat water as a contribution to chronic gestation. Reproduction studies provide chloride (currently, no residential aggregate exposure. The Agency thus information relating to effects from concludes with reasonable certainty that exposure to the pesticide on the exposure is expected). residues of mepiquat chloride in reproductive capability of mating 2. Short-or intermediate-term risk. For drinking water will not contribute animals and data on systemic toxicity. a discussion of aggregate acute, chronic, significantly to the aggregate chronic FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA and short- or intermediate-term risk to human health risk and that the chronic shall apply an additional tenfold margin infants and children refer to Unit III.D. aggregate exposure from mepiquat of safety for infants and children in the on Aggregate Risks and Determination chloride residues in food and drinking case of threshold effects to account for of Safety of U.S. population. water will not exceed the Agency’s level prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the 3. Determination of safety. Based on of concern (100% of the cPAD) for completeness of the data base unless these risk assessments, EPA concludes chronic dietary aggregate exposure by EPA determines that a different margin that there is a reasonable certainty that any population subgroup. EPA generally of safety will be safe for infants and no harm will result to infants and has no concern for exposures below children. Margins of safety are children from aggregate exposure to 100% of the cPAD, because it is a level incorporated into EPA risk assessments residues. at or below which daily aggregate either directly through use of a margin IV. Other Considerations dietary exposure over a lifetime will not of exposure (MOE) analysis or through pose appreciable risks to the health and using uncertainty (safety) factors in A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals safety of any population subgroup. This calculating a dose level that poses no Acceptable studies in cotton plants, risk assessment is considered high appreciable risk to humans. EPA grapes ruminants, and poultry have confidence, conservative, and protective believes that reliable data support using previously been submitted and of human health. the standard uncertainty factor (usually evaluated. Residues of mepiquat 3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. 100 for combined interspecies and chloride are systemic, with the residue These aggregate risk assessments take intraspecies variability) and not the of concern in plant and animal into account chronic dietary exposure additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty commodities being mepiquat chloride from food and water, considered to be factor when EPA has a complete data per se. a background exposure level, plus short- base under existing guidelines and and/or intermediate-term indoor and when the severity of the effect in infants B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology outdoor residential exposures, as or children or the potency or unusual The analytical method (GLC/NPD) applicable. toxic properties of a compound do not used for analysis of mepiquat chloride

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.097 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1795 residues in grapes, grape juice, and to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an EPA is authorized to waive any fee raisins is the enforcement procedure exemption from the requirement of a requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of submitted for the Pesticide Analytical tolerance issued by EPA under new the Administrator such a waiver or Manual, Volume II. This procedure has section 408(d), as was provided in the refund is equitable and not contrary to previously undergone a successful old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. the purpose of this subsection.’’ For Agency validation using plant and However, the period for filing objections additional information regarding the animal matrices. The reported limit of is now 60 days, rather than 30 days. waiver of these fees, you may contact quantitation is 0.05 ppm in grapes, 0.10 James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305– A. What Do I Need to Do to File an ppm in grape juice, and 0.25 ppm in 5697, by e-mail at Objection or Request a Hearing? raisins. The method is adequate to [email protected], or by mailing a enforce the tolerance expression. A copy You must file your objection or request for information to Mr. Tompkins of the method may be requested from: request a hearing on this regulation in at Registration Division (7505C), Office Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD (7502C), accordance with the instructions of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Office of Pesticide Programs, provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Environmental Protection Agency, 401 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, Washington, DC 20460. M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; you must identify docket control If you would like to request a waiver telephone number: (703) 305–5229; e- number OPP–300962 in the subject line of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail address: [email protected]. on the first page of your submission. All mail your request for such a waiver to: requests must be in writing, and must be C. Magnitude of Residues James Hollins, Information Resources mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk and Services Division (7502C), Office of Crop field trials. The grape field trials on or before March 13, 2000. Pesticide Programs, Environmental are adequate in number, geographically 1. Filing the request. Your objection Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., representative, and reasonably reflect must specify the specific provisions in Washington, DC 20460. the proposed use pattern. Residues of the regulation that you object to, and the < 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition mepiquat chloride ranged from 0.05 to grounds for the objections (40 CFR to filing an objection or hearing request 0.76 ppm. The data support the 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the with the Hearing Clerk as described in proposed 1.0 ppm tolerance for grapes. objections must include a statement of Unit VI.A., you should also send a copy Processed commodities. No the factual issues(s) on which a hearing of your request to the PIRIB for its concentration of residues was reported is requested, the requestor’s contentions inclusion in the official record that is in grape juice; no tolerance is required. on such issues, and a summary of any described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your Residues concentrated up to 5X in evidence relied upon by the objector (40 copies, identified by docket control raisins. The data support the proposed CFR 178.27). Information submitted in number OPP–300962, to: Public 5.0 ppm tolerance for raisins. connection with an objection or hearing Information and Records Integrity D. International Residue Limits request may be claimed confidential by Branch, Information Resources and marking any part or all of that Services Division (7502C), Office of There are no Codex, Canadian, or information as CBI. Information so Pesticide Programs, Environmental Mexican maximum residue limits marked will not be disclosed except in Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., (MRLs) established for mepiquat accordance with procedures set forth in Washington, DC 20460. In person or by chloride. Harmonization is thus not an 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the courier, bring a copy to the location of issue at this time. information that does not contain CBI the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You E. Rotational Crop Restrictions must be submitted for inclusion in the may also send an electronic copy of Not applicable. Grape vines are long- public record. Information not marked your request via e-mail to: opp- lived perennials. confidential may be disclosed publicly [email protected]. Please use an ASCII by EPA without prior notice. file format and avoid the use of special V. Conclusion Mail your written request to: Office of characters and any form of encryption. Therefore, tolerances are established the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Copies of electronic objections and for residues of mepiquat chloride in or Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., hearing requests will also be accepted on grapes at 1.0 ppm, and raisins at 5.0 Washington, DC 20460. You may also on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file ppm. deliver your request to the Office of the format or ASCII file format. Do not Hearing Clerk in Rm. M3708, Waterside include any CBI in your electronic copy. VI. Objections and Hearing Requests Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC You may also submit an electronic copy Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk of your request at many Federal amended by the FQPA, any person may is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday Depository Libraries. file an objection to any aspect of this through Friday, excluding legal B. When Will the Agency Grant a regulation and may also request a holidays. The telephone number for the Request for a Hearing? hearing on those objections. The EPA Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260– procedural regulations which govern the 4865. A request for a hearing will be granted submission of objections and requests 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file if the Administrator determines that the for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. an objection or request a hearing, you material submitted shows the following: Although the procedures in those must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 There is a genuine and substantial issue regulations require some modification to CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that of fact; there is a reasonable possibility reflect the amendments made to the fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You that available evidence identified by the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters requestor would, if established resolve continue to use those procedures, with Accounting Operations Branch, Office one or more of such issues in favor of appropriate adjustments, until the of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box the requestor, taking into account necessary modifications can be made. 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please uncontested claims or facts to the The new section 408(g) provides identify the fee submission by labeling contrary; and resolution of the factual essentially the same process for persons it ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees.’’ issues(s) in the manner sought by the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.097 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1796 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations requestor would be adequate to justify that have federalism implications’’ is N,N-dimethylpiperidinium chloride in the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). defined in the Executive Order to or on the following commodities: include regulations that have VII. Regulatory Assessment ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, Parts per Requirements Commodity on the relationship between the national million This final rule establishes tolerances government and the States, or on the under FFDCA section 408(d) in distribution of power and ***** response to a petition submitted to the responsibilities among the various Grapes ...... 1.0 Agency. The Office of Management and levels of government.’’ This final rule Budget (OMB) has exempted these types directly regulates growers, food ***** of actions from review under Executive processors, food handlers and food Raisins ...... 5.0 Order 12866, entitled Regulatory retailers, not States. This action does not Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, alter the relationships or distribution of ***** October 4, 1993). This final rule does power and responsibilities established not contain any information collections by Congress in the preemption ***** subject to OMB approval under the provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). [FR Doc. 00–362 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 BILLING CODE 6560±50±F U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any VIII. Submission to Congress and the enforceable duty or contain any Comptroller General unfunded mandate as described under The Congressional Review Act, 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Title II of the Unfunded Mandates U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small AGENCY Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Business Regulatory Enforcement Law 104–4). Nor does it require any Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 40 CFR Part 180 prior consultation as specified by that before a rule may take effect, the [OPP±300958; FRL±6398±5] Executive Order 13084, entitled agency promulgating the rule must RIN 2070±AB78 Consultation and Coordination with submit a rule report, which includes a Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR copy of the rule, to each House of the Emamectin Benzoate; Pesticide 27655, May 19,1998); special Congress and to the Comptroller General Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions considerations as required by Executive of the United States. EPA will submit a Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to report containing this rule and other AGENCY: Environmental Protection Address Environmental Justice in required information to the U.S. Senate, Agency (EPA). Minority Populations and Low-Income the U.S. House of Representatives, and ACTION: Final rule. Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, the Comptroller General of the United 1994); or require OMB review or any States prior to publication of this final SUMMARY: This regulation establishes Agency action under Executive Order rule in the Federal Register. This final time-limited tolerances for combined 13045, entitled Protection of Children rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by residues of emamectin benzoate and its from Environmental Health Risks and 5 U.S.C. 804(2). metabolites and photodegradates Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, emamectin benzoate, 4’-epi- List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 1997). This action does not involve any methylamino- 4’-deoxyavermectin B1 technical standards that would require Environmental protection, benzoate (a mixture of a minimum of Agency consideration of voluntary Administrative practice and procedure, 90% 4’-epi-methylamino-4’- consensus standards pursuant to section Agricultural commodities, Pesticides deoxyavermectin B1a and a maximum of 12(d) of the National Technology and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 10% 4’-epi-methlyamino- Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 requirements. 4’deoxyavermectin B1b benzoate) and its (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section metabolites 8,9 isomer of the B1a and B1b 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since Dated: December 21, 1999. component of the parent insecticide (8,9 tolerances and exemptions that are James Jones, ZMA); 4’-deoxy-4’-epi-aminoavermectin established on the basis of a petition B1 (AB1a); 4’deoxy-4’-epi-(N-formyl-N- Director, Registration Division, Office of under FFDCA section 408(d), such as methyl)amino-avermectin (MFB1a); and Pesticide Programs. the tolerances in this final rule, do not 4’-deoxy-4’-epi-(N-formyl)amino- Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is require the issuance of a proposed rule, avermectin B1(FAB1a) (CAS No.137512– the requirements of the Regulatory amended as follows: 74–4), in or on cottonseed, cottonseed oil, cotton meal, hulls, and gin trash; Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et PART 180 [AMENDED] seq.) do not apply. In addition, the and the milk, meat, fat, kidney, and Agency has determined that this action 1. The authority citation for part 180 liver of cattle, goats, sheep, and swine. will not have a substantial direct effect continues to read as follows: This action is in response to EPA’s on States, on the relationship between Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and granting of an emergency exemption the national government and the States, 371. under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide or on the distribution of power and 2. In § 180.384, by revising the section Act authorizing use of the pesticide on responsibilities among the various heading, paragraph (a) introductory text cotton. This regulation establishes levels of government, as specified in and by alphabetically adding entries for maximum permissible levels for Executive Order 13132, entitled grapes and raisins to the table in residues of emamectin benzoate in these Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, paragraph (a) to read as follows: 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires food and feed commodities. The EPA to develop an accountable process § 180.384 Mepiquat chloride; tolerances tolerances will expire and are revoked to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input for residues. on December 31, 2001. by State and local officials in the (a) General. Tolerances are DATES: This regulation is effective development of regulatory policies that established for residues of the plant January 12, 2000. Objections and have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies growth regulator mepiquat chloride, requests

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1797 for hearings, identified by docket might be available electronically, from to set binding precedents for the control number OPP–300958, must be the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// application of section 408 and the new received by EPA on or before March 13, www.epa.gov/. To access this safety standard to other tolerances and 2000. document, on the Home Page select exemptions. ADDRESSES: Written objections and ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA hearing requests may be submitted by up the entry for this document under allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the mail, in person, or by courier. Please the ‘‘Federal Register-Environmental legal limit for a pesticide chemical follow the detailed instructions for each Documents.’’ You can also go directly to residue in or on a food) only if EPA method as provided in Unit VII. of the the Federal Register listings at http:// determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your 2. In person. The Agency has mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable objections and hearing requests must established an official record for this certainty that no harm will result from identify docket control number OPP– action under docket control number aggregate exposure to the pesticide 300958 in the subject line on the first OPP–300958. The official record chemical residue, including all page of your response. consists of the documents specifically anticipated dietary exposures and all FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By referenced in this action, and other other exposures for which there is mail: Andrea Beard, Registration information related to this action, reliable information.’’ This includes Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide including any information claimed as exposure through drinking water and in Programs, Environmental Protection Confidential Business Information (CBI). residential settings, but does not include Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, This official record includes the occupational exposure. Section DC 20460; telephone number: (703) documents that are physically located in 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special 308–9356; and e-mail address: the docket, as well as the documents consideration to exposure of infants and [email protected]. that are referenced in those documents. children to the pesticide chemical The public version of the official record residue in establishing a tolerance and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: does not include any information to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable I. General Information claimed as CBI. The public version of certainty that no harm will result to the official record, which includes infants and children from aggregate A. Does this Action Apply to Me? printed, paper versions of any electronic exposure to the pesticide chemical You may be potentially affected by comments submitted during an residue. . . .’’ this action if you are an agricultural applicable comment period is available Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, producer, food manufacturer, or for inspection in the Public Information Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide manufacturer. Potentially and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal affected categories and entities may Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson or State agency from any provision of include, but are not limited to: Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 FIFRA, if EPA determines that a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, ‘‘emergency conditions exist which excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB require such exemption.’’ This telephone number is (703) 305–5805. provision was not amended by the Food Cat- NAICS Examples of Quality Protection Act (FQPA). EPA has potentially affected II. Background and Statutory Findings established regulations governing such egories codes entities EPA, on its own initiative, in emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part Industry 111 Crop production accordance with sections 408(l)(6) of the 166. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 112 Animal production III. Emergency Exemption for 311 Food manufacturing (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, is establishing 32532 Pesticide manufac- tolerances for combined residues of the Emamectin Benzoate on Cotton and turing insecticide emamectin benzoate, in or FFDCA Tolerances on cottonseed at 0.002 part per million Beet armyworm has infested cotton This listing is not intended to be (ppm), cottonseed oil at 0.006 ppm, fields to a high degree in recent growing exhaustive, but rather provides a guide cotton meal at 0.002 ppm, cotton hulls seasons. This pest had not previously for readers regarding entities likely to be at 0.004 ppm, and cotton gin trash at been a significant pest in cotton, and affected by this action. Other types of 0.025 ppm; and the milk, meat, fat, had been controlled with available entities not listed in the table could also kidney, and liver of cattle, goats, sheep, alternatives. However, in recent years, be affected. The North American and swine at 0.002 ppm. These beet armyworm populations have Industrial Classification System tolerances will expire and are revoked reached devastating levels in (NAICS) codes have been provided to on December 31, 2001. EPA will publish southeastern cotton-growing areas, and assist you and others in determining a document in the Federal Register to registered alternatives have proven to whether or not this action might apply remove the revoked tolerances from the provide inadequate control to prevent to certain entities. If you have questions Code of Federal Regulations. significant economic losses from regarding the applicability of this action Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA occurring. The resistant tobacco to a particular entity, consult the person requires EPA to establish a time-limited budworm is also negatively affecting listed under ‘‘ FOR FURTHER tolerance or exemption from the yields in these states. EPA has reviewed INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ requirement for a tolerance for pesticide the submissions and has concluded that chemical residues in food that will these pest situations represent urgent B. How Can I Get Additional result from the use of a pesticide under and non-routine problems. EPA has Information, Including Copies of This an emergency exemption granted by authorized under FIFRA section 18 the Document and Other Related EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such use of emamectin benzoate on cotton for Documents? tolerances can be established without control of beet armyworm and resistant 1. Electronically. You may obtain providing notice or period for public tobacco budworm in Alabama, electronic copies of this document, and comment. EPA does not intend for its Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, certain other related documents that actions on section 18 related tolerances Oklahoma, and Texas. After having

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations reviewed the submissions, EPA concurs IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and conducted by EPA to assess dietary that emergency conditions exist for Determination of Safety exposures and risks from emamectin these States. EPA performs a number of analyses to benzoate as follows: i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute As part of its assessment of this determine the risks from aggregate dietary risk assessments are performed emergency exemption, EPA assessed the exposure to pesticide residues. For for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological potential risks presented by residues of further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a study has indicated the possibility of an emamectin benzoate in or on cotton effect of concern occurring as a result of commodities. In doing so, EPA complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on a 1–day or single exposure. For considered the safety standard in conducting the acute dietary risk FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– assessment, the population subgroups of decided that the necessary tolerances concern are infants, children, and under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be 7). Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), females 13 years and older. An acute consistent with the safety standard and EPA has reviewed the available dietary risk assessment was performed with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with scientific data and other relevant using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation the need to move quickly on the information in support of this action. Model (DEEM) system, Tier 3 (Monte emergency exemption in order to EPA has sufficient data to assess the Carlo) approach. This methodology address an urgent non-routine situation hazards of emamectin benzoate and to incorporates distributions of residues and to ensure that the resulting food is make a determination on aggregate and refined percent of crop treated safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these exposure, consistent with section (PCT) estimates for some crops and thus tolerances without notice and 408(b)(2), for time-limited tolerances for results in refined risk estimates. This opportunity for public comment as combined residues of emamectin exposure analysis was conducted using provided in section 408(l)(6). Although benzoate and its metabolites and the Acute Population-Adjusted Dose these tolerances will expire and are photodegradates on cottonseed at 0.002 (PAD) of 0.00025 milligrams/kilograms/ revoked on December 31, 2000, under ppm, cottonseed oil at 0.0006 ppm, day (mg/kg/day). The analysis evaluated FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the cotton meal at 0.002 ppm, cotton hulls individual food consumption as pesticide not in excess of the amounts at 0.004 ppm, and cotton gin trash at reported in the USDA Continuing specified in the tolerances remaining in 0.025 ppm; and the milk, meat, fat, Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) conducted in 1989–92. The or on cotton commodities after that date kidney, and liver of cattle, goats, sheep, model accumulated exposure to will not be unlawful, provided the and swine at 0.002 ppm. EPA’s emamectin for each commodity and pesticide is applied in a manner that assessment of the dietary exposures and expresses risk as a function of dietary was lawful under FIFRA, and the risks associated with establishing the tolerances follows. exposure. For the most highly exposed residues do not exceed a level that was population subgroup, children 1–6 years authorized by the tolerances at the time A. Toxicological Profile old, the resulting high-end exposure (at of that application. EPA will take action EPA has evaluated the available the 99.9th percentile) occupies 65% of to revoke these tolerances earlier if any toxicity data and considered its validity, the acute PAD. For the overall U.S. experience with, scientific data on, or completeness, and reliability as well as population, the high-end exposure other relevant information on this the relationship of the results of the (99.9th percentile) occupies 29% of the pesticide indicate that the residues are studies to human risk. EPA has also acute PAD. All risk estimates are within not safe. considered available information acceptable limits, thus there is Because these tolerances are being concerning the variability of the reasonable certainty of no harm due to approved under emergency conditions, sensitivities of major identifiable acute dietary exposure to emamectin. EPA has not made any decisions about subgroups of consumers, including ii. Chronic exposure and risk. The whether emamectin benzoate meets infants and children. The nature of the chronic dietary risk assessment used the EPA’s registration requirements for use toxic effects caused by emamectin chronic PAD of 0.000083 mg/kg/day, on cotton or whether permanent benzoate are discussed in Unit II.A. of and consumption reported in the USDA- tolerances for this use would be the final rule on Emamectin Benzoate CSFII of 1989–92, and accumulates appropriate. Under these circumstances, Pesticide Tolerances published in the exposure to emamectin for each commodity. This analysis used EPA does not believe that these Federal Register on May 19, 1999 (64 tolerance-level residues and 25% crop tolerances serve as a basis for FR 27192) (FRL–6079–7). treated figures for broccoli, Brussels registration of emamectin benzoate by a B. Toxicological Endpoint sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, lettuce, State for special local needs under The toxicological endpoints for and celery. For the most highly exposed FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these emamectin benzoate are discussed in population subgroup, children 1–6 years tolerances serve as the basis for any Unit II.B. of the final rule on Emamectin old, the resulting exposure occupies State other than Alabama, Arkansas, Benzoate Pesticide Tolerances 21% of the chronic PAD. For the overall Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and published in the Federal Register on U.S. population, the exposure occupies Texas to use this pesticide on this crop May 19, 1999. 15% of the chronic PAD. All risk under section 18 of FIFRA without estimates are within acceptable limits, following all provisions of EPA’s C. Exposures and Risks thus there is reasonable certainty of no regulations implementing section 18 as 1. From food and feed uses. harm due to chronic dietary exposure to identified in 40 CFR part 166. For Tolerances have been established (40 emamectin. additional information regarding the CFR 180.505) for the combined residues Section 408(b)(2)(F) states that the emergency exemptions for emamectin of emamectin benzoate and its Agency may use data on the actual PCT benzoate, contact the Agency’s metabolites and photodegradates, in or for assessing chronic dietary risk only if Registration Division at the address on Brassica, head and stem (subgroup 5- the Agency can make the following provided under ‘‘ FOR FURTHER A under 40 CFR 180.41), celery, and findings: That the data used are reliable INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ head lettuce. Risk assessments were and provide a valid basis to show what

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.156 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1799 percentage of the food derived from water concentration estimates must be exposure. Therefore, a non-dietary risk such crop is likely to contain such made by reliance on some sort of assessment was not conducted. pesticide residue; that the exposure simulation or modeling. None of the 4. Cumulative exposure to substances estimate does not underestimate drinking water models used by the with a common mechanism of toxicity. exposure for any significant Agency include consideration of the Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, subpopulation group; and if data are impact that processing of raw water, for when considering whether to establish, available on pesticide use and food distribution as drinking water, would modify, or revoke a tolerance, the consumption in a particular area, the likely have on the removal of pesticides Agency consider ‘‘available exposure estimate does not understate from the source water. The primary use information’’ concerning the cumulative exposure for the population in such of these models by the Agency at this effects of a particular pesticide’s area. In addition, the Agency must stage is to provide a coarse screen for residues and ‘‘other substances that provide for periodic evaluation of any sorting out pesticides for which it is have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ estimates used. To provide for the highly unlikely that drinking water Emamectin benzoate is synthetically periodic evaluation of the estimate of concentrations would ever exceed derived from avermectin, which is PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F), human health levels of concern. derived from the antibiotic-producing EPA may require registrants to submit In the environment, emamectin and actinomycetes, the source of all of the data on PCT. its primary degradates are expected to antibiotic fungicides. Streptomyces The Agency used PCT figures of: 25% be relatively immobile due to the high avermitilus produces the insecticide for broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, degree of sorption to soil particles. avermectin, which is a mixture of two cauliflower, lettuce, and celery. Estimated concentrations for surface homologs, avermectin B1a and B1b, The Agency believes that the three water exceeded those for ground water; which have equal biological activity. conditions in section 408(b)(2)(F), therefore, surface water values were Currently, the only member of this class discussed in this unit, concerning the used for risk calculations. The estimated which is registered for agricultural uses Agency’s responsibilities in assessing environmental concentration (EEC) for is avermectin. Avermectin and chronic dietary risk findings, have been acute drinking water exposure is 0.107 ivermectin are structurally similar to met. The PCT estimates are derived emamectin. EPA does not have, at this part per billion (ppb), derived from the from Federal and private market survey time, available data to determine PRZM/EXAMS model which estimates data, which are reliable and have a valid whether emamectin benzoate has a pesticide concentrations in a farm pond. basis. Typically, a range of estimates are common mechanism of toxicity with The highest EEC for chronic drinking supplied and the upper end of this other substances or how to include this water exposure is 0.0203 ppb from the range is assumed for the exposure pesticide in a cumulative risk PRZM/EXAMS model. These drinking assessment. By using this upper end assessment. Unlike other pesticides for water estimates are considered to estimate of the PCT, the Agency is which EPA has followed a cumulative include both emamectin and its reasonably certain that the percentage of risk approach based on a common metabolites of concern. the food treated is not likely to be mechanism of toxicity, emamectin underestimated. The regional In the absence of monitoring data for benzoate does not appear to produce a consumption information and pesticides, drinking water levels of toxic metabolite produced by other consumption information for significant comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated substances. For the purposes of this subpopulations is taken into account and compared to the model estimates of tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not through EPA’s computer-based model a pesticide’s concentration in water. assumed that emamectin benzoate has a for evaluating the exposure of DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits for common mechanism of toxicity with significant subpopulations including a pesticide’s concentration in drinking other substances. For more information several regional groups. Use of this water in light of total aggregate exposure regarding EPA’s efforts to determine consumption information in EPA’s risk to a pesticide in food, drinking water, which chemicals have a common assessment process ensures that EPA’s and residential uses. A DWLOC will mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate exposure estimate does not understate vary depending on the toxic endpoint, the cumulative effects of such exposure for any significant with drinking water consumption, and chemicals, see the final rule for subpopulation group and allows the body weights. Different populations will Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR Agency to be reasonably certain that no have different DWLOCs. DWLOCs are 62961, November 26, 1997). regional population is exposed to used in the risk assessment process as D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of residue levels higher than those a surrogate measure of potential Safety for U.S. Population estimated by the Agency. Other than the exposure associated with pesticide data available through national food exposure through drinking water. 1. Acute risk. There are currently no consumption surveys, EPA does not DWLOC values are not regulatory registered residential uses of emamectin have available information on the standards for drinking water. The or uses which may result in residential regional consumption of food to which estimates for drinking water levels, exposure. Therefore, acute aggregate risk emamectin benzoate may be applied in derived from the models mentioned in consists of exposure from food and a particular area. the preceding paragraph, are all well drinking water sources only. As 2. From drinking water. There are no below the DWLOCs calculated for all discussed earlier, exposure to established Maximum Contaminant population subgroups. Since DWLOCs emamectin residues in food will occupy Levels (MCLs) of health advisory levels address total aggregate exposure to no more than 29% of the acute PAD for for residues of emamectin in drinking emamectin they are further discussed in adult population subgroups, and no water. The Agency currently lacks the aggregate risk sections below. more than 65% of the acute PAD for sufficient water-related exposure data to 3. From non-dietary exposure. infant/children subgroups. Estimated complete a comprehensive drinking Emamectin benzoate is currently not concentrations of emamectin residues in water exposure analysis and risk registered for use on any residential surface and ground water are lower than assessment for emamectin. Because the non-food sites. The proposed and the DWLOCs calculated by the Agency. Agency does not have comprehensive existing uses of emamectin are not The drinking water estimates were and reliable monitoring data, drinking expected to result in residential calculated using drinking water models,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.156 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations and are considered conservative. Tolerances published in the Federal V. Other Considerations Therefore, EPA does not expect chronic Register on May 19, 1999. A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals aggregate risk to emamectin residues ii. Developmental toxicity studies. The nature of the residues of from food and water sources to exceed Developmental toxicity is discussed in emamectin benzoate in plants is levels of concern for acute aggregate Units II.A.8. and II.A.16. and II.E.1. of adequately understood. The tolerance risk, and thus finds reasonable certainty the Federal Register document expression for emamectin benzoate that no harm will result from aggregate published on May 19, 1999. acute exposure to emamectin. must contain the following: emamectin, 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure iii. Reproductive toxicity study. 8,9 ZMA and metabolites/ assumptions described in this unit, EPA Reproductive toxicity is discussed in photodegradates AB1a, MFB1a, and has concluded that aggregate exposure Units II.A.10. and II.E.1. of the Federal FAB1a. Metabolites/photodegradates to emamectin benzoate from food will Register document published on May 8AOXOMA and 8AOHMA are also of utilize 15% of the chronic PAD for the 19, 1999. toxicological concern, but based upon U.S. population. The major identifiable iv. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. their relative levels to the emamectin subgroup with the highest aggregate Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity is and the other four emamectin-like exposure is children 1 to 6 years old, at discussed in Unit II.E.1. of the Federal residues (8,9 ZMA, AB1a, MFB1a, and 21% of the chronic PAD. This is Register document published on May FAB1a), these are not needed in the discussed below. EPA generally has no 19, 1999. tolerance expression or dietary risk concern for exposures below 100% of v. Conclusion. There is a complete assessment. No metabolism data in the PAD because the PAD represents the toxicity data base for emamectin livestock and poultry have been level at or below which daily aggregate benzoate and exposure data are provided. For the purposes of this dietary exposure over a lifetime will not complete or are estimated based on data section 18 request, the residue of pose appreciable risks to human health. that reasonably accounts for potential concern in livestock is emamectin, and As stated above, the estimated drinking exposures. 8,9 isomer of B1a and B1b. water levels, calculated using EPA models, and thus considered 2. Acute risk. Using the exposure B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology conservative, were lower than all assumptions described in this unit, EPA Adequate enforcement methodology DWLOCs. Thus, despite the potential for has concluded that aggregate exposure is available for both plant and livestock exposure to emamectin benzoate in to emamectin benzoate from food will commodities; it is a HPLC method using drinking water, EPA does not expect the utilize no more than 65% of the acute fluorescence as the means of detection. aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of PAD for infants and children. EPA The methods described in MRID the chronic PAD, and thus concludes generally has no concern for exposures 44795001 are adequate to enforce the that there is reasonable certainty that no below 100% of the PAD because the tolerance expression. harm will result from chronic aggregate PAD represents the level at or below The method may be requested from: exposure to emamectin. which daily aggregate dietary exposure Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD (7502C), 3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. will not pose appreciable risks to Office of Pesticide Programs, Short- and intermediate-term aggregate human health. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 exposure takes into account chronic 3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; dietary food and water (considered to be assumptions described in this unit, EPA telephone number: (703) 305–5229; e- a background exposure level) plus has concluded that aggregate exposure mail address: [email protected]. indoor and outdoor residential to emamectin benzoate from food will C. Magnitude of the Residues exposure. Since there are no registered utilize 21% of the PAD for the most residential uses or other uses that would highly exposed infant and children Residues of emamectin and its be expected to result in residential subgroup, children 1 to 6 years old. EPA metabolites and photodegradates are not exposure, there is no exposure expected generally has no concern for exposures expected to exceed 0.002 ppm in/on in these scenarios, and thus this risk below 100% of the PAD because the cottonseed, 0.006 ppm in cottonseed oil, assessment is not necessary. PAD represents the level at or below 0.002 ppm cotton meal, 0.004 ppm in 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. which daily aggregate dietary exposure cotton hulls, and 0.025 ppm in gin population. Based on the available data will not pose appreciable risks to trash; and 0.002 ppm in the meat, milk, available for emamectin, there is no human health. Despite the potential for fat, liver, and kidney of cattle, goats, evidence of carcinogenicity, and thus exposure to emamectin benzoate in sheep, and swine as a result of this this risk assessment is not necessary. drinking water and from non-dietary, section 18 use. Secondary residues are 5. Determination of safety. Based on nonoccupational exposure, EPA does expected in animal commodities as gin these risk assessments, EPA concludes not expect the aggregate exposure to trash containing measurable residues is that there is a reasonable certainty that exceed 100% of the PAD. among the feed items associated with no harm will result from aggregate this section 18 use. Secondary residues 4. Short- or intermediate-term risk. exposure to emamectin benzoate in milk, meat, fat, kidney and liver of Since there are no registered residential residues. cattle, goats, sheep, and swine are not uses or other uses that would be expected to exceed 0.002 ppm. Residues E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of expected to result in residential are not expected in poultry Safety for Infants and Children exposure, there is no exposure expected commodities, since cotton gin trash is in these scenarios, and thus this risk 1. Safety factor for infants and not a significant feed item of poultry, assessment is not necessary. children—i. In general. The and exposure would be negligible. determination of the 3X safety factor to 5. Determination of safety. Based on account for the potential for increased these risk assessments, EPA concludes D. Rotational Crop Restrictions sensitivity of infants and children to that there is a reasonable certainty that Based on available information, the residues of imidacloprid is discussed in no harm will result to infants and confined rotational crop data base is Unit II.E.1.i. of the final rule on children from aggregate exposure to adequate and no plantback restrictions Emamectin Benzoate Pesticide emamectin benzoate residues. are needed on labels.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.156 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1801

E. International Residue Limits the regulation that you object to, and the 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition There are no Codex, Canadian, or grounds for the objections (40 CFR to filing an objection or hearing request Mexican MRLs for emamectin. 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the with the Hearing Clerk as described in objections must include a statement of Unit VII.A., you should also send a copy VI. Conclusion the factual issues(s) on which a hearing of your request to the PIRIB for its Therefore, tolerances are established is requested, the requestor’s contentions inclusion in the official record that is for combined residues of emamectin on such issues, and a summary of any described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your benzoate, 4’-epi-methylamino- 4’- evidence relied upon by the objector (40 copies, identified by the docket control deoxyavermectin B1 benzoate (a mixture CFR 178.27). Information submitted in number OPP–300958, to: Public of a minimum of 90% 4’-epi- connection with an objection or hearing Information and Records Integrity methylamino-4’- deoxyavermectin B1a request may be claimed confidential by Branch, Information Resources and and a maximum of 10% 4’-epi- marking any part or all of that Services Division (7502C), Office of methlyamino-4’deoxyavermectin B1b information as CBI. Information so Pesticide Programs, Environmental benzoate) and its metabolites 8,9 isomer marked willnot be disclosed except in Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., of the B1a and B1b component of the accordance with procedures set forth in Washington, DC 20460. In person or by parent insecticide (8,9 ZMA); 4’-deoxy- 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the courier, bring a copy to the location of 4’-epi-aminoavermectin B1 (AB1a); information that does not contain CBI the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You 4’deoxy-4’-epi-(N-formyl-N- must be submitted for inclusion in the may also send an electronic copy of methyl)amino-avermectin (MFB1a); and public record. Information not marked your request via e-mail to: opp- 4’-deoxy-4’-epi-(N-formyl)amino- confidential may be disclosed publicly [email protected]. Please use an ASCII avermectin B1 (FAB1a) in cottonseed at by EPA without prior notice. file format and avoid the use of special 0.002 ppm, cottonseed oil at 0.0006 Mail your written request to: Office of characters and any form of encryption. ppm, cotton meal at 0.002 ppm, cotton the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Copies of electronic objections and hulls at 0.004 ppm, and cotton gin trash Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., hearing requests will also be accepted at 0.025 ppm; and in the milk, meat, fat, Washington, DC 20460. You may also on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file liver, and kidney of cattle, goats, sheep, deliver your request to the Office of the format or ASCII file format. Do not and swine at 0.002 ppm. Hearing Clerk in Rm. M3708, Waterside include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy VII. Objections and Hearing Requests Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk of your request at many Federal Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday Depository Libraries. amended by the FQPA, any person may through Friday, excluding legal B. When Will the Agency Grant a file an objection to any aspect of this holidays. The telephone number for the Request for a Hearing? regulation and may also request a Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260– hearing on those objections. The EPA A request for a hearing will be granted 4865. if the Administrator determines that the procedural regulations which govern the 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file submission of objections and requests material submitted shows the following: an objection or request a hearing, you for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. There is a genuine and substantial issue must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 Although the procedures in those of fact; there is a reasonable possibility CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that regulations require some modification to that available evidence identified by the fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You reflect the amendments made to the requestor would, if established resolve must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will one or more of such issues in favor of Accounting Operations Branch, Office continue to use those procedures, with the requestor, taking into account of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box appropriate adjustments, until the uncontested claims or facts to the 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please necessary modifications can be made. contrary; and resolution of the factual identify the fee submission by labeling The new section 408(g) provides issues(s) in the manner sought by the essentially the same process for persons it ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees.’’ requestor would be adequate to justify to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an EPA is authorized to waive any fee the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). exemption from the requirement of a requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or VIII. Regulatory Assessment tolerance issued by EPA under new Requirements section 408(d), as was provided in the refund is equitable and not contrary to old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. the purpose of this subsection.’’ For This final rule establishes a time- However, the period for filing objections additional information regarding the limited tolerance under FFDCA section is now 60 days, rather than 30 days. waiver of these fees, you may contact 408. The Office of Management and James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305– Budget (OMB) has exempted these types A. What Do I Need to Do to File an 5697, by e-mail at of actions from review under Executive Objection or Request a Hearing? [email protected], or by mailing a Order 12866, entitled Regulatory You must file your objection or request for information to Mr. Tompkins Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, request a hearing on this regulation in at Registration Division (7505C), Office October 4, 1993). This final rule does accordance with the instructions of Pesticide Programs, Environmental not contain any information collections provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., subject to OMB approval under the 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, Washington, DC 20460. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 you must identify docket control If you would like to request a waiver U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any number OPP–300958 in the subject line of the tolerance objection fees, you must enforceable duty or contain any on the first page of your submission. All mail your request for such a waiver to: unfunded mandate as described under requests must be in writing, and must be James Hollins, Information Resources Title II of the Unfunded Mandates mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk and Services Division (7502C), Office of Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public on or before March 13, 2000. Pesticide Programs, Environmental Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 1. Filing the request. Your objection Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., prior consultation as specified by must specify the specific provisions in Washington, DC 20460. Executive Order 13084, entitled

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.156 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Consultation and Coordination with agency promulgating the rule must Parts per Expiration/ Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR submit a rule report, which includes a Commodity million Revocation 27655, May 19, 1998); special copy of the rule, to each House of the date considerations as required by Executive Congress and to the Comptroller General Sheep, meat ..... 0.002 12/31/01 Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to of the United States. EPA will submit a Address Environmental Justice in report containing this rule and other Sheep, meat by- Minority Populations and Low-Income required information to the U.S. Senate, product ...... 0.002 12/31/01 Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 1994); or require OMB review or any the Comptroller General of the United ***** Agency action under Executive Order States prior to publication of this final [FR Doc. 00–735 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] 13045, entitled Protection of Children rule in the Federal Register. This final BILLING CODE 6560±50±F from Environmental Health Risks and rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1997). This action does not involve any Environmental protection, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION technical standards that would require Administrative practice and procedure, AGENCY Agency consideration of voluntary Agricultural commodities, Pesticides consensus standards pursuant to section and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 40 CFR Part 180 requirements. 12(d) of the National Technology [OPP±300960; FRL±6399±7] Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Dated: December 22, 1999. (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section RIN 2070±AB78 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since James Jones, tolerances and exemptions that are Director, Registration Division, Office of Spinosad; Pesticide Tolerance established on the basis of a FIFRA Pesticide Programs. AGENCY: Environmental Protection section 18 petition under FFDCA Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is Agency (EPA). section 408, such as the tolerance in this amended as follows: final rule, do not require the issuance of ACTION: Final rule. PART 180Ð[AMENDED] a proposed rule, the requirements of the SUMMARY: This regulation establishes Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 1. The authority citation for part 180 permanent tolerances for the insecticide U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In continues to read as follows: spinosad (Factor A and Factor D). Factor addition, the Agency has determined Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and A is 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3, 4-tri-O-methyl- that this action will not have a 371. alpha-L-manno-pyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5- substantial direct effect on States, on the (dimethylamino)-tetrahydro-6-methyl-2 relationship between the national 2. In §180.505, by alphabetically H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl- government and the States, or on the adding the following commodities to the 2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,6b- distribution of power and table in paragraph (b) to read as follows: tetradecahydro-14-methyl-1 H-as- responsibilities among the various Indaceno [3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15- levels of government, as specified in §180.505 Emamectin Benzoate; tolerances dione. Factor D is 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3,4-tri- Executive Order 13132, entitled for residues. O- methyl-alpha-L-manno- Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, ***** pyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5-(dimethylamino)- 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires (b) * * * EPA to develop an accountable process tetrahydri-6-methyl-2H-pyran -2- to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input Expiration/ yl]oxy]-9-ethyl- Parts per 2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b- by State and local officials in the Commodity million Revocation development of regulatory policies that date tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl- 1H-as- have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies Indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15- that have federalism implications’’ is dione. This regulation establishes *****tolerances for residues of spinosad in or defined in the Executive Order to Cattle, fat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 on the raw agricultural commodities include regulations that have Cattle, meat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, (RACs ), in or on barley, buckwheat, on the relationship between the national Cattle, meat by- oats, and rye (grains) at 0.02 parts per government and the States, or on the product ...... 0.002 12/31/01 million (ppm); pearl millet, proso distribution of power and Cotton gin by- millet, and amaranth (grains) at 1 ppm; responsibilities among the various product ...... 0.025 12/31/01 teosinte and popcorn (grains) at 0.02 levels of government.’’ This final rule Cotton hulls ...... 0.004 12/31/01 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay group; nongrass animal feed group at directly regulates growers, food Cotton, meal ..... 0.002 12/31/01 processors, food handlers and food 0.02 ppm; turnip greens at 10 ppm; retailers, not States. This action does not Cottonseed ...... 0.002 12/31/01 cilantro, and watercress at 8 ppm; alter the relationships or distribution of Cottonseed oil ... 0.006 12/31/01 tropical fruits (sugar apple, cherimoya, atemoya, custard apple, ilama, soursop, power and responsibilities established Goats, fat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 by Congress in the preemption biriba, lychee, longan, spanish lime, Goats, meat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). rambutan, pulasan, papaya, star apple, Goats, meat by- black sapote, mango, sapodilla, canistel, IX. Submission to Congress and the product ...... 0.002 12/31/01 mamey sapote, avocado, guava, feijoa, General Accounting Office Hogs, fat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 jaboticaba, wax jambu, starfruit, The Congressional Review Act, 5 passionfruit, acerola, and white sapote) Hogs, meat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small at 0.3 ppm; ti leaves at 10 ppm. Business Regulatory Enforcement Hogs, meat by- Additionally, this rule establishes a Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides product ...... 0.002 12/31/01 tolerance for spinosad on pistachio at that before a rule may take effect, the Sheep, fat ...... 0.002 12/31/01 0.02 ppm under conditional registration.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.156 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1803

These tolerances were requested by the whether or not this action might apply tolerances for residues of the Interregional Research Project (IR-4), to certain entities. If you have questions insecticide, in or on the RACs Rutgers, the State University of New regarding the applicability of this action considered in this rule. Jersey, 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, to a particular entity, consult the person Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA North Brunswick, NJ 08902–3390. listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the Spinosad is manufactured by Dow INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ legal limit for a pesticide chemical AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville B. How Can I Get Additional residue in or on a food) only if EPA Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. The IR-4 Information, Including Copies of this determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ requested these tolerances under the Document and Other Related Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Documents? mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable as amended by the Food Quality certainty that no harm will result from Protection Act of 1996. 1. Electronically. You may obtain aggregate exposure to the pesticide DATES: This regulation is effective electronic copies of this document, and chemical residue, including all January 12, 2000. Objections and certain other related documents that anticipated dietary exposures and all requests for hearings, identified by might be available electronically, from other exposures for which there is docket control number OPP–300960, the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// reliable information.’’ This includes must be received by EPA on or before www.epa.gov/. To access this exposure through drinking water and in March 13, 2000. document, on the Home Page select residential settings, but does not include ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look ADDRESSES: Written objections and occupational exposure. Section up the entry for this document under hearing requests may be submitted by 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special the ‘‘Federal Register--Environmental mail, in person, or by courier. Please consideration to exposure of infants and Documents.’’ You can also go directly to follow the detailed instructions for each children to the pesticide chemical the Federal Register listings at http:// method as provided in Unit VI. of the residue in establishing a tolerance and www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ 2. In person. The Agency has to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your established an official record for this certainty that no harm will result to objections and hearing requests must action under docket control number infants and children from aggregate identify docket control number OPP– OPP–300960. The official record exposure to the pesticide chemical 300960 in the subject line on the first consists of the documents specifically residue....’’ page of your response. referenced in this action, and other EPA performs a number of analyses to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By information related to this action, determine the risks from aggregate mail: Sidney Jackson, Registration including any information claimed as exposure to pesticide residues. For Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Confidential Business Information (CBI). further discussion of the regulatory Programs, Environmental Protection This official record includes the requirements of section 408 and a Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, documents that are physically located in complete description of the risk DC 20460; telephone number: (703) the docket, as well as the documents assessment process, see the final rule on 305–7610; and e-mail address: that are referenced in those documents. Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR [email protected]. The public version of the official record 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: does not include any information 7). I. General Information claimed as CBI. The public version of III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and the official record, which includes Determination of Safety A. Does this Action Apply to Me? printed, paper versions of any electronic You may be affected by this action if comments submitted during an Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), you are an agricultural producer, food applicable comment period is available EPA has reviewed the available manufacturer, or pesticide for inspection in the Public Information scientific data and other relevant manufacturer. Potentially affected and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), information in support of this action. categories and entities may include, but Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson EPA has sufficient data to assess the are not limited to: Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 hazards of and to make a determination a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, on aggregate exposure, consistent with excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for telephone number is (703) 305–5805. residues of spinosad in or on the RACs Examples of considered in this rule. EPA’s Cat- NAICS II. Background and Statutory Findings egories codes potentially affected assessment of the dietary exposures and entities In the Federal Register of October 14, risks associated with establishing the tolerances follows. Industry 111 Crop production 1999 (64 FR 55714) (FRL–6382–7), EPA 112 Animal production issued a notice pursuant to section 408 A. Toxicological Profile 311 Food manufacturing of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 32532 Pesticide manufac- Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as EPA has evaluated the available turing amended by the Food Quality Protection toxicity data and considered its validity, Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104– completeness, and reliability as well as This listing is not intended to be 170) announcing the filing of a pesticide the relationship of the results of the exhaustive, but rather provides a guide petition (PP) for these tolerances by the studies to human risk. EPA has also for readers regarding entities likely to be IR-4. This notice included a summary of considered available information affected by this action. Other types of the petition prepared by Dow concerning the variability of the entities not listed in the table could also AgroScience, the registrant. There were sensitivities of major identifiable be affected. The North American no comments received in response to subgroups of consumers, including Industrial Classification System the notice of filing. infants and children. The nature of the (NAICS) codes have been provided to The petition requested that 40 CFR toxic effects caused by spinosad are assist you and others in determining 180.495 be amended by establishing discussed in this unit.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1. Acute toxicity. Spinosad has low dermal toxicity study in rabbits given 2. Short- and intermediate- term acute toxicity. The rat oral lethal dose 1,000 mg/kg/day. toxicity. Short- (1 day to 7 days), (LD)50 is 3,738 milligrams/kilograms 5. Chronic toxicity. Based on chronic intermediate- (1 week to several (mg/kg) for males and >5,000 mg/kg for testing with spinosad in the dog and the months), and chronic-term occupational females, whereas the mouse oral LD50 is rat, EPA has set a reference dose (RfD) and residential dermal and inhalation >5,000 mg/kg. The rabbit dermal LD50 is of 0.027 mg/kg/day for spinosad. The toxicity. EPA did not select a dose or >5,000 mg/kg and the rat inhalation RfD has incorporated a 100-fold endpoint for short-, intermediate-, and lethal concentration (LC)50 is >5.18 uncertainty factor (UF) to the NOAELs long-term dermal risk assessments milligrams/liter (mg/L) air. In addition, found in the chronic dog study to because: spinosad is not a skin sensitizer in account for interspecies and i. Lack of appropriate endpoints. guinea pigs and does not produce intraspecies variation. The NOAELs ii. The combination of molecular significant dermal or ocular irritation in shown in the dog chronic study were structure and size as well as the lack of rabbits. End use formulations of 2.68 and 2.72 mg/kg/day, respectively dermal or systemic toxicity at 2,000 mg/ spinosad that are water-based for male and female dogs. The NOAELs kg/day in a 21–day dermal toxicity suspension concentrates have similar (systemic) shown in the rat chronic/ study in rats which indicates the lack of low acute toxicity profiles. carcinogenicity/neurotoxicity studies dermal absorption. 2. Genotoxicity. Short-term assays for were 9.5 and 12.0 mg/kg/day, iii. The lack of long-term exposure genotoxicity consisting of a bacterial respectively for male and female rats. based on the current use pattern. EPA also determined that based on the reverse mutation assay (Ames test), an Using the Guidelines for Carcinogen current use pattern and exposure in vitro assay for cytogenetic damage Risk Assessment published September scenario, an inhalation risk assessment using the Chinese hamster ovary cells, 24, 1986 (51 FR 33992), it is proposed is not appropriate. an in vitro mammalian gene mutation that spinosad be classified as Group E assay using mouse lymphoma cells, an 3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has for carcinogenicity (no evidence of established the RfD for spinosad at in vitro assay for DNA damage and carcinogenicity) based on the results of repair in rat hepatocytes, and an in vivo 0.027 mg/kg/day. This RfD is based on carcinogenicity studies in two species. a NOAEL of 2.68 mg/kg/day established cytogenetic assay in the mouse bone There was no evidence of marrow (micronucleus test) have been in a chronic toxicity study in dogs. The carcinogenicity in an 18–month mouse lowest observed adverse effect level conducted with spinosad. These studies feeding study and a 24–month rat show that spinosad does not elicit a (LOAEL) was 8.46 mg/kg/day based on feeding study at all dosages tested. The vacuolation in glandular cells genotoxic response. NOAELs shown in the mouse 3. Reproductive and developmental (parathyroid) and lymphatic tissues, carcinogenicity study were 11.4 and toxicity. Spinosad caused decreased arteritis and increases in serum enzymes 13.8 mg/kg/day, respectively for male body weight (bwt) in maternal rats given such as alanine aminotransferase, and and female mice. A maximum tolerated 200 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/ aspartate aminotransferase, and dose was achieved at the top dosage day) by gavage, the highest dose tested triglyceride levels in dogs fed spinosad level tested in both of these studies (HDT). This was not accompanied by in the diet at dose levels of 1.44, 2.68, either embryo toxicity, fetal toxicity, or based on excessive mortality. or 8.46 mg/kg/day for 52 weeks. A 100- teratogenicity. The no observed adverse 6. Animal metabolism. There were no fold UF was applied to the NOAEL of effect levels (NOAELs) for maternal major differences in the bioavailability, 2.68 mg/kg/day to account for toxicity and fetal toxicity in rats were 50 routes or rates of excretion, or interspecies and intraspecies variation. and 200 mg/kg/day, respectively. A metabolism of spinosyn A and spinosyn The resulting RfD was calculated to be teratology study in rabbits showed that D following oral administration in rats. 0.027 mg/kg/day. spinosad caused decreased bwt gain and Urine and fecal excretions were almost 4. Carcinogenicity. There is no a few abortions in maternal rabbits completed in 48–hours post dosing. In evidence of carcinogenicity in studies in given 50 mg/kg/day, the HDT. Maternal addition, the routes and rates of either the mouse or rat. Therefore, a toxicity was not accompanied by either excretion were not affected by repeated carcinogenic risk assessment is not embryo toxicity, fetal toxicity, or administration. appropriate. teratogenicity. The NOAELs for 7. Metabolite toxicology. The residue C. Exposures and Risks maternal and fetal toxicity in rabbits of concern for tolerance setting purposes were 10 and 50 mg/kg/day, respectively. is the parent material spinosyn A and 1. From food and feed uses. In a 2–generation reproduction study in spinosyn D. Thus, there is no need to Tolerances have been established (40 rats, parental toxicity was observed in address metabolite toxicity. CFR 180.495) for the residues of both males and females given 100 mg/ 8. Endocrine disruption. There is no spinosad, in or on a variety of plant and kg/day, the HDT. Perinatal effects evidence to suggest that spinosad has an livestock commodities ranging from (decreased litter size and pup weight) at effect on any endocrine system. 0.02 ppm in almonds to 10 ppm in the Brassica leafy vegetable and greens 100 mg/kg/day were attributed to B. Toxicological Endpoints maternal toxicity. The NOAEL for subgroup. Tolerances are pending or maternal and pup effects was 10 mg/kg/ 1. Acute toxicity. EPA did not select were recently issued for use on cucurbit day. a dose and endpoint for an acute dietary vegetables, stone fruits, legume 4. Subchronic toxicity. Spinosad was risk assessment due to the lack of vegetables, corn, sorghum, and wheat. evaluated in 13–week dietary studies toxicological effects attributable to a The Agency used the Dietary Exposure and showed NOAELs of 4.89 and 5.38 single exposure (dose) in studies Evaluation Model (DEEM) to estimate mg/kg/day, respectively in male and available in the data base including oral dietary (food only) exposure to female dogs; 6 and 8 mg/kg/day, developmental toxicity studies in rats spinosad. This analysis assumes that respectively in male and female mice; and rabbits. In the acute neurotoxicity 100% of crops with spinosad tolerances and 33.9 and 38.8 mg/kg/day, study, the NOAEL was not shown at (requested, published, and pending) are respectively in male and female rats. No 2,000 mg/kg/day, HDT. A risk treated and that those crops contain dermal irritation or systemic toxicity assessment is not necessary as no tolerance-level residues of spinosad occurred in a 21–day repeated dose appropriate endpoint is available. (Tier 1). A number of the exotic fruits

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.157 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1805 do not appear in the DEEMTM perform a quantitative risk assessment sources of exposure for which the consumption data base. The Agency for drinking water exposure. Instead, Agency has reliable data) would not assumes that exposure via these foods is EPA had used modeled estimated result in unacceptable levels of negligible. environmental concentrations (EECs) aggregate human health risk at this time. i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute and back-calculated drinking water 3. From non-dietary exposure. dietary risk assessments are performed levels of comparison (DWLOCs) to Spinosad is currently registered for use for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological determine whether exposure to on the following residential non-food study has indicated the possibility of an spinosad via drinking water is likely to sites: Spinosad is registered on turf effect of concern occurring as a result of be of concern. grass, creating a potential for non- a 1–day or single exposure. The Agency EPA concludes that the available data dietary oral exposure to children who did not select a dose and endpoint for on spinosad show that the compound is ingest grass. To calculate a quantitative an acute dietary risk assessment due to not mobile or persistent, and therefore dietary risk from a potential ingestion of the lack of toxicological effects has little potential to leach to ground grass (in the absence of acute-, short-, or attributable to a single exposure (dose) water. Spinosad may however intermediate-term oral endpoints), EPA in available studies including oral contaminate surface water upon the would need to default to the chronic developmental toxicity studies in rats release of water from flooded fields to dietary endpoint. This scenario would and rabbits. In the acute neurotoxicity the environment. Additionally, EPA represent a child eating grass for > 6 study, the NOAEL was ≥ 2,000 mg/kg/ determined that the spinosyn Factors A months continuously. Based on the low day. The Agency concludes that there is and D are not expected to reach ground application rate for spinosad on turf a reasonable certainty of no harm from water. In order to assess drinking water (0.41 lbs. ai./acre), its non-systemic acute dietary exposure. exposures, EPA used the screening nature, its short half-life (especially in ii. Chronic exposure and risk. In models Pesticide Root Zone Model sunlight), and the rapid incorporation of conducting this chronic dietary risk (PRZM) and Exposure Analysis spinosad metabolites into the general assessment, EPA has made very Modeling Systems (EXAMS) to generate carbon pool, EPA believes that residues conservative assumptions: 100% of the surface water EECs associated with of spinosad on turf grass after crops and ruminant commodities having application of spinosad to various crops. application would be low and decrease spinosad tolerances will contain Modeled scenarios were selected rapidly over time. EPA believes that it spinosad residues and those residues because they are expected to represent is inappropriate to perform a will be at the level of the established roughly the upper 90th percentile for quantitative dietary risk representing a tolerance. Additionally, residues of 0.02 surface water vulnerability, given the chronic scenario from children eating ppm were assumed for all other food chemical’s geographic use range. The turf grass. Qualitatively, the risk from forms to support a pending section 18 Tier 2 chronic surface water EEC for children eating turf grass does not action(s) on spinosad for use in spinosad is 0.092 µg/L and is based on exceed the Agency’s level of concern. controlling Mediterranean Fruit Fly in application of the insecticide to Another registered product contains Florida and California. commodities in this ruling at rates spinosad for use on structural lumber The Agency used the DEEMTM ranging from 0.023 to 0.094 lb (active may have residential exposure potential, anaylsis to estimate dietary (food only) ingredient/acre (ai/acre), with total however, the product is injected into exposure to spinosad. Exposure seasonal application not to exceed 0.045 drilled holes and then sealed after estimates for all population subgroups lb ai/acre. The EEC value is over 1,000 treatment. The product can only be except those specific to infants and times less than the lowest DWLOC. applied by commercial applicators with children were similar to that of the i. Acute exposure and risk. No acute very minimal potential risk to the general U.S. population (0.009 mg/kg/ toxicity endpoints were determined public. Due to the lack of toxicity day, 34% chronic population adjusted from testing and the Agency concludes endpoints (hazard) and minimal contact dose (cPAD)). The cPAD is equivalent to that there is a reasonable certainty of no with the active ingredient during and the RfD divided by the FQPA safety harm from acute exposure from drinking after application, exposure to residential factor (SF). For spinosad, EPA has water. occupants is not expected. The Agency determined that the additional 10x SF ii. Chronic exposure and risk. For the concludes that there is a reasonable for the protection of infants and most highly exposed population certainty of no harm from non-dietary children be reduced to 1x, i.e., removed. subgroup, children (1–6 years old), exposure. Thus, the cPAD of 0.027 mg/kg/day is chronic dietary (food only) exposure 4. Cumulative exposure to substances equivalent to the chronic RfD. occupies 74% of the cPAD. This is a with a common mechanism of toxicity. Exposure to children ages 1–6 years conservative risk estimate for reasons Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, (the subgroup with the highest overall described above. The lowest chronic when considering whether to establish, estimated exposure) is estimated to be DWLOC for the infants and children modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 0.020 mg/kg/day, which occupies 74% subgroup is 170 parts per billion (ppb). Agency consider ‘‘available of the chronic cPAD. The primary The chronic modeling estimates (EECs) information’’ concerning the cumulative contributor to chronic dietary exposure for spinosad residues in surface water effects of a particular pesticide’s is milk, which alone occupies 30% of are as high as 0.092 ppb from use on residues and ‘‘other substances that the cPAD for children 1–6 years. Dietary Brassica leafy vegetables. The maximum have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ exposure estimates based on the estimated concentrations of spinosad in EPA does not have, at this time, requested uses of spinosad along with surface water are less than EPA’s levels available data to determine whether currently registered and pending uses, of concern for spinosad in drinking spinosad has a common mechanism of are below the Agency’s level of concern water as a contribution to chronic toxicity with other substances or how to for all population subgroups, including aggregate exposure. Therefore, taking include this pesticide in a cumulative those of infants and children. into account present uses and uses risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides 2. From drinking water. Monitoring proposed in this risk assessment, EPA for which EPA has followed a data depicting residue levels of concludes with reasonable certainty that cumulative risk approach based on a spinosad in drinking water are not residues of spinosad in drinking water common mechanism of toxicity, available. Therefore, EPA cannot (when considered along with other spinosad does not appear to produce a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.157 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations toxic metabolite produced by other 5. Determination of safety. Based on b. No neurotoxic signs have been substances. For the purposes of this these risk assessments, EPA concludes observed in any of the standard required tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not that there is a reasonable certainty that studies conducted. assumed that spinosad has a common no harm will result from aggregate c. The toxicology data base is mechanism of toxicity with other exposure to spinosad residues. complete and there are no data gaps. substances. For information regarding E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of d. Exposure data are complete or are EPA’s efforts to determine which Safety for Infants and Children estimated based on data that reasonably chemicals have a common mechanism account for potential exposure. of toxicity and to evaluate the 1. Safety factor for infants and cumulative effects of such chemicals, children—i. In general. In assessing the 2. Acute risk. No acute toxicological see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide potential for additional sensitivity of endpoints were identified for spinosad. Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, infants and children to residues of The Agency concludes that there is a 1997). spinosad, EPA considered data from reasonable certainty of no harm to developmental toxicity studies in the rat infants and children from aggregate D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of and rabbit and a 2–generation exposure. Safety for U.S. Population reproduction study in the rat. The 3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 1. Acute risk. Because no acute developmental toxicity studies are assumptions described in this unit, EPA dietary endpoint was determined from designed to evaluate adverse effects on has concluded that aggregate exposure toxicity testing, the Agency concludes the developing organism resulting from to spinosad from food will utilize 74% that there is a reasonable certainty of no maternal pesticide exposure gestation. of the cPAD for children (1–6 years old). harm from acute aggregate risk. Reproduction studies provide EPA generally has no concern for 2. Chronic risk. Using the Theoretical information relating to effects from exposures below 100% of the cPAD Maximum Residue Contribution exposure to the pesticide on the because the cPAD represents the level at (TMRC) taking into account existing reproductive capability of mating or below which daily aggregate dietary spinosad tolerances (published, animals and data on systemic toxicity. exposure over a lifetime will not pose FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA pending, and including the necessary appreciable risks to human health. shall apply an additional tenfold margin section 18 tolerances) exposure Despite the potential for exposure to of safety for infants and children in the assumptions described in this unit, EPA case of threshold effects to account for spinosad in drinking water and from has concluded that aggregate exposure prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the non-dietary, non-occupational exposure, to spinosad from food will utilize 34% completeness of the data base unless EPA does not expect the aggregate of the cPAD for the U.S. population. The EPA determines that a different margin exposure to exceed 100% ot the cPAD. major identifiable subgroup with the of safety will be safe for infants and 4. Determination of safety. Based on highest aggregate exposure is children children. Margins of safety are these risk assessments, EPA concludes (1–6 years old). EPA generally has no incorporated into EPA risk assessments that there is a reasonable certainty that concern for exposures below 100% of either directly through use of a margin no harm will result to infants and the cPAD because the cPAD represents of exposure (MOE) analysis or through children from aggregate exposure to the level at or below which daily using uncertainty (safety) factors in residues. aggregate dietary exposure over a calculating a dose level that poses no IV. Other Considerations lifetime will not pose appreciable risks appreciable risk to humans. EPA to human health. Despite the potential believes that reliable data support using A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals for exposure to spinosad in drinking the standard uncertainty factor (usually EPA has reviewed the results of plant water and from non-dietary, non- 100 for combined interspecies and metabolism studies (apples, cabbage, occupational exposure, EPA does not intraspecies variability) and not the cotton, tomatoes, turnips) and livestock expect the aggregate exposure to exceed additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty metabolism studies (goat and hen). The 100% of the cPAD. EPA concludes that factor when EPA has a complete data metabolism of spinosad in plants and there is a reasonable certainty that no base under existing guidelines and animals is adequately understood for harm will result from aggregate when the severity of the effect in infants the purposes of these tolerances. Based exposure to spinosad residues. or children or the potency or unusual on structure/activity relationships, EPA 3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. toxic properties of a compound do not concluded that the spinosad Short- and intermediate-term aggregate raise concerns regarding the adequacy of metabolites/fermentation impurities exposure takes into account chronic the standard MOE/safety factor. dietary food and water (considered to be ii. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. (spinosyns Factor B, Factor B or D, a background exposure level) plus There was no increased susceptibility to Factor K, and other related Factors) indoor and outdoor residential rats or rabbits following in utero and/or were of no more toxicological concern exposure. postnatal exposure to spinosad. than the two parent compounds No dermal or inhalation endpoints iii. Conclusion. EPA determined that (spinosyns Factor A and Factor D). were identified. Due to the nature of the the 10x should be removed. The FQPA EPA focused on the following data/ non-dietary use, the Agency believes factor is removed because: information: the overall low toxicity of that the use of spinosad in treating a. The data provided no indication of spinosad; the low levels of metabolites/ timbers will not result in any exposure increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits fermentation impurities present; and through the oral route. Therefore, the to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to that spinosad appears to photodegrade short-and intermediate-term risk is spinosad. In the prenatal developmental rapidly and become incorporated into equal to the chronic dietary (food and toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the general carbon pool. EPA concluded water) risk. the 2-generation reproduction study in that only two parent compounds 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. rats, effects in the offspring were (spinosyns Factor A and Factor D) need population. There is no evidence of observed only at or below treatment to be included in the tolerance carcinogenicity in studies in either the levels which resulted in evidence of expression and used for dietary risk mouse or rat. parental toxicity. assessment purposes.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.157 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1807

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology and white sapote) at 0.3 ppm; ti leaves Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., The gas chromotography method is at 10 ppm and a tolerance for spinosad Washington, DC 20460. You may also available to enforce the tolerance on pistachio at 0.02 ppm under deliver your request to the Office of the expression. The method may be conditional registration. Hearing Clerk in Rm. M3708, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, VI. Objections and Hearing Requests IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as Programs, Environmental Protection is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday amended by the FQPA, any person may Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, through Friday, excluding legal file an objection to any aspect of this DC 20460; telephone number: (703) holidays. The telephone number for the regulation and may also request a 305–5229; e-mail address: Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260– hearing on those objections. The EPA [email protected]. 4865. procedural regulations which govern the 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file C. Magnitude of Residues submission of objections and requests an objection or request a hearing, you Because of limited field studies for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 available for crops considered in this Although the procedures in those CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that ruling, the Agency relied on previously regulations require some modification to fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You submitted field trial data on similar reflect the amendments made to the must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters crops to set tolerances on certain FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will Accounting Operations Branch, Office commodities in this ruling. Specifically, continue to use those procedures, with of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box tolerances for oats, barley, buckwheat, appropriate adjustments, until the 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please and rye are translated from wheat (0.020 necessary modifications can be made. identify the fee submission by labeling ppm); grass forage, fodder and hay crop The new section 408(g) provides it ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees.’’ group (Crop Group 17) and nongrass essentially the same process for persons EPA is authorized to waive any fee animal feeds crop group (Crop Group to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an requirement ‘‘when in the judgment of 18) tolerances of 0.02 ppm are based on exemption from the requirement of a the Administrator such a waiver or the low toxicological properties of tolerance issued by EPA under new refund is equitable and not contrary to spinosad and the proposed use pattern section 408(d), as was provided in the the purpose of this subsection.’’ For (mound treatment of fire ants); old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. additional information regarding the watercress and cilantro leaves are based However, the period for filing objections waiver of these fees, you may contact on the leafy vegetable tolerance (Crop is now 60 days, rather than 30 days. James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305– 5697, by e-mail at Group 4, at 8 ppm); turnip greens and A. What Do I Need to Do to File an [email protected], or by mailing a ti leaves are translated from the Brassica Objection or Request a Hearing? leafy vegetables tolerance (Crop request for information to Mr. Tompkins You must file your objection or Subgroup 5B, at 10 ppm); and sugar at Registration Division (7505C), Office request a hearing on this regulation in apple, cherimoya, atemoya, custard of Pesticide Programs, Environmental accordance with the instructions apple, ilama, soursop, biriba, lychee, Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., longan, spanish lime, rambutan, provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part Washington, DC 20460. pulasan, papaya, star apple, black 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, If you would like to request a waiver sapote, mango, sapodilla, canistel, you must identify docket control of the tolerance objection fees, you must mamey sapote, avocado, guava, feijoa, number OPP–300960 in the subject line mail your request for such a waiver to: jaboticaba, wax jambu, starfruit, on the first page of your submission. All James Hollins, Information Resources passionfruit, acerola, and white sapote requests must be in writing, and must be and Services Division (7502C), Office of are translated from the citrus fruit group mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk Pesticide Programs, Environmental (0.3 ppm). on or before March 13, 2000. Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 1. Filing the request. Your objection Washington, DC 20460. D. International Residue Limits must specify the specific provisions in 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican the regulation that you object to, and the to filing an objection or hearing request MRLs have been established for residues grounds for the objections (40 CFR with the Hearing Clerk as described in of spinosad on any crops. 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the Unit VI.A., you should also send a copy objections must include a statement of of your request to the PIRIB for its V. Conclusion the factual issues(s) on which a hearing inclusion in the official record that is Therefore, the tolerances are is requested, the requestor’s contentions described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your established for residues of spinosad in on such issues, and a summary of any copies, identified by docket control or on barley, buckwheat, oats, and rye evidence relied upon by the objector (40 number OPP–300960, to: Public (grains) at 0.02 parts per million (ppm); CFR 178.27). Information submitted in Information and Records Integrity pearl millet, proso millet, and amaranth connection with an objection or hearing Branch, Information Resources and (grains) at 1 ppm; teosinte and popcorn request may be claimed confidential by Services Division (7502C), Office of (grains) at 0.02 ppm; grass, forage, marking any part or all of that Pesticide Programs, Environmental fodder and hay group; nongrass animal information as CBI. Information so Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., feed group at 0.02 ppm; turnip greens at marked will not be disclosed except in Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 10 ppm; cilantro, and watercress at 8 accordance with procedures set forth in courier, bring a copy to the location of ppm; tropical fruits (sugar apple, 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You cherimoya, atemoya, custard apple, information that does not contain CBI may also send an electronic copy of ilama, soursop, biriba, lychee, longan, must be submitted for inclusion in the your request via e-mail to: opp- spanish lime, rambutan, pulasan, public record. Information not marked [email protected]. Please use an ASCII papaya, star apple, black sapote, mango, confidential may be disclosed publicly file format and avoid the use of special sapodilla, canistel, mamey sapote, by EPA without prior notice. characters and any form of encryption. avocado, guava, feijoa, jaboticaba, wax Mail your written request to: Office of Copies of electronic objections and jambu, starfruit, passionfruit, acerola, the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental hearing requests will also be accepted

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.157 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1808 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file under FFDCA section 408(d), such as Dated: December 28, 1999. format or ASCII file format. Do not the tolerance in this final rule, do not James Jones, include any CBI in your electronic copy. require the issuance of a proposed rule, Director, Registration Division, Office of You may also submit an electronic copy the requirements of the Regulatory Pesticide Programs. of your request at many Federal Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is Depository Libraries. seq.) do not apply. In addition, the amended as follows: B. When Will the Agency Grant a Agency has determined that this action Request for a Hearing? will not have a substantial direct effect PART 180Ð[AMENDED] A request for a hearing will be granted on States, on the relationship between 1. The authority citation for part 180 if the Administrator determines that the the national government and the States, continues to read as follows: material submitted shows the following: or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and There is a genuine and substantial issue 371. of fact; there is a reasonable possibility levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled that available evidence identified by the 2. Section 180.495, is amended by requestor would, if established resolve Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, alphabetically adding commodities to one or more of such issues in favor of 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires the table in paragraph (a), and by the requestor, taking into account EPA to develop an accountable process revising the entry for ‘‘apple’’ to the uncontested claims or facts to the to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: contrary; and resolution of the factual by State and local officials in the issues(s) in the manner sought by the development of regulatory policies that §180.495 Spinosad; tolerances for requestor would be adequate to justify have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies residues. the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). that have federalism implications’’ is (a) * * * defined in the Executive Order to VII. Regulatory Assessment Parts Expiration/ Requirements include regulations that have Commodity per Revocation This final rule establishes tolerances ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, million Date on the relationship between the national under FFDCA section 408(d) in *** ** response to a petition submitted to the government and the States, or on the distribution of power and Acerola ...... 0.3 None Agency. The Office of Management and ***** Budget (OMB) has exempted these types responsibilities among the various Amaranth, grain ...... 1.0 None of actions from review under Executive levels of government.’’ This final rule Order 12866, entitled Regulatory directly regulates growers, food Animal feed, nongrass, Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, processors, food handlers and food group ...... 0.3 None October 4, 1993). This final rule does retailers, not States. This action does not ***** not contain any information collections alter the relationships or distribution of Apple ...... 0.3 None subject to OMB approval under the power and responsibilities established ***** Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 by Congress in the preemption Atemoya ...... 0.3 None U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). ***** enforceable duty or contain any VIII. Submission to Congress and the Avocado ...... 0.3 None unfunded mandate as described under ***** Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Comptroller General Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Barley ...... 0.3 None Law 104–4). Nor does it require any The Congressional Review Act, 5 Biriba ...... 0.3 None prior consultation as specified by U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small ***** Business Regulatory Enforcement Executive Order 13084, entitled Buckwheat, grain ...... 0.02 None Consultation and Coordination with Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides ***** Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must Canistel ...... 0.3 None 27655, May 19, 1998); special ***** considerations as required by Executive submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Cherimoya ...... 0.3 None Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to ***** Address Environmental Justice in Congress and to the Comptroller General Minority Populations and Low-Income of the United States. EPA will submit a Cilantro, leaves ...... 8.0 None Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, report containing this rule and other Corn, pop, grain ...... 0.02 None 1994); or require OMB review or any required information to the U.S. Senate, ***** Agency action under Executive Order the U.S. House of Representatives, and Custard apple ...... 0.3 None 13045, entitled Protection of Children the Comptroller General of the United ***** from Environmental Health Risks and States prior to publication of this final Feijoa ...... 0.3 None Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, rule in the Federal Register. This final ***** 1997). This action does not involve any rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by technical standards that would require Grass, forage, fodder 5 U.S.C. 804(2). and hay, group ...... 0.02 None Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Guava ...... 0.3 None 12(d) of the National Technology ***** Environmental protection, Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Ilama ...... 0.3 None Administrative practice and procedure, (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section Jaboticaba ...... 0.3 None 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since Agricultural commodities, Pesticides tolerances and exemptions that are and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping Longan ...... 0.3 None established on the basis of a petition requirements. Lychee ...... 0.3 None

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.157 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1809

Parts Expiration/ methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine B. How Can I Get Additional Commodity per Revocation hydrochloride (PT807-HCl), in or on Information, Including Copies of this million Date oranges. GMJA Specialties requested Document and Other Related this tolerance under the Federal Food, Documents? ***** Mango ...... 0.3 None Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by 1. Electronically.You may obtain the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Millet, pearl, grain ...... 1.0 None electronic copies of this document, and ***** DATES: This regulation is effective certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from Millet, proso, grain ...... 1.0 None January 12, 2000. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// Oat, grain ...... 0.02 None docket control number OPP–300964, www.epa.gov/. To access this Papaya ...... 0.3 None must be received by EPA on or before document, on the Home Page select Passionfruit ...... 0.3 None March 13, 2000. ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look up the entry for this document under Pistachio ...... 0.02 None ADDRESSES: Written objections and the ‘‘Federal Register--Environmental ***** hearing requests may be submitted by Documents.’’ You can also go directly to Pulasan ...... 0.3 None mail, in person, or by courier. Please the Federal Register listings at http:// ***** follow the detailed instructions for each www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Rambutan ...... 0.3 None method as provided in Unit VI. of the 2. In person. The Agency has ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ Rye, grain ...... 0.02 None established an official record for this To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your action under docket control number Sapodilla ...... 0.3 None objections and hearing requests must OPP–300964. The official record Sapote, black ...... 0.3 None identify docket control number OPP– consists of the documents specifically Sapote, mamey ...... 0.3 None 300964 in the subject line on the first referenced in this action, and other page of your response. information related to this action, Sapote, white ...... 0.3 None including any information claimed as ***** FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By Confidential Business Information (CBI). Soursop ...... 0.3 None mail: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide This official record includes the Spanish lime ...... 0.3 None documents that are physically located in Programs, Environmental Protection ***** the docket, as well as the documents Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, that are referenced in those documents. Star apple ...... 0.3 None DC 20460; telephone number: 703–305– The public version of the official record Starfruit ...... 0.3 None 7740; and e-mail address: giles- does not include any information ***** [email protected]. claimed as CBI. The public version of Sugar apple ...... 0.3 None SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the official record, which includes ***** printed, paper versions of any electronic Teosinte, grain ...... 0.3 None I. General Information comments submitted during an Ti, leaves ...... 10.0 None A. Does this Action Apply to Me? applicable comment period is available ***** for inspection in the Public Information Turnip greens ...... 10.0 None You may be affected by this action if and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), ***** you are an agricultural producer, food Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson manufacturer, or pesticide Watercress ...... 8.0 None Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 manufacturer. Potentially affected a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, Wax jambu ...... 0.3 None categories and entities may include, but excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB ***** are not limited to: telephone number is (703) 305–5805. ***** II. Background and Statutory Findings Cat- NAICS Examples of Potentially [FR Doc. 00–736 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] egories Affected Entities In the Federal Register of November BILLING CODE 6560±50±F 10, 1999 (64 FR 61336) (FRL–6388–3), Industry 111 Crop production EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 112 Animal production 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 311 Food manufacturing Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a AGENCY 32532 Pesticide manufacturing as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public 40 CFR Part 180 This listing is not intended to be Law 104–170) announcing the filing of [OPP±300964; FRL±6486±2] exhaustive, but rather provides a guide a pesticide petition (PP) for a tolerance for readers regarding entities likely to be by GMJA Specialties. This notice RIN 2070±AB78 affected by this action. Other types of included a summary of the petition entities not listed in the table could also N,N-diethyl-2-(4- prepared by GMJA Specialties, the be affected. The North American methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine registrant. There were no comments Industrial Classification System hydrochloride; Pesticide Tolerance received in response to the notice of (NAICS) codes have been provided to filing. AGENCY: Environmental Protection assist you and others in determining The petition requested that 40 CFR Agency (EPA). whether or not this action might apply part 180 be amended by establishing a ACTION: Final rule. to certain entities. If you have questions tolerance for the plant growth regulator regarding the applicability of this action N,N-diethyl-2-(4- SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a to a particular entity, consult the person methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine tolerance for the plant growth regulator listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER hydrochloride, in or on oranges at 0.01 N,N-diethyl-2-(4- INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ (ppm).

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.157 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1810 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA toxic effects caused by PT807–HCl are gains. Reproductive NOAEL = 14.1 mg/ allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the discussed in this unit. kg/day for both sexes. Reproductive legal limit for a pesticide chemical The data base adequately LOAEL = 114 mg/kg/day for both sexes residue in or on a food) only if EPA characterizes PT807–HCl as having low based on decreased pup body weight determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ acute oral, dermal and inhalation and body weight gains, delayed sexual Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to toxicity. It is Toxicity Category IV for development, reductions in absolute mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable acute dermal toxicity, acute inhalation and relative uterus and ovary weights, certainty that no harm will result from toxicity, and primary dermal irritation; and histological changes in the uterus, aggregate exposure to the pesticide Toxicity Category III for acute oral and vagina, and ovaries in the females. chemical residue, including all primary eye irritation; and it is not a 8. Chronic toxicity dog. Chronic anticipated dietary exposures and all dermal sensitizer. toxicity dog-NOAEL greater than 5,000 other exposures for which there is 1. Subchronic mouse feeding study. A ppm. (135.7/151.5 mg/kg/day), males reliable information.’’ This includes subchronic mouse feeding study with a and females. LOAEL was not observed. exposure through drinking water and in No Observed Adverse Effect Level 9. 18 month carcinogenicity study— residential settings, but does not include (NOAEL) = 7,000 ppm (1,004/1,272 mouse. The NOAEL was 7,000 ppm occupational exposure. Section miligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), (1,010/1,250 mg/kg/day), males and 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special in male and females respectively; limit females. No LOAEL was observed. Mice consideration to exposure of infants and dose). Due to faulty dose concentration were dosed at greater than the limit dose children to the pesticide chemical analyses, the regulatory usefulness of of 1,000 mg/kg/day with no evidence of residue in establishing a tolerance and the NOAEL is in doubt. carcinogenic potential. 2. Subchronic gavage rat study. A to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable 10. Chronic toxicity/Carcinogenicity— subchronic gavage rat study with a certainty that no harm will result to rat. The NOAEL was 500 ppm (20/28 NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day and a Lowest infants and children from aggregate mg/kg/day, males and females. The Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) exposure to the pesticide chemical LOAEL was 5,000 ppm (213/308 mg/kg/ = 300 mg/kg/day based on increased residue....’’ day), males and females based on mortality; hyperactivity, hyper- EPA performs a number of analyses to decreased body weight and body weight reflexivity, lack of coordination, determine the risks from aggregate gains. There was no clear evidence of tremors, convulsions, and increased exposure to pesticide residues. For carcinogenic potential. salivation in males and females, and further discussion of the regulatory elevated urinary protein in males. 11. Acute neurotoxicity—rats. The requirements of section 408 and a 3. Subchronic feeding dog study. A neurotoxicity NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day complete description of the risk subchronic feeding dog study with a and the neurotoxicity LOAEL was 200 assessment process, see the final rule on NOAEL = 2,500 ppm (equivalent to 71/ mg/kg/day based on slight ataxia in 1 of Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 78 mg/kg/day) males and females 11 males. Neurotoxicity at 400 mg/kg 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– respectively and LOAEL = 7,500 ppm included increases in Functional 7). (equivalent to 211/233 mg/kg/day) in Observation Battery (FOB) clinical signs and decreases in motor activity. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and males and females respectively, based Determination of Safety on pathological changes to the male 12. Subchronic neurotoxicity—rats. reproductive organs and possibly the Neurotoxicity NOAEL is greater than Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), uterus in females. 5000 ppm. (323/386 mg/kg/day; male EPA has reviewed the available 4. 21 day dermal rat-systemic. A 21– and female. Neurotoxicity LOAEL was scientific data and other relevant day dermal rat-systemic. NOAEL greater not observed. information in support of this action. than 1,000 mg/kg/day (limit dose). B. Toxicological Endpoints EPA has sufficient data to assess the Dermal NOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day hazards of and to make a determination (nonadverse dermal irritation was 1. Acute toxicity. The acute Reference on aggregate exposure, consistent with observed at 1,000 mg/kg/day). Dose (RfD) is 0.5 mg/kg/day. The section 408(b)(2), for a tolerance for 5. Developmental toxicity rat.— systemic NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day in the residues of N,N-diethyl-2-(4- Maternal NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day, acute neurotoxicity study in rats is methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine maternal LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day, based on slight ataxia in males at the hydrochloride on oranges at 0.01 ppm. based on clinical signs (post-dosing LOAEL of 200 mg/kg/day. The FQPA EPA’s assessment of the dietary rooting in the bedding and lethargy) and safety factor for protection of infants exposures and risks associated with reduced body weight gains. and children was reduced to 1X. The establishing the tolerance follows. The Developmental NOAEL = 500 mg/kg/ Acute RfD is identical to the acute term PT807–HCl is equivalent to N,N- day and developmental LOAEL was not population adjusted dose (aPAD). This diethyl 2-(4- observed. aPAD applies to all population methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine 6. Developmental toxicity rabbit. subgroups. hydrochloride. Developmental toxicity rabbit-Maternal 2. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. There are no registered A. Toxicological Profile NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day, maternal LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day, based on residential uses of PT807–HCl. EPA has evaluated the available increased mortality in the mid-and high- 3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has toxicity data and considered its validity, dose animals. Developmental NOAEL established the Chronic RfD at 0.14 mg/ completeness, and reliability as well as greater than 200 mg/kg/day and kg/day. This RfD is based on the the relationship of the results of the developmental LOAEL was not systemic NOAEL of 14.1 mg/kg/day in studies to human risk. EPA has also observed. the reproductive toxicity study in rats, considered available information 7. Reproductive toxicity rat. the lowest NOAEL in the most sensitive concerning the variability of the Reproductive toxicity rat-systemic species. The FQPA safety factor for sensitivities of major identifiable NOAEL = 14.1 mg/kg/day, systemic protection of infants and children was subgroups of consumers, including LOAEL = 114 mg/kg/day based upon reduced to 1X. The chronic RfD is infants and children. The nature of the decreased body weight and body weight identical to the chronic population

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.158 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1811 adjusted dose (cPAD). This cPad applies information included in the proposed EPA does not have, at this time, to all population subgroups. Ecolyst label, the maximum application available data to determine whether 4. Carcinogenicity. This chemical has rate for this chemical is 0.013 lbs. active PT807–HCl has a common mechanism been classified as a ‘‘not likely human ingredient/acre/year. The surface water of toxicity with other substances or how carcinogen.’’ acute Estimated Environmental to include this pesticide in a cumulative C. Exposures and Risks Concentrations (EEC) is 4.0 parts per risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides billion (ppb). The surface water chronic for which EPA has followed a 1. From food and feed uses. EEC is 3.9 ppb. These values represent cumulative risk approach based on a Tolerances are being established (40 the 1– in 10–year peak surface common mechanism of toxicity, PT807– CFR 180.558) for N,N-diethyl-2-(4- concentration and 1– in 10–year mean HCl does not appear to produce a toxic methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine yearly concentration. The ground water metabolite produced by other hydrochloride, at 0.01 ppm, in or on screening concentration, calculated substances. For the purposes of this oranges. No other tolerances have been using SCI-GROW is 0.02 ppb. While tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not established for this chemical. Risk there may be some potential for PT807– assumed that PT807–HCl has a common assessments were conducted by EPA to HCl to accumulate in drinking water, mechanism of toxicity with other assess dietary exposures from the use on EPA believes these values nevertheless substances. For information regarding oranges. represent very conservative exposure EPA’s efforts to determine which i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute estimates because they represent peak chemicals have a common mechanism dietary risk assessments are performed concentrations, and because of the of toxicity and to evaluate the for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological conservative nature of the models. Even cumulative effects of such chemicals, study has indicated the possibility of an assuming these conservative estimates, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide effect of concern occurring as a result of the Agency does not expect the Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, a 1-day or single exposure. For the acute exposures to exceed our level of 1997). dietary food exposure analyses, concern. tolerance level residues and 100% crop D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of The maximum concentrations of treated (%CT) were used. The Dietary Safety for U.S. Population PT807–HCl in drinking water is well Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 1. Acute risk. Acute aggregate risk below the drinking water level of acute dietary risk analysis estimates the estimates do not exceed the Agency’s comparison (DWLOC’s) and there is distribution of single-day exposures for level of concern. Using the most reasonable certainty that no harm will the overall U.S. population and certain conservative Tier I approach, acute result to adults, infants, and children subgroups. The analysis evaluates dietary risk estimates for PT807–HCl from acute and chronic aggregate individual food consumption as from food for the general U.S. exposures. reported by respondents in the USDA population, infants, and children are 1989–92 Continuing Survey of Food i Acute exposure and risk. The less than 1% of the aPAD. The Agency Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and maximum acute EECs of PT807–HCl in had provided maximum EECs for accumulates exposure to the chemical surface and groundwater for acute PT807–HCl in surface and groundwater for each commodity. Each analysis exposure, and the highest value (4.0 for acute exposure, and the highest assumes uniform distribution of PT807– ppb) is well below the Agency’s value (4.0 ppb) is well below the HCl in the commodity supply. calculated DWLOC, which ranged from Agency’s calculated DWLOC, which The acute exposures from food are all 5,000 ppb for children (1–6 years) to ranged from 5,000 to 18,000 ppb for less than 1% of the aPAD. This acute 18,000 ppb for the U.S. population. The various population subgroups. The risk estimate should be viewed as Agency concludes that there is a Agency does not expect the aggregate conservative since these calculated reasonable certainty that no harm will exposure from water and food to exceed exposures are based on tolerance level result to adults, infants and children 100% of the aPAD for all U.S. residues and 100% CT. Therefore, any from acute aggregate exposure to populations. additional refinements could reduce PT807–HCl residues. 2. Chronic risk. Using the estimates significantly. ii. Chronic exposure and risk. The conservative analysis described above, it ii. Chronic exposure and risk. The maximum chronic EECs of PT807–HCl is estimated that the chronic exposure to DEEM chronic analysis evaluates food in surface and groundwater for chronic PT807–HCl from food for the general consumption as reported by exposure is 3.9 ppb which is very small U.S. population, infants, and children respondents in the USDA 1989–91 compared to the DWLOC, which ranged will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD. CSFII and accumulates exposure to the from 1,400 ppb for children (1–6 years) Despite the potential for exposure of chemical for each commodity. to 4,900 ppb for the U.S. population. PT807–HCl in drinking water, the A DEEM chronic exposure analysis 3. From non-dietary exposure. Agency does not expect the aggregate was performed using tolerance level Currently, there are no registered uses exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD. residues and 100% CT to estimate the that could result in residential The maximum concentration of PT807– Tier I exposure for the general exposures. Therefore, a residential HCl in surface and groundwater for population and subgroups of interest. exposure risk assessment is not chronic exposure is expected to be very Exposures for all population subgroups required. small compared to DWLOC. are less than 1% of the cPAD, and the 4. Cumulative exposure to substances 3. Short-and intermediate-term risk. Agency’s level of concern is greater than with a common mechanism of toxicity. There are no registered residential uses 100% of cPAD. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, of PT807–HCl. Therefore, no exposure is 2. From drinking water. This chemical when considering whether to establish, expected via this route of exposure. is very soluble in water and stable in the modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. environment. Based on its chemical Agency consider ‘‘available population. PT807–HCl has been properties it is likely that this chemical information’’ concerning the cumulative classified by the Agency as a ‘‘not likely will move to surface water and effects of a particular pesticide’s human carcinogen’’ and is thus not groundwater, and it may accumulate in residues and ‘‘other substances that expected to pose a cancer risk to the environment. According to have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ humans.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.158 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1812 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5. Determination of safety. Based on decreased body weight and body weight PT807–HCl in drinking water, EPA does these risk assessments, EPA concludes gains, delayed sexual development, not expect the aggregate exposure to that there is a reasonable certainty that reductions in absolute and relative exceed 100% of the cPAD. no harm will result from aggregate uterus and ovary weights, and 4. Determination of safety. Based on exposure to residues of PT807–HCl. histological changes in the uterus, these risk assessments, EPA concludes vagina and ovaries in the females. that there is a reasonable certainty that E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of iv. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. no harm will result to infants and Safety for Infants and Children There is no evidence of increased children from aggregate exposure to 1. Safety factor for infants and development or neurological residues. children—i. In general. In assessing the susceptibility in the prenatal pre/ potential for additional sensitivity of postnatal studies. IV. Other Considerations infants and children to residues of v. Conclusion. There is a complete A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals PT807–HCl, EPA considered data from toxicity data base for PT807– HCl and The qualitative nature of the residue developmental toxicity studies in the rat exposure data are complete or are in oranges is adequately understood for and rabbit and a 2–generation estimated based on data that reasonably purpose of this use on oranges. Future reproduction study in the rat. The accounts for potential exposures. uses on crops other than tree fruit will developmental toxicity studies are Therefore, the FQPA safety factor was require additional plant metabolism designed to evaluate adverse effects on reduced to 1X for the following reasons: studies. The residue of concern in the developing organism resulting from a. The toxicology database is complete maternal pesticide exposure gestation. for the assessment of the effects plants is parent compound only. Reproduction studies provide following in utero and/or postnatal B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology information relating to effects from exposure to PT807–HCl. Adequate enforcement methodology b. The toxicity data provided no exposure to the pesticide on the (HPLC-uvdetection) is available to indication of quantitative or qualitative reproductive capability of mating enforce the tolerance expression. The increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits animals and data on systemic toxicity. method may be requested from: Calvin FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA to in utero and/or postnatal exposure. Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of shall apply an additional tenfold margin c. The requirement of a Pesticide Programs, Environmental of safety for infants and children in the developmental neurotoxicity study is Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., case of threshold effects to account for not based on the criteria reflecting some Washington, DC 20460; telephone prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the special concern which are generally number: (703) 305–5229; e-mail address: completeness of the data base unless used for requiring a DNT study and an [email protected]. EPA determines that a different margin FQPA safety factor (e.g.: neuropathy in of safety will be safe for infants and adult animals; CNS malformations C. Magnitude of Residues children. Margins of safety are following prenatal exposure; brain Based on the available crop field incorporated into EPA risk assessments weight or sexual maturation changes in trials, residues in oranges are not either directly through use of a margin offspring; and/or functional changes in expected to exceed 0.01 ppm provided of exposure (MOE) analysis or through offspring) and therefore does not a preharvest interval of 14 days is using uncertainty (safety) factors in warrant an FQPA safety factor. observed. The submitted orange calculating a dose level that poses no d. The exposure assessments will not processing data are adequate. At 5X appreciable risk to humans. EPA underestimate the potential dietary application rate, residues of PT807–HCl believes that reliable data support using (food and water) exposures for infants were less than the limit of quantitation the standard uncertainty factor (usually and children from the use of PT807–HCl (LOQ) (0.01 ppm) in/on whole oranges 100 for combined interspecies and (currently no residential exposure is harvested at 19 days PHI. Residues were intraspecies variability) and not the expected). Specifically, as to residue in below the analytical method’s LOQ in additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty drinking water, EPA took into account orange juice and oil processed from the factor when EPA has a complete data that residues may accumulate over time. treated oranges. In dried pulp, residues 2. Acute risk. It is estimated that the base under existing guidelines and ranged from 0.015 ppm to 0.017 ppm acute exposure to PT807–HCl from food when the severity of the effect in infants from the 5X application rate. No for infants and children as well as the or children or the potency or unusual tolerances are required for orange general U.S. population will utilize less toxic properties of a compound do not processed commodities. raise concerns regarding the adequacy of than 1% of the aPAD. EPA generally has the standard MOE/safety factor. no concern for exposures below 100% D. International Residue Limits ii. Developmental toxicity studies. In of the aPAD. Despite the potential for The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the developmental toxicity study in rats, exposure to PT807–HCl in drinking Mexico and Canada have not there was an increased incidence of water, EPA does not expect the established maximum residue limits enlarged ventricles in pups at 500 mg/ aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of (MRLs) for residues of PT807–HCl in/on kg/day. The incidences were within the aPAD. plant and animal commodities. historical limits, however, and occurred 3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure at a dose far in excess of the maternal assumptions described in this unit, EPA E. Rotational Crop Restrictions NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day. No has concluded that aggregate exposure No confined or field rotational crop developmental effects were seen in to PT807–HCl from food will utilize less studies were submitted. The Agency has rabbit pups at 200 mg/kg/day, whereas than 1% of the cPAD for infants and determined that rotational crop studies the maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day. children. EPA generally has no concern are not required for uses of pesticides on iii. Reproductive toxicity study. In the for exposures below 100% of the cPAD oranges as they are not routinely rotated rat reproductive study, the systemic and because the cPAD represents the level at to other crops. reproductive LOAELs were both 114 or below which daily aggregate dietary mg/kg/day at which the parents exposure over a lifetime will not pose V. Conclusion exhibited decreased body weight and appreciable risks to human health. Therefore, the tolerance is established body weight gains, and the pups had Despite the potential for exposure to for residues of N,N-diethyl-2-(4-

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.158 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1813 methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine deliver your request to the Office of the include any CBI in your electronic copy. hydrochloride on oranges at 0.01 ppm. Hearing Clerk in Rm. M3708, Waterside You may also submit an electronic copy Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC of your request at many Federal VI. Objections and Hearing Requests 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk Depository Libraries. Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday B. When Will the Agency Grant a amended by the FQPA, any person may through Friday, excluding legal Request for a Hearing? file an objection to any aspect of this holidays. The telephone number for the regulation and may also request a Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260– A request for a hearing will be granted hearing on those objections. The EPA 4865. if the Administrator determines that the procedural regulations which govern the 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file material submitted shows the following: submission of objections and requests an objection or request a hearing, you There is a genuine and substantial issue for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 of fact; there is a reasonable possibility Although the procedures in those CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that that available evidence identified by the regulations require some modification to fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You requestor would, if established resolve reflect the amendments made to the must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters one or more of such issues in favor of FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will Accounting Operations Branch, Office the requestor, taking into account continue to use those procedures, with of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box uncontested claims or facts to the appropriate adjustments, until the 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please contrary; and resolution of the factual necessary modifications can be made. identify the fee submission by labeling issues(s) in the manner sought by the The new section 408(g) provides it ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees.’’ requestor would be adequate to justify essentially the same process for persons EPA is authorized to waive any fee the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of VII. Regulatory Assessment exemption from the requirement of a the Administrator such a waiver or Requirements tolerance issued by EPA under new refund is equitable and not contrary to section 408(d), as was provided in the the purpose of this subsection.’’ For This final rule establishes a tolerance old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. additional information regarding the under FFDCA section 408(d) in However, the period for filing objections waiver of these fees, you may contact response to a petition submitted to the is now 60 days, rather than 30 days. James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305– Agency. The Office of Management and 5697, by e-mail at Budget (OMB) has exempted these types A. What Do I Need to Do to File an [email protected], or by mailing a of actions from review under Executive Objection or Request a Hearing? request for information to Mr. Tompkins Order 12866, entitled Regulatory You must file your objection or at Registration Division (7505C), Office Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, request a hearing on this regulation in of Pesticide Programs, Environmental October 4, 1993). This final rule does accordance with the instructions Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., not contain any information collections provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part Washington, DC 20460. subject to OMB approval under the 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, If you would like to request a waiver Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 you must identify docket control of the tolerance objection fees, you must U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any number OPP–300964 in the subject line mail your request for such a waiver to: enforceable duty or contain any on the first page of your submission. All James Hollins, Information Resources unfunded mandate as described under requests must be in writing, and must be and Services Division (7502C), Office of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk Pesticide Programs, Environmental Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public on or before March 13, 2000. Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 1. Filing the request. Your objection Washington, DC 20460. prior consultation as specified by must specify the specific provisions in 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition Executive Order 13084, entitled the regulation that you object to, and the to filing an objection or hearing request Consultation and Coordination with grounds for the objections (40 CFR with the Hearing Clerk as described in Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the Unit VI.A., you should also send a copy 27655, May 19, 1998); special objections must include a statement of of your request to the PIRIB for its considerations as required by Executive the factual issues(s) on which a hearing inclusion in the official record that is Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to is requested, the requestor’s contentions described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your Address Environmental Justice in on such issues, and a summary of any copies, identified by docket control Minority Populations and Low-Income evidence relied upon by the objector (40 number OPP–300964, to: Public Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, CFR 178.27). Information submitted in Information and Records Integrity 1994); or require OMB review or any connection with an objection or hearing Branch, Information Resources and Agency action under Executive Order request may be claimed confidential by Services Division (7502C), Office of 13045, entitled Protection of Children marking any part or all of that Pesticide Programs, Environmental from Environmental Health Risks and information as CBI. Information so Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, marked will not be disclosed except in Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 1997). This action does not involve any accordance with procedures set forth in courier, bring a copy to the location of technical standards that would require 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You Agency consideration of voluntary information that does not contain CBI may also send an electronic copy of consensus standards pursuant to section must be submitted for inclusion in the your request via e-mail to: opp- 12(d) of the National Technology public record. Information not marked [email protected]. Please use an ASCII Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 confidential may be disclosed publicly file format and avoid the use of special (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section by EPA without prior notice. characters and any form of encryption. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since Mail your written request to: Office of Copies of electronic objections and tolerances and exemptions that are the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental hearing requests will also be accepted established on the basis of a petition Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file under FFDCA section 408(d), such as Washington, DC 20460. You may also format or ASCII file format. Do not the tolerance in this final rule, do not

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.158 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1814 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations require the issuance of a proposed rule, Dated: December 29, 1999. EPA is issuing an adequacy the requirements of the Regulatory Joseph J. Merenda, determination to the state programs for Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Elsewhere in the proposed rule Agency has determined that this action Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is section of today’s Federal Register, EPA will not have a substantial direct effect amended as follows: is proposing the program adequacy of these states and soliciting comment on on States, on the relationship between PART 180Ð[AMENDED] the national government and the States, this decision. If relevant adverse or on the distribution of power and 1. The authority citation for part 180 comments are received, EPA will responsibilities among the various continues to read as follows: withdraw this direct final rule of program adequacy and address the levels of government, as specified in Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. Executive Order 13132, entitled comments in a subsequent final rule. 2. Section 180.558 is added to read as EPA will not give additional Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, follows: 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires opportunity for comment. If EPA EPA to develop an accountable process §180.558 N,N-diethyl-2-(4- receives relevant adverse comment concerning the adequacy of only certain to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input methylbenzyloxy)ethylamine hydrochloride; tolerances for residues. state programs, the Agency’s withdrawal by State and local officials in the of the direct final rule will only apply development of regulatory policies that (a) General. A tolerance for residues of the plant growth regulator N,N- to those state programs. Comments on have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies diethyl-2-(4-methylenzyloxy)ethylamine the inclusion or exclusion of one state that have federalism implications’’ is hydrochloride in or on raw agricultural permit program will not affect the defined in the Executive Order to commodities is established as follows: timing of the decision on the other state include regulations that have permit programs. ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, DATES: This direct final rule is effective on the relationship between the national on April 11, 2000 unless the Agency government and the States, or on the Parts per receives timely relevant adverse Commodity million distribution of power and comments by February 11, 2000. Should responsibilities among the various Oranges ...... 0.01 the Agency receive such relevant levels of government.’’ This final rule adverse comments, EPA will publish a directly regulates growers, food (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. timely withdrawal of this direct final processors, food handlers and food [Reserved] rule in the Federal Register informing retailers, not States. This action does not (c) Tolerances with regional the public that the rule will not take alter the relationships or distribution of registrations. [Reserved] effect. power and responsibilities established (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. ADDRESSES: Send or hand deliver an by Congress in the preemption [Reserved] original and one copy of your comments provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). [FR Doc. 00–737 Filed 1–12–00; 8:45 am] referencing docket number R7/ARTD/ VIII. Submission to Congress and the BILLING CODE 6560±50±F SWPP-00–01 to: Region VII Information Comptroller General Resource Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 901 N. 5th Street, The Congressional Review Act, 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small AGENCY may also be submitted electronically Business Regulatory Enforcement through the Internet to: r7- Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 [email protected]. Comments in that before a rule may take effect, the [FRL±6521±4] electronic format should also be agency promulgating the rule must identified by the docket number listed submit a rule report, which includes a Adequacy of State Permit Programs above. All electronic comments must be copy of the rule, to each House of the Under RCRA Subtitle D submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form Congress and to the Comptroller General AGENCY: Environmental Protection of encryption. of the United States. EPA will submit a Agency (EPA). You can view and copy documents report containing this rule and other ACTION: Direct final rule. required information to the U.S. Senate, pertaining to this regulatory docket in the U.S. House of Representatives, and SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final the Region VII Information Resource the Comptroller General of the United action to streamline the approval Center (Library), located on the Plaza States prior to publication of this final process for specific state permit Level at the address noted above. The rule in the Federal Register. This final programs for solid waste disposal Library is open from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by facilities other than municipal solid federal holidays. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). waste landfills (MSWLF) that receive conditionally exempt small quantity FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 generator (CESQG) hazardous waste. general information, call (913) 551–7241 States whose Subtitle D MSWLF permit or TTY (913) 321–9516. For information Environmental protection, programs or Subtitle C hazardous waste on accessing paper and electronic Administrative practice and procedure, management programs have been copies of documents or supporting Agricultural commodities, Pesticides reviewed and approved or authorized by materials relating to the direct final rule, and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping EPA are eligible for this streamlined or for information on specific aspects of requirements. approval process if their state programs this rule, contact Wes Bartley, U.S. EPA require the disposal of CESQG Region VII, ARTD/SWPP, 901 N. 5th hazardous waste in suitable facilities. Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.158 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1815 phone (913) 551–7632, or by e-mail at waste, or both, comply with the federal state permit program or other system of [email protected]. revised criteria. Section 4005 also prior approvals and conditions had SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The requires EPA to determine the adequacy adequate authority to ensure official record for this action will be of these state permit programs. To fulfill compliance with the hazardous waste or kept in paper form. Therefore, EPA will this need, the Agency issued the State MSWLF regulations, as appropriate. transfer all comments received Implementation Rule (SIR) on October The technical requirements for part electronically into paper form and place 23, 1998 (63 FR 57026) to give a process 257, subpart B, are location restrictions them in the official record, which will for approving state municipal solid and requirements for ground-water also include all comments submitted waste permit programs. The SIR monitoring, corrective action, and directly in writing. The official record is specifies the criteria that state MSWLF recordkeeping. These requirements have the paper record kept at the address in permit programs must satisfy to be been met by the state programs listed in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this determined adequate. The SIR also today’s final determination. document. addresses the processes that should be The three states considered in today’s Responses to comments, whether the used for approving state programs for determination are ‘‘authorized’’ states comments are written or electronic, will non-MSWLF that receive CESQG that have authorized hazardous waste be in a document in the Federal hazardous waste. permit programs under Subtitle C (40 Register as outlined in DATES above or Throughout this direct final rule, the CFR part 264). These states have laws, in a response to comments document term ‘‘approved state’’ refers only to a regulations, or guidance in place placed in the official record for this state that has received approval for its providing that CESQG hazardous waste rulemaking. EPA will not immediately MSWLF permit program under Subtitle may be lawfully managed in a RCRA reply to commenters electronically other D (40 CFR part 258) and the term Subtitle C facility (see 61 FR 34264). than to seek clarification of electronic ‘‘authorized state’’ refers only to a state Also, these states are ‘‘approved’’ comments that may be garbled in that has an authorized hazardous waste states for MSWLF permit programs transmission or during conversion to permit program under Subtitle C (40 under Subtitle D (40 CFR part 258). paper form, as discussed above. CFR part 264). Today’s final adequacy However, only Kansas and Nebraska determination is intended to give a have laws, regulations, or guidance in A. Background streamlined approval process to address place providing that CESQG hazardous Section 4010(c) of the Resource specific state programs that require the waste may be lawfully managed in a Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal of CESQG hazardous waste in MSWLF meeting or exceeding the requires EPA to revise the criteria for suitable facilities and whose Subtitle D requirements of 40 CFR part 258 (see 61 facilities that accept household MSWLF permit programs or Subtitle C FR 34264). hazardous waste and CESQG hazardous hazardous waste management programs Management of CESQG hazardous waste, or both. On October 9, 1991, EPA have been reviewed and approved or waste is allowed in the three states only issued Criteria for Municipal Solid authorized by the Agency. Today’s at facilities as described above. For all Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 258). direct final rule applies to the state states, the state regulations have been These criteria include location programs for Kansas, Missouri, and reviewed by EPA, found to be equal to restrictions and standards for design, Nebraska. or more stringent than 40 CFR part 257, operation, ground-water monitoring, Programs developed by these states subpart B, and approved. Most state corrective action, financial assurance, for permitting either hazardous waste program regulations contain additional and closure/post-closure care for facilities or MSWLFs have been requirements and are more stringent MSWLF. MSWLF typically receive both reviewed and approved or authorized by than the federal requirements. household hazardous waste and CESQG the Agency. The regulatory programs are The states covered by today’s hazardous waste. On July 1, 1996, EPA more comprehensive and/or more approval have permit programs or other issued the revised Criteria for stringent than the part 257, subpart B, systems of prior approval for all waste Classification of Solid Waste Disposal criteria. disposal units in their jurisdictions that Facilities and Practices to address solid The Agency has determined that the may receive CESQG hazardous waste. waste disposal facilities other than above states have submitted the These states provide for public MSWLF that receive CESQG waste (40 documentation that would have been participation in permit issuance and CFR part 257, subpart B). These criteria needed for the determination of permit enforcement as specified in the SIR rule. include location restrictions, ground- program adequacy under 40 CFR part Finally, EPA believes that these states water monitoring, and corrective action 257, subpart B. Further, the Agency has have sufficient compliance monitoring standards. The 40 CFR part 257, subpart determined that the technical review and enforcement authorities to take B, criteria and the 40 CFR part 258 conducted for either ‘‘approval’’ of action against any owner or operator criteria, referred to collectively as the MSWLF permitting programs or that fails to comply with regulations ‘‘Subtitle D federal revised criteria,’’ ‘‘authorization’’ of hazardous waste applicable to waste disposal units that establish minimum federal standards to permitting programs can substitute for may receive CESQG hazardous waste. ensure that all Subtitle D facilities that the technical review of the standards for may receive CESQG wastes are designed 40 CFR part 257, subpart B, and their B. Decision and managed in a manner that is implementation by the states. After reviewing the states’ previous protective of human health and the The states that are today receiving a submissions for approval under Subtitle environment. final determination of adequacy had D (40 CFR part 258) and authorization RCRA section 4005, as amended by previously submitted documentation of under Subtitle C (40 CFR part 264), the the Hazardous and Solid Waste state statutory authorities and Agency concludes that the above states Amendments of 1984, requires states to requirements that regulate solid waste meet all of the statutory and regulatory develop permitting programs or other disposal units that may receive CESQG requirements established by RCRA. systems of prior approvals and waste. In each case, state statutes, Accordingly, the above states are conditions to ensure that solid waste regulations, and/or internal policies and granted a final determination of disposal units that receive household practices were reviewed and found to adequacy for all portions of their permit hazardous waste and CESQG hazardous serve as the basis for ensuring that the program for solid waste disposal units

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.135 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1816 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations that may receive CESQG hazardous comment a regulatory flexibility rule an explanation why that alternative waste. analysis that describes the effect of the was not adopted. Before EPA establishes RCRA section 4005(a) provides that rule on small entities (i.e., small any regulatory requirements that may citizens may use the citizen suit businesses, small organizations, and significantly or uniquely affect small provisions of RCRA section 7002 to small governmental jurisdictions). governments, including tribal enforce the Federal Criteria for However, no regulatory flexibility governments, it must have developed Classification of Solid Waste Disposal analysis is required if the head of an under section 203 of UMRA a small Facilities and Practices in 40 CFR part agency certifies that the rule will not government agency plan. The plan must 257, subpart B, independent of any state have a significant economic impact on provide for notifying potentially enforcement program. As explained in a substantial number of small entities. affected small governments, enabling the preamble to 40 CFR part 257, The SBREFA amended the Regulatory officials of affected small governments subpart B, EPA expects that any owner Flexibility Act to require federal to have meaningful and timely input in or operator complying with the agencies to provide a statement of the the development by EPA of regulatory provisions of a state program approved factual basis for certifying that a rule proposals with significant federal by EPA requiring that CESQG hazardous will not have a significant economic intergovernmental mandates, and waste be disposed of in either a Subtitle impact on a substantial number of small informing, educating, and advising C facility or a Subtitle D MSWLF would entities. The following discussion small governments on compliance with be in compliance with the federal explains EPA’s determination. the regulatory requirements. criteria. See 61 FR 34264 (July 1, 1996). This rule does not impose any new The Agency’s analysis of compliance Today’s action will become effective burdens on small entities. It merely with UMRA found that today’s rule on April 11, 2000 if no adverse confirms existing needs for the disposal imposes no enforceable duty on any comments are received. of CESQG waste under state law. This state, local, or tribal governments or the proposal does not impose any new cost private sector; thus today’s rule is not Related Acts of Congress and Executive burdens. I hereby certify that this rule subject to the requirements of sections Orders will not have a significant economic 202 and 205 of UMRA. A. Executive Order 12866 impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not E. Executive Order 13045 Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR need a regulatory flexibility analysis. ‘‘Protection of Children from 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency Environmental Health Risks and Safety must determine whether a regulatory C. The Paperwork Reduction Act Risks’’ (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)) action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore Today’s proposal is in compliance applies to any rule that: (1) is subject to Office of Management and with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 determined to be ‘‘economically Budget (OMB) review and the U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We found that no significant’’ as defined under Executive requirements of the Executive Order. information is being collected from the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an The Order defines ‘‘significant states for this direct final rule, so we do environmental health or safety risk that regulatory action’’ as one that is likely not need to prepare an Information EPA has reason to believe may have a to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an Collection Request. disproportionate effect on children. If annual effect on the economy of $100 D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the regulatory action meets both criteria, million or more or adversely affect in a the Agency must evaluate the material way the economy, a sector of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates environmental health or safety effects of the economy, productivity, competition, Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public the planned rule on children, and jobs, the environment, public health or Law 104–4, establishes requirements for explain why the planned regulation is safety, or state, local, or tribal federal agencies to assess the effects of preferable to other potentially effective governments or communities; (2) create their regulatory actions on state, local, and reasonably feasible alternatives a serious inconsistency or otherwise and tribal governments and the private considered by the Agency. interfere with an action taken or sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, This rule is not subject to Executive planned by another agency; (3) EPA generally must prepare a written Order 13045 because it is not an materially alter the budgetary impact of statement, including a cost-benefit economically significant rule as defined entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan analysis, for proposed and final rules by Executive Order 12866, and because programs or the rights and obligations of with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result it does not involve decisions based on recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel in expenditures by state, local, and environmental health or safety risks. legal or policy issues arising out of legal tribal governments, in the aggregate, or mandates, the President’s priorities, or by the private sector, of $100 million or F. National Technology Transfer and the principles set forth in the Executive more in any one year. Before Advancement Act Order.’’ It has been determined that this promulgating an EPA rule for which a Section 12(d) of the National rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory written statement is needed, section 205 Technology Transfer and Advancement action’’ under the terms of Executive of UMRA generally requires EPA to Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– Order 12866 and is therefore not subject identify and consider a reasonable 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) to OMB review. number of regulatory alternatives and directs EPA to use voluntary consensus adopt the least costly, most cost- standards in its regulatory activities B. Regulatory Flexibility Act effective or least burdensome alternative unless to do so would be inconsistent Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility that achieves the objectives of the rule. with applicable law or otherwise Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by The provisions of section 205 do not impractical. Voluntary consensus the Small Business Regulatory apply when they are inconsistent with standards are technical standards (e.g., Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of applicable law. Moreover, section 205 materials specifications, test methods, 1996), whenever an agency is required allows EPA to adopt an alternative other sampling procedures, and business to publish a notice of rulemaking for than the least costly, most cost-effective practices) that are developed or adopted any proposed or final rule, it must or least burdensome alternative if the by voluntary consensus standards prepare and make available for public Administrator publishes with the final bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.137 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1817 provide explanations to Congress, costs incurred by the tribal States prior to publication of the rule in through OMB, when the Agency decides governments, or EPA consults with the Federal Register. A major rule not to use available and applicable those governments. If EPA complies by cannot take effect until 60 days after it voluntary consensus standards. This consulting, Executive Order 13084 is published in the Federal Register. proposed rulemaking does not involve requires EPA to provide OMB, in a This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as technical standards. Therefore, EPA is separately identified section of the defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule not considering the use of any voluntary preamble to the rule, a description of will be effective April 11, 2000. consensus standards. the extent of EPA’s prior consultation Authority: This document is issued under with representatives of affected tribal G. Executive Order 13132 the authority of sections 2002 and 4005 of the governments, a summary of the nature Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 Executive Order 13132 (Federalism, of their concerns, and a statement U.S.C. 6912 and 6945. 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes supporting the need to issue the Dated: December 29, 1999. and replaces Executive Order 12612 regulation. In addition, Executive Order Dennis Grams, (Federalism) and Executive Order 12875 13084 requires EPA to develop an Regional Administrator, Region VII. (Enhancing the Intergovernmental effective process permitting elected Partnership). Executive Order 13132 officials and other representatives of [FR Doc. 00–614 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] requires EPA to develop an accountable Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide BILLING CODE 6560±50±P process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and meaningful and timely input in the timely input by state and local officials development of regulatory policies on in the development of regulatory matters that significantly or uniquely DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND policies that have federalism affect their communities.’’ HUMAN SERVICES implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Today’s rule does not significantly or federalism implications’’ is defined in uniquely affect the communities of Health Care Financing Administration the Executive Order to include Indian tribal governments. There is no 42 CFR Parts 412, 413, 483, and 485 regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct impact to tribal governments as a result effects on the states, on the relationship of the state plan approvals. Accordingly, [HCFA±1053±CN2] between the national government and the requirements of section 3(b) of the states, or on the distribution of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to RIN 0938±AJ50 power and responsibilities among the this rule. Medicare Program; Changes to the various levels of government.’’ Under Hospital Inpatient Prospective Executive Order 13132, EPA may not I. Executive Order 12898 Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2000 issue a regulation that has federalism EPA is committed to addressing Rates; Corrections implications, that imposes substantial environmental justice concerns and is direct compliance costs, and that is not assuming a leadership role in AGENCY: Health Care Financing required by statute, unless the federal environmental justice initiatives to Administration (HCFA), HHS. government provides the funds enhance environmental quality for all ACTION: Final rule; correction notice. necessary to pay the direct compliance residents of the United States. The costs incurred by state and local Agency’s goals are to ensure that no SUMMARY: In the July 30, 1999 issue of governments, or EPA consults with state segment of the population, regardless of the Federal Register (64 FR 41490), we and local officials early in the process race, color, national origin, or income, published a final rule that revised the of developing the proposed regulation. bears disproportionately high and Medicare hospital inpatient prospective EPA also may not issue a regulation that adverse human health and payment systems for operating costs and has federalism implications and that environmental effects as a result of capital-related costs to implement preempts state law unless the Agency EPA’s policies, programs, and activities, necessary changes arising from our consults with state and local officials and all people live in clean and continuing experience with the system. early in the process of developing the sustainable communities. This document corrects errors made in proposed regulation. The Agency does not believe that that document. This direct final rule will not have today’s rule granting state permit EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1999. substantial direct effects on the states, program approval will have a on the relationship between the national disproportionately high and adverse FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: government and the states, or on the environmental or economic impact on Linda Hite, (410) 786–4537. distribution of power and any minority or low-income group, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table 4A responsibilities among the various on any other type of affected of the addendum to the July 30, 1999 levels of government, as specified in community. final rule (64 FR 41585 through 41593), Executive Order 13132. Thus, the which lists each urban area’s wage J. The Congressional Review Act requirements of section 6 of the index and geographic adjustment factor Executive Order do not apply to this The Congressional Review Act, 5 (GAF), inadvertently listed the incorrect rule. U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 1996 wage index or GAF values for a limited SBREFA, generally provides that before number of areas and omitted the H. Executive Order 13084 a rule may take effect, the agency indicator for several large urban areas. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA promulgating the rule must submit a The corrected Table 4A is shown below may not issue a regulation that is not rule report, which includes a copy of (item number 4). We note that the table required by statute, that significantly or the rule, to each House of the Congress as published in the July 30, 1999 uniquely affects the communities of and to the Comptroller General of the Federal Register showed correct figures Indian tribal governments, and that United States. EPA will submit a report for the vast majority of urban areas. The imposes substantial direct compliance containing this rule and other required revised table corrects a limited number costs on those communities, unless the information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. of values to address technical errors in federal government provides the funds House of Representatives, and the preparing the table for publication in necessary to pay the direct compliance Comptroller General of the United the July 30, 1999 Federal Register. The

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.138 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1818 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations revised values do not reflect changes to with ‘‘Example 1’’ and ending with 3. On page 41557, second column, last wage data or to actual payments. ‘‘residents * 1 year).’’ is inaccurate and full paragraph, twenty-third line, the The July 30, 1999 final rule also should be disregarded. figure ‘‘$36,712’’ is corrected to read contained other technical and 2. On page 41520, second column, ‘‘$39,712’’. typographical errors. Therefore, we are second paragraph, line 18, the phrase 4. On pages 41585 through 41593, making the following corrections: Table 4A—Wage Index and Capital ‘‘accepts 9 new (PGY 2) residents’’ is 1. On page 41520, first column, last Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for corrected to read ‘‘accepts 9 new (PGY two paragraphs, and the second column, Urban Areas is replaced with the first full paragraph, the text beginning 1) residents’’; and following:

TABLE 4aÐWAGE INDEX AND CAPITAL GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) FOR URBAN AREAS

Wage Urban area (constituent counties) index GAF

0040 Abilene, TX: Taylor, TX ...... 0.8179 0.8714 00602 Aguadilla, 2 PR: Aguada, PR Aguadilla, PR Moca, PR ...... 0.4249 0.5565 0080 Akron, OH; Portage, OH; Summit, OH ...... 1.0163 1.0111 0120 Albany, GA: Dougherty, GA; Lee, GA ...... 1.0372 1.0253 0160 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY: Albany, NY Montgomery, NY; Rensselaer, NY; Saratoga, NY; Schenectady, NY; Schoharie, NY ...... 0.8754 0.9129 0200 Albuquerque, NM: Bernalillo, NM; Sandoval, NM; Valencia, NM ...... 0.8499 0.8946 0220 Alexandria, LA: Rapides, LA ...... 0.7910 0.8517 0240 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA: Carbon, PA; Lehigh, PA; Northampton, PA ...... 0.9550 0.9690 0280 Altoona, PA: Blair, PA ...... 0.9342 0.9545 0320 Amarillo, TX: Potter, TX; Randall, TX ...... 0.8435 0.8900 0380 Anchorage, AK: Anchorage, AK ...... 1.3009 1.1974 0440 Ann Arbor, MI: Lenawee, MI; Livingston, MI; Washtenaw, MI ...... 1.1483 1.0993 0450 Anniston, AL: Calhoun, AL ...... 0.8462 0.8919 0460 Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, WI: Calumet, WI; Outagamie, WI; Winnebago, WI ...... 0.8913 0.9242 0470 Arecibo, PR: Arecibo, PR; Camuy, PR; Hatillo, PR ...... 0.4815 0.6062 0480 Asheville, NC: Buncombe, NC; Madison, NC ...... 0.8884 0.9222 0500 Athens, GA: Clarke, GA; Madison, GA; Oconee,GA ...... 0.9800 0.9863 0520 Atlanta, 1 GA: Barrow, GA; Bartow, GA; Carroll, GA; Cherokee, GA; Clayton, GA; Cobb, GA; Coweta, GA; DeKalb, GA; Douglas, GA; Fayette, GA; Forsyth, GA; Fulton, GA; Gwinnett, GA; Henry, GA; Newton, GA; Paulding, GA; Pickens, GA; Rockdale, GA; Spalding, GA Walton, GA ...... 1.0050 1.0034 0560 Atlantic-Cape May, NJ: Atlantic, NJ; Cape May, NJ ...... 1.1050 1.0708 0580 Auburn-Opelika, AL: Lee, AL ...... 0.7748 0.8397 0600 Augusta-Aiken, GA±SC: Columbia, GA; McDuffie, GA; Richmond, GA; Aiken, SC; Edgefield, SC ...... 0.9013 0.9313 0640 Austin-San Marcos, 1 TX: Bastrop, TX; Caldwell, TX; Hays, TX; Travis, TX; Williamson, TX ...... 0.9081 0.9361 0680 Bakersfield, 2 CA: Kern, CA ...... 0.9951 0.9966 0720 Baltimore, 1 MD: Anne Arundel, MD; Baltimore, MD; Baltimore City, MD; Carroll, MD; Harford, MD; Howard, MD; Queen Anne's, MD ...... 0.9891 0.9925 0733 Bangor, ME: Penobscot, ME ...... 0.9609 0.9731 0743 Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA: Barnstable, MA ...... 1.3302 1.2158 0760 Baton Rouge, LA: Ascension, LA; East Baton Rouge, LA; Livingston, LA; West Baton Rouge, LA ...... 0.8707 0.9095 0840 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX: Hardin, TX; Jefferson, TX; Orange, TX ...... 0.8624 0.9036 0860 Bellingham, WA: Whatcom, WA ...... 1.1394 1.0935 0870 Benton Harbor, 2 MI: Berrien, MI ...... 0.8831 0.9184 0875 Bergen-Passaic, 1 NJ: Bergen, NJ; Passaic, NJ ...... 1.1833 1.1222 0880 Billings, MT: Yellowstone, MT ...... 1.0038 1.0026 0920 Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS: Hancock, MS; Harrison, MS; Jackson, MS ...... 0.7949 0.8545 0960 Binghamton, NY: Broome, NY; Tioga, NY ...... 0.8750 0.9126 1000 Birmingham, AL: Blount, AL; Jefferson, AL; St. Clair, AL; Shelby, AL ...... 0.8994 0.9300 1010 Bismarck, ND: Burleigh, ND; Morton, ND ...... 0.7893 0.8504 1020 Bloomington, IN: Monroe, IN ...... 0.8593 0.9014 1040 Bloomington-Normal, IL: McLean, IL ...... 0.8993 0.9299 1080 Boise City, ID: Ada, ID: Canyon, ID ...... 0.9086 0.9365 1123 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA±NH (MA Hospitals)12 Bristol, MA; Essex, MA; Middlesex, MA; Norfolk, MA; Plymouth, MA; Suffolk, MA; Worcester, MA; Hillsborough, NH; Merrimack, NH; Rockingham, NH; Straf- ford, NH ...... 1.1369 1.0918 1123 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA±NH (NH Hospitals)1 Bristol, MA; Essex, MA; Middlesex, MA; Norfolk, MA; Plymouth, MA; Suffolk, MA; Worcester, MA; Hillsborough, NH; Merrimack, NH; Rockingham, NH; Straf- ford, NH ...... 1.1358 1.0911 1125 Boulder-Longmont, CO: Boulder, CO ...... 0.9944 0.9962 1145 Brazoria, TX: Brazoria, TX ...... 0.8516 0.8958 1150 Bremerton, WA: Kitsap, WA ...... 1.1011 1.0682 1240 Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX: Cameron, TX ...... 0.9212 0.9453 1260 Bryan-College Station, TX: Brazos, TX ...... 0.8501 0.8947 1280 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY: 1 Erie, NY; Niagara, NY ...... 0.9604 0.9727 1303 Burlington, VT: Chittenden, VT; Franklin, VT; Grand Isle, VT ...... 1.0558 1.0379 1310 Caguas, PR: Caguas, PR; Cayey, PR; Cidra, PR; Gurabo, PR; San Lorenzo, PR ...... 0.4561 0.5842 1320 Canton-Massillon, 2 OH: Carroll, OH; Stark, OH ...... 0.8649 0.9054 1350 Casper, WY: Natrona, WY ...... 0.9199 0.9444 1360 Cedar Rapids, IA: Linn, IA ...... 0.9018 0.9317

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1819

TABLE 4aÐWAGE INDEX AND CAPITAL GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) FOR URBAN AREASÐContinued

Wage Urban area (constituent counties) index GAF

1400 Champaign-Urbana, IL: Champaign, IL ...... 0.9163 0.9419 1440 Charleston-North Charleston, SC: Berkeley, SC; Charleston, SC; Dorchester, SC ...... 0.8988 0.9295 1480 Charleston, WV: Kanawha, WV; Putnam, WV ...... 0.9095 0.9371 1520 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC±SC: 1 Cabarrus, NC; Gaston, NC; Lincoln, NC; Mecklenburg, NC; Rowan, NC; Stanly, NC; Union, NC; York, SC ...... 0.9433 0.9608 1540 Charlottesville, VA: Albemarle, VA; Charlottesville City, VA; Fluvanna, VA; Greene, VA ...... 1.0573 1.0389 1560 Chattanooga, TN±GA: Catoosa, GA; Dade, GA; Walker, GA; Hamilton, TN; Marion, TN ...... 0.9731 0.9815 1580 Cheyenne, WY: 2 Laramie, WY ...... 0.8859 0.9204 1600 Chicago, IL: 1 Cook, IL; DeKalb, IL; DuPage, IL; Grundy, IL; Kane, IL; Kendall, IL; Lake, IL; McHenry, IL; Will, IL 1.0872 1.0589 1620 Chico-Paradise, CA: Butte, CA ...... 1.0390 1.0265 1640 Cincinnati, OH±KY±IN: 1 Dearborn, IN; Ohio, IN; Boone, KY; Campbell, KY; Gallatin, KY; Grant, KY; Kenton, KY; Pendleton, KY; Brown, OH; Clermont, OH; Hamilton, OH; Warren, OH ...... 0.9434 0.9609 1660 Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN±KY: Christian, KY; Montgomery, TN ...... 0.8283 0.8790 1680 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH: 1 Ashtabula, OH; Cuyahoga, OH; Geauga, OH; Lake, OH; Lorain, OH; Medina, OH 0.9688 0.9785 1720 Colorado Springs, CO: El Paso, CO ...... 0.9218 0.9458 1740 Columbia, MO: Boone, MO ...... 0.8904 0.9236 1760 Columbia, SC: Lexington, SC; Richland, SC ...... 0.9357 0.9555 1800 Columbus, GA±AL: Russell, AL; Chattahoochee, GA; Harris, GA; Muscogee, GA ...... 0.8510 0.8954 1840 Columbus, OH: 1 Delaware, OH; Fairfield, OH; Franklin, OH; Licking, OH; Madison, OH; Pickaway, OH ...... 0.9907 0.9936 1880 Corpus Christi, TX: Nueces, TX; San Patricio, TX ...... 0.8702 0.9092 1890 Corvallis, OR: Benton, OR ...... 1.1087 1.0732 1900 Cumberland, MD±WV (Maryland Hospitals): Allegany, MD; Mineral, WV ...... 0.8801 0.9163 1920 Dallas, TX: 1 Collin, TX; Dallas, TX; Denton, TX; Ellis, TX; Henderson, TX; Hunt, TX; Kaufman, TX; Rockwall, TX 0.9589 0.9717 1950 Danville, VA: Danville City, VA; Pittsylvania, VA ...... 0.9061 0.9347 1960 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA±IL: Scott, IA; Henry, IL; Rock Island, IL ...... 0.8706 0.9095 2000 Dayton-Springfield, OH: Clark, OH; Greene, OH; Miami, OH; Montgomery, OH ...... 0.9336 0.9540 2020 Daytona Beach, FL: 2 Flagler, FL; Volusia, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 2030 Decatur, AL: Lawrence, AL; Morgan, AL ...... 0.8679 0.9075 2040 Decatur, IL: Macon, IL ...... 0.8321 0.8817 2080 Denver, CO: 1 Adams, CO; Arapahoe, CO; Denver, CO; Douglas, CO; Jefferson, CO ...... 1.0197 1.0134 2120 Des Moines, IA: Dallas, IA; Polk, IA; Warren, IA ...... 0.8754 0.9129 2160 Detroit, MI: 1 Lapeer, MI; Macomb, MI; Monroe, MI; Oakland, MI; St. Clair, MI; Wayne, MI ...... 1.0421 1.0286 2180 Dothan, AL: Dale, AL; Houston, AL ...... 0.7836 0.8462 2190 Dover, DE: Kent, DE ...... 0.9335 0.9540 2200 Dubuque, IA: Dubuque, IA ...... 0.8520 0.8961 2240 Duluth-Superior, MN±WI: St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI ...... 1.0165 1.0113 2281 Dutchess County, NY: Dutchess, NY ...... 0.9872 0.9912 2290 Eau Claire, WI: Chippewa, WI; Eau Claire, WI ...... 0.8957 0.9273 2320 El Paso, TX: El Paso, TX ...... 0.8947 0.9266 2330 Elkhart-Goshen, IN: Elkhart, IN ...... 0.9379 0.9570 2335 Elmira, NY: 2 Chemung, NY ...... 0.8636 0.9045 2340 Enid, OK: Garfield, OK ...... 0.7953 0.8548 2360 Erie, PA: Erie, PA ...... 0.9023 0.9320 2400 Eugene-Springfield, OR: Lane, OR ...... 1.0765 1.0518 2440 Evansville-Henderson, IN±KY (IN Hospitals): 2 Posey, IN; Vanderburgh, IN; Warrick, IN; Henderson, KY ...... 0.8396 0.8872 2440 Evansville-Henderson, IN±KY (KY Hospitals): Posey, IN; Vanderburgh, IN; Warrick, IN; Henderson, KY ...... 0.8303 0.8804 2520 Fargo-Moorhead, ND±MN: Clay, MN; Cass, ND ...... 0.8620 0.9033 2560 Fayetteville, NC: Cumberland, NC ...... 0.8494 0.8942 2580 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR: Benton, AR; Washington, AR ...... 0.7773 0.8415 2620 Flagstaff, AZ±UT: Coconino, AZ; Kane, UT ...... 1.0348 1.0237 2640 Flint, MI: Genesee, MI ...... 1.1020 1.0688 2650 Florence, AL: Colbert, AL; Lauderdale, AL ...... 0.7927 0.8529 2655 Florence, SC: Florence, SC ...... 0.8618 0.9032 2670 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO: Larimer, CO ...... 1.0302 1.0206 2680 Ft. Lauderdale, FL: 1 Broward, FL ...... 1.0172 1.0117 2700 Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL: 2 Lee, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 2710 Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL: Martin, FL; St. Lucie, FL ...... 1.0109 1.0075 2720 Fort Smith, AR±OK: Crawford, AR; Sebastian, AR; Sequoyah, OK ...... 0.7844 0.8468 2750 Fort Walton Beach, FL: 2 Okaloosa, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 2760 Fort Wayne, IN: Adams, IN; Allen, IN; De Kalb, IN; Huntington, IN; Wells, IN; Whitley, IN ...... 0.9096 0.9372 2800 Forth Worth-Arlington, TX: 1 Hood, TX; Johnson, TX; Parker, TX; Tarrant, TX ...... 0.9835 0.9887 2840 Fresno, CA: Fresno, CA; Madera, CA ...... 1.0262 1.0179 2880 Gadsden, AL: Etowah, AL ...... 0.8754 0.9129 2900 Gainesville, FL: Alachua, FL ...... 1.0102 1.0070 2920 Galveston-Texas City, TX: Galveston, TX ...... 0.9732 0.9816 2960 Gary, IN: Lake, IN; Porter, IN ...... 0.9369 0.9563 2975 Glens Falls, NY: 2 Warren, NY; Washington, NY ...... 0.8636 0.9045 2980 Goldsboro, NC: Wayne, NC ...... 0.8333 0.8826 2985 Grand Forks, ND±MN: Polk, MN; Grand Forks, ND ...... 0.9097 0.9372 2995 Grand Junction, CO: Mesa, CO ...... 0.9188 0.9437 3000 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI: 1 Allegan, MI; Kent, MI; Muskegon, MI; Ottawa, MI ...... 1.0135 1.0092

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1820 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4aÐWAGE INDEX AND CAPITAL GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) FOR URBAN AREASÐContinued

Wage Urban area (constituent counties) index GAF

3040 Great Falls, MT: Cascade, MT ...... 1.0459 1.0312 3060 Greeley, CO: Weld, CO ...... 0.9722 0.9809 3080 Green Bay, WI: Brown, WI ...... 0.9215 0.9456 3120 Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC: 1 Alamance, NC; Davidson, NC; Davie, NC; Forsyth, NC; Guilford, NC; Randolph, NC; Stokes, NC; Yadkin, NC ...... 0.9037 0.9330 3150 Greenville, NC; Pitt, NC ...... 0.9500 0.9655 3160 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC: Anderson, SC; Cherokee, SC; Greenville, SC; Pickens, SC; Spartanburg, SC ...... 0.9188 0.9437 3180 Hagerstown, MD: Washington, MD ...... 0.8853 0.9200 3200 Hamilton-Middletown, OH: Butler, OH ...... 0.8989 0.9296 3240 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA: Cumberland, PA; Dauphin, PA; Lebanon, PA; Perry, PA ...... 0.9917 0.9943 3283 Hartford, CT: 1, 2 Hartford, CT; Litchfield, CT; Middlesex, CT; Tolland, CT ...... 1.2413 1.1595 3285 Hattiesburg, MS: 2 Forrest, MS; Lamar, MS ...... 0.7306 0.8066 3290 Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC: Alexander, NC; Burke, NC; Caldwell, NC; Catawba, NC ...... 0.9148 0.9408 3320 Honolulu, HI: Honolulu, HI ...... 1.1479 1.0991 3350 Houma, LA: Lafourche, LA; Terrebonne, LA ...... 0.7837 0.8463 3360 Houston, TX: 1 Chambers, TX; Fort Bend, TX; Harris, TX; Liberty, TX; Montgomery, TX; Waller, TX ...... 0.9387 0.9576 3400 Huntington-Ashland, WV±KY±OH: Boyd, KY; Carter, KY; Greenup, KY; Lawrence, OH; Cabell, WV; Wayne, WV 0.9757 0.9833 3440 Huntsville, AL: Limestone, AL; Madison, AL ...... 0.8822 0.9178 3480 Indianapolis, IN: 1 Boone, IN; Hamilton, IN; Hancock, IN; Hendricks, IN; Johnson, IN; Madison, IN; Marion, IN; Morgan, IN; Shelby, IN ...... 0.9792 0.9857 3500 Iowa City, IA: Johnson, IA ...... 0.9607 0.9729 3520 Jackson, MI: Jackson, MI ...... 0.8840 0.9190 3560 Jackson, MS: Hinds, MS; Madison, MS; Rankin, MS ...... 0.8387 0.8865 3580 Jackson, TN: Madison, TN; Chester, TN ...... 0.8600 0.9019 3600 Jacksonville, FL: 1, 2 Clay, FL; Duval, FL; Nassau, FL; St. Johns, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 3605 Jacksonville, NC: 2 Onslow, NC ...... 0.8290 0.8795 3610 Jamestown, NY: 2 Chautauqua, NY ...... 0.8636 0.9045 3620 Janesville-Beloit, WI: Rock, WI ...... 0.9656 0.9763 3640 Jersey City, NJ: Hudson, NJ ...... 1.1674 1.1118 3660 Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN±VA: Carter, TN; Hawkins, TN; Sullivan, TN; Unicoi, TN; Washington, TN; Bris- tol City, VA; Scott, VA Washington, VA ...... 0.8894 0.9229 3680 Johnstown, PA: 2 Cambria, PA; Somerset, PA ...... 0.8524 0.8964 3700 Jonesboro, AR: Craighead, AR ...... 0.7251 0.8024 3710 Joplin, MO: 2 Jasper, MO; Newton, MO ...... 0.7723 0.8378 3720 Kalamazoo-Battlecreek, MI: Calhoun, MI; Kalamazoo, MI; Van Buren, MI ...... 0.9981 0.9987 3740 Kankakee, IL: Kankakee, IL ...... 0.8598 0.9017 3760 Kansas City, KS±MO: 1 Johnson, KS; Leavenworth, KS; Miami, KS; Wyandotte, KS; Cass, MO; Clay, MO; Clin- ton, MO; Jackson, MO; Lafayette, MO; Platte, MO; Ray, MO ...... 0.9322 0.9531 3800 Kenosha, WI: Kenosha, WI ...... 0.9033 0.9327 3810 Killeen-Temple, TX: Bell, TX; Coryell, TX ...... 0.9932 0.9953 3840 Knoxville, TN: Anderson, TN; Blount, TN; Knox, TN; Loudon, TN; Sevier, TN; Union, TN ...... 0.9199 0.9444 3850 Kokomo, IN: Howard, IN; Tipton, IN ...... 0.8984 0.9293 3870 La Crosse, WI±MN: Houston, MN; La Crosse, WI ...... 0.8933 0.9256 3880 Lafayette, LA: Acadia, LA; Lafayette, LA; St. Landry, LA; St. Martin, LA ...... 0.8397 0.8872 3920 Lafayette, IN: Clinton, IN; Tippecanoe, IN ...... 0.8809 0.9168 3960 Lake Charles, LA: Calcasieu, LA ...... 0.7966 0.8558 3980 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL: 2 Polk, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 4000 Lancaster, PA: Lancaster, PA ...... 0.9255 0.9484 4040 Lansing-East Lansing, MI: Clinton, MI; Eaton, MI; Ingham, MI ...... 0.9977 0.9984 4080 Laredo, TX: Webb, TX ...... 0.8323 0.8819 4100 Las Cruces, NM: Dona Ana, NM ...... 0.8590 0.9012 4120 Las Vegas, NV±AZ: 1 Mohave, AZ; Clark, NV; Nye, NV ...... 1.1258 1.0845 4150 Lawrence, KS: Douglas, KS ...... 0.8222 0.8745 4200 Lawton, OK: Comanche, OK ...... 0.9532 0.9677 4243 Lewiston-Auburn, ME: Androscoggin, ME ...... 0.8899 0.9232 4280 Lexington, KY: Bourbon, KY; Clark, KY; Fayette, KY; Jessamine, KY; Madison, KY; Scott, KY; Woodford, KY ...... 0.8552 0.8984 4320 Lima, OH: Allen, OH; Auglaize, OH ...... 0.9108 0.9380 4360 Lincoln, NE: Lancaster, NE ...... 0.9670 0.9773 4400 Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR: Faulkner, AR; Lonoke, AR; Pulaski, AR; Saline, AR ...... 0.8614 0.9029 4420 Longview-Marshall, TX: Gregg, TX; Harrison, TX; Upshur, TX ...... 0.8738 0.9118 4480 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA: 1 Los Angeles, CA ...... 1.2085 1.1385 4520 Louisville, KY-IN: Clark, IN; Floyd, IN; Harrison, IN; Scott, IN; Bullitt, KY; Jefferson, KY; Oldham, KY ...... 0.9381 0.9572 4600 Lubbock, TX: Lubbock, TX ...... 0.8411 0.8883 4640 Lynchburg, VA: Amherst, VA; Bedford, VA; Bedford City, VA; Campbell, VA; Lynchburg City, VA ...... 0.8814 0.9172 4680 Macon, GA: Bibb, GA; Houston, GA; Jones, GA; Peach, GA; Twiggs, GA ...... 0.8530 0.8968 4720 Madison, WI: Dane, WI ...... 0.9729 0.9814 4800 Mansfield, OH: 2 Crawford, OH; Richland, OH ...... 0.8649 0.9054 4840 Mayaguez, PR: Anasco, PR; Cabo Rojo, PR; Hormigueros, PR; Mayaguez, PR; Sabana Grande, PR; San Ger- man, PR ...... 0.4674 0.5940 4880 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX: Hidalgo, TX ...... 0.8120 0.8671

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1821

TABLE 4aÐWAGE INDEX AND CAPITAL GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) FOR URBAN AREASÐContinued

Wage Urban area (constituent counties) index GAF

4890 Medford-Ashland, OR: Jackson, OR ...... 1.0492 1.0334 4900 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL: Brevard, Fl ...... 0.9296 0.9512 4920 Memphis, TN±AR±MS :1 Crittenden, AR; DeSoto, MS; Fayette, TN; Shelby, TN; Tipton, TN ...... 0.8244 0.8761 4940 Merced, CA: Merced, CA ...... 1.0509 1.0346 5000 Miami, FL: 1 Dade, FL ...... 1.0233 1.0159 5015 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ: 1 Hunterdon, NJ; Middlesex, NJ; Somerset, NJ ...... 1.0876 1.0592 5080 Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI: 1 Milwaukee, WI; Ozaukee, WI; Washington, WI; Waukesha, WI ...... 0.9845 0.9894 5120 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN±WI: 1 Anoka, MN; Carver, MN; Chisago, MN; Dakota, MN; Hennepin, MN; Isanti, MN; Ramsey, MN; Scott, MN; Sherburne, MN; Washington, MN; Wright, MN; Pierce, WI; St. Croix, WI ...... 1.0929 1.0627 5140 Missoula, MT: Missoula, MT ...... 0.9085 0.9364 5160 Mobile, AL: Baldwin, AL; Mobile, AL ...... 0.8267 0.8778 5170 Modesto, CA: Stanislaus, CA ...... 1.0111 1.0076 5190 Monmouth-Ocean, NJ: 1 Monmouth, NJ; Ocean, NJ ...... 1.1258 1.0845 5200 Monroe, LA: Ouachita, LA ...... 0.8221 0.8745 5240 Montgomery, AL: Autauga, AL; Elmore, AL; Montgomery, AL ...... 0.7724 0.8379 5280 Muncie, IN: Delaware, IN ...... 1.0834 1.0564 5330 Myrtle Beach, SC: Horry, SC ...... 0.8529 0.8968 5345 Naples, FL: Collier, FL ...... 0.9839 0.9889 5360 Nashville, TN: 1 Cheatham, TN; Davidson, TN; Dickson, TN; Robertson, TN; Rutherford, TN; Sumner, TN; Williamson, TN; Wilson, TN ...... 0.9449 0.9619 5380 Nassau-Suffolk, NY: 1 Nassau, NY; Suffolk, NY ...... 1.4074 1.2637 5483 New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury, CT: 1 Fairfield, CT; New Haven, CT ...... 1.2417 1.1598 5523 New London-Norwich, CT: New London, CT ...... 1.2428 1.1605 5560 New Orleans, LA: 1 Jefferson, LA; Orleans, LA; Plaquemines, LA; St. Bernard, LA; St. Charles, LA; St. James, LA; St. John The Baptist, LA; St. Tammany, LA ...... 0.9089 0.9367 5600 New York, NY: 1 Bronx, NY; Kings, NY; New York, NY; Putnam, NY; Queens, NY; Richmond, NY; Rockland, NY; Westchester, NY ...... 1.4517 1.2908 5640 Newark, NJ: 1 Essex, NJ; Morris, NJ; Sussex, NJ; Union, NJ; Warren, NJ ...... 1.0772 1.0522 5660 Newburgh, NY±PA: Orange, NY; Pike, PA ...... 1.0908 1.0613 5720 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA±NC: 1 Currituck, NC; Chesapeake City, VA; Gloucester, VA; Hampton City, VA; Isle of Wight, VA; James City, VA; Mathews, VA; Newport News City, VA; Norfolk City, VA; Poquoson City, VA; Portsmouth City, VA; Suffolk City, VA; Virginia Beach City VA; Williamsburg City, VA; York, VA ...... 0.8442 0.8905 5775 Oakland, CA: 1 Alameda, CA; Contra Costa, CA ...... 1.5095 1.3258 5790 Ocala, FL: Marion, FL ...... 0.9615 0.9735 5800 Odessa-Midland, TX: Ector, TX; Midland, TX ...... 0.8873 0.9214 5880 Oklahoma City, OK: 1 Canadian, OK; Cleveland, OK; Logan, OK; McClain, OK; Oklahoma, OK; Pottawatomie, OK ...... 0.8589 0.9011 5910 Olympia, WA: Thurston, WA ...... 1.0932 1.0629 5920 Omaha, NE±IA: Pottawattamie, IA; Cass, NE; Douglas, NE; Sarpy, NE; Washington, NE ...... 1.0455 1.0309 5945 Orange County, CA: 1 Orange, CA ...... 1.1592 1.1065 5960 Orlando, FL: 1 Lake, FL; Orange, FL; Osceola, FL; Seminole, FL ...... 0.9806 0.9867 5990 Owensboro, KY: Daviess, KY ...... 0.8104 0.8659 6015 Panama City, FL: Bay, FL ...... 0.9169 0.9423 6020 Parkersburg-Marietta, WV±OH (WV Hospitals): Washington, OH; Wood, WV ...... 0.8414 0.8885 6020 Parkersburg-Marietta, WV±OH (OH Hospitals): 2 Washington, OH; Wood, WV ...... 0.8649 0.9054 6080 Pensacola, FL: 2 Escambia, FL; Santa Rosa, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 6120 Peoria-Pekin, IL: Peoria, IL; Tazewell, IL; Woodford, IL ...... 0.8399 0.8874 6160 Philadelphia, PA±NJ: 1 Burlington, NJ; Camden, NJ; Gloucester, NJ; Salem, NJ; Bucks, PA; Chester, PA; Dela- ware, PA; Montgomery, PA; Philadelphia, PA ...... 1.1186 1.0798 6200 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ: 1 Maricopa, AZ; Pinal, AZ ...... 0.9464 0.9630 6240 Pine Bluff, AR: Jefferson, AR ...... 0.7697 0.8359 6280 Pittsburgh, PA: 1 Allegheny, PA; Beaver, PA; Butler, PA; Fayette, PA; Washington, PA; Westmoreland, PA ...... 0.9634 0.9748 6323 Pittsfield, MA: 2 Berkshire, MA ...... 1.1369 1.0918 6340 Pocatello, ID: Bannock, ID ...... 0.8973 0.9285 6360 Ponce, PR: Guayanilla, PR; Juana Diaz, PR; Penuelas, PR; Ponce, PR; Villalba, PR; Yauco, PR ...... 0.4971 0.6196 6403 Portland, ME: Cumberland, ME; Sagadahoc, ME; York, ME ...... 0.9487 0.9646 6440 Portland-Vancouver, OR±WA: 1 Clackamas, OR; Columbia, OR; Multnomah, OR; Washington, OR; Yamhill, OR; Clark, WA ...... 1.0996 1.0672 6483 Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, RI: 1 Bristol, RI; Kent, RI; Newport, RI; Providence, RI; Washington, RI ...... 1.0690 1.0468 6520 Provo-Orem, UT: Utah, UT ...... 0.9818 0.9875 6560 Pueblo, CO: Pueblo, CO ...... 0.8853 0.9200 6580 Punta Gorda, FL: Charlotte, FL ...... 0.9508 0.9660 6600 Racine, WI: Racine, WI ...... 0.9216 0.9456 6640 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC: 1 Chatham, NC; Durham, NC; Franklin, NC; Johnston, NC; Orange, NC; Wake, NC ...... 0.9544 0.9685 6660 Rapid City, SD: Pennington, SD ...... 0.8363 0.8848 6680 Reading, PA: Berks, PA ...... 0.9436 0.9610 6690 Redding, CA: Shasta, CA ...... 1.1263 1.0849 6720 Reno, NV: Washoe, NV ...... 1.0655 1.0444 6740 Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA: Benton, WA; Franklin, WA ...... 1.1224 1.0823

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1822 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4aÐWAGE INDEX AND CAPITAL GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) FOR URBAN AREASÐContinued

Wage Urban area (constituent counties) index GAF

6760 Richmond-Petersburg, VA: Charles City County, VA; Chesterfield, VA; Colonial Heights City, VA; Dinwiddie, VA; Goochland, VA; Hanover, VA; Henrico, VA; Hopewell City, VA; New Kent, VA; Petersburg City, VA; Powhatan, VA; Prince George, VA; Richmond City, VA ...... 0.9545 0.9686 6780 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA: 1 Riverside, CA; San Bernardino, CA ...... 1.1061 1.0715 6800 Roanoke, VA: Botetourt, VA; Roanoke, VA; Roanoke City, VA; Salem City, VA ...... 0.8142 0.8687 6820 Rochester, MN: Olmsted, MN ...... 1.1429 1.0958 6840 Rochester, NY: 1 Genesee, NY; Livingston, NY; Monroe, NY; Ontario, NY; Orleans, NY; Wayne, NY ...... 0.9184 0.9434 6880 Rockford, IL: Boone, IL; Ogle, IL; Winnebago, IL ...... 0.8783 0.9150 6895 Rocky Mount, NC: Edgecombe, NC; Nash, NC ...... 0.8735 0.9115 6920 Sacramento, CA: 1 El Dorado, CA; Placer, CA; Sacramento, CA ...... 1.2284 1.1513 6960 Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, MI: Bay, MI; Midland, MI; Saginaw, MI ...... 0.9294 0.9511 6980 St. Cloud, MN: Benton, MN; Stearns, MN ...... 0.9608 0.9730 7000 St. Joseph, MO: Andrew, MO; Buchanan, MO ...... 0.8943 0.9264 7040 St. Louis, MO±IL: 1 Clinton, IL; Jersey, IL; Madison, IL; Monroe, IL; St. Clair, IL; Franklin, MO; Jefferson, MO; Lin- coln, MO; St. Charles, MO; St. Louis, MO; St. Louis City, MO; Warren, MO ...... 0.9052 0.9341 7080 Salem, OR: Marion, OR; Polk, OR ...... 0.9949 0.9965 7120 Salinas, CA: Monterey, CA ...... 1.4710 1.3025 7160 Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT: 1 Davis, UT; Salt Lake, UT; Weber, UT ...... 0.9854 0.9900 7200 San Angelo, TX: Tom Green, TX ...... 0.7845 0.8469 7240 San Antonio, TX: 1 Bexar, TX; Comal, TX; Guadalupe, TX; Wilson, TX ...... 0.8318 0.8815 7320 San Diego, CA: 1 San Diego, CA ...... 1.1955 1.130 7360 San Francisco, CA: 1 Marin, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Mateo, CA ...... 1.378 41.2458 7400San Jose, CA: 1 Santa Clara, CA ...... 1.3492 1.2277 7440 San Juan-Bayamon, PR: 1 Aguas Buenas, PR; Barceloneta, PR; Bayamon, PR; Canovanas, PR; Carolina, PR; Catano, PR; Ceiba, PR; Comerio, PR; Corozal, PR; Dorado, PR; Fajardo, PR; Florida, PR; Guaynabo, PR; Humacao, PR; Juncos, PR; Los Piedras, PR; Loiza, PR; Luguillo, PR; Manati, PR; Morovis, PR; Naguabo, PR; Naranjito, PR; Rio Grande, PR; San Juan, PR; Toa Alta, PR; Toa Baja, PR; Trujillo Alto, PR; Vega Alta, PR; Vega Baja, PR; Yabucoa, PR ...... 0.4657 0.5925 7460 San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA: San Luis Obispo, CA ...... 1.0470 1.0320 7480 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA: Santa Barbara, CA ...... 1.0819 1.0554 7485 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA: Santa Cruz, CA ...... 1.3927 1.2546 7490 Santa Fe, NM: Los Alamos, NM; Santa Fe, NM ...... 1.0437 1.0297 7500 Santa Rosa, CA: Sonoma, CA ...... 1.3000 1.1968 7510 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL: Manatee, FL; Sarasota, FL ...... 0.9905 0.9935 7520 Savannah, GA: Bryan, GA; Chatham, GA; Effingham, GA ...... 0.9953 0.9968 7560 ScrantonÐWilkes-BarreÐHazleton, PA: 2 Columbia, PA; Lackawanna, PA; Luzerne, PA; Wyoming, PA ...... 0.8524 0.8964 7600 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA: 1 Island, WA; King, WA; Snohomish, WA ...... 1.1289 1.0866 7610 Sharon, PA2: Mercer, PA ...... 0.8524 0.8964 7620 Sheboygan, WI: 2 Sheboygan, WI ...... 0.8759 0.9133 7640 Sherman-Denison, TX: Grayson, TX ...... 0.9329 0.9535 7680 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA: Bossier, LA; Caddo, LA; Webster, LA ...... 0.9049 0.9339 7720 Sioux City, IA±NE: Woodbury, IA; Dakota, NE ...... 0.8549 0.8982 7760 Sioux Falls, SD: Lincoln, SD; Minnehaha, SD ...... 0.8776 0.9145 7800 South Bend, IN: St. Joseph, IN ...... 0.9793 0.9858 7840 Spokane, WA: Spokane, WA; ...... 1.0799 1.0541 7880 Springfield, IL: Menard, IL; Sangamon, IL ...... 0.8684 0.9079 7920 Springfield, MO: Christian, MO; Greene, MO; Webster, MO ...... 0.7991 0.8576 8003 Springfield, MA: 2 Hampden, MA; Hampshire, MA ...... 1.1369 1.0918 8050 State College, PA: Centre, PA ...... 0.9138 0.9401 8080 Steubenville-Weirton, OH±WV (OH Hospitals): Jefferson, OH; Brooke, WV; Hancock, WV ...... 0.8649 0.9054 8080 Steubenville-Weirton, OH±WV (WV Hospitals): Jefferson, OH; Brooke, WV; Hancock, WV ...... 0.8614 0.9029 8120 Stockton-Lodi, CA: San Joaquin, CA ...... 1.0518 1.0352 8140 Sumter, SC: 2 Sumter, SC ...... 0.8264 0.8776 8160 Syracuse, NY: Cayuga, NY; Madison, NY; Onondaga, NY; Oswego, NY ...... 0.9441 0.9614 8200 Tacoma, WA: Pierce, WA ...... 1.1631 1.1090 8240 Tallahassee, FL: 2 Gadsden, FL; Leon, FL ...... 0.8986 0.9294 8280 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL: 1 Hernando, FL; Hillsborough, FL; Pasco, FL; Pinellas, FL ...... 0.9119 0.9388 8320 Terre Haute, IN: Clay, IN; Vermillion, IN; Vigo, IN ...... 0.8570 0.8997 8360 Texarkana, AR-Texarkana, TX: Miller, AR; Bowie, TX ...... 0.8174 0.8710 8400 Toledo, OH: Fulton, OH; Lucas, OH; Wood, OH ...... 0.9593 0.9719 8440 Topeka, KS: Shawnee, KS ...... 0.9326 0.9533 8480 Trenton, NJ: Mercer, NJ ...... 0.9955 0.9969 8520 Tucson, AZ: Pima, AZ ...... 0.8742 0.9120 8560 Tulsa, OK: Creek, OK; Osage, OK; Rogers, OK; Tulsa, OK; Wagoner, OK ...... 0.8086 0.8646 8600 Tuscaloosa, AL: Tuscaloosa, AL ...... 0.8064 0.8630 8640 Tyler, TX: Smith, TX ...... 0.9369 0.9563 8680 Utica-Rome, NY: 2 Herkimer, NY; Oneida, NY ...... 0.8636 0.9045 8720 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA: Napa, CA; Solano, CA ...... 1.2655 1.1750 8735 Ventura, CA: Ventura, CA ...... 1.0952 1.0643 8750 Victoria, TX: Victoria, TX ...... 0.8378 0.8859 8760 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ: Cumberland, NJ ...... 1.0517 1.0351

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1823

TABLE 4aÐWAGE INDEX AND CAPITAL GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (GAF) FOR URBAN AREASÐContinued

Wage Urban area (constituent counties) index GAF

8780 Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, CA: Tulare, CA ...... 1.0411 1.0280 8800 Waco, TX: McLennan, TX ...... 0.8075 0.8638 8840 Washington, DC±MD±VA±WV: 1 District of Columbia, DC; Calvert, MD; Charles, MD; Frederick, MD; Mont- gomery, MD; Prince Georges, MD; Alexandria City, VA; Arlington, VA; Clarke, VA; Culpeper, VA; Fairfax, VA; Fairfax City, VA; Falls Church City, VA; Fauquier, VA; Fredericksburg City, VA; King George, VA; Loudoun, VA; Manassas City, VA; Manassas Park City, VA; Prince William, VA; Spotsylvania, VA; Stafford, VA; Warren, VA; Berkeley, WV; Jefferson, WV ...... 1.1053 1.0710 8920 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA: Black Hawk, IA ...... 0.8841 0.9191 8940 Wausau, WI: Marathon, WI ...... 0.9445 0.9617 8960 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL: 1 Palm Beach, FL ...... 0.9909 0.9938 9000 Wheeling, WV-OH (WV Hospitals): 2 Belmont, OH; Marshall, WV; Ohio, WV ...... 0.8068 0.8633 9000 Wheeling, WV-OH (OH Hospitals): 2 Belmont, OH; Marshall, WV; Ohio, WV ...... 0.8649 0.9054 9040 Wichita, KS: Butler, KS; Harvey, KS; Sedgwick, KS ...... 0.9421 0.9600 9080 Wichita Falls, TX: Archer, TX; Wichita, TX ...... 0.7652 0.8325 9140 Williamsport, PA: 2 Lycoming, PA ...... 0.8524 0.8964 9160Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD: New Castle, DE; Cecil, MD ...... 1.1274 1.0856 9200 Wilmington, NC: New Hanover, NC; Brunswick, NC ...... 0.9707 0.9798 9260 Yakima, WA: 2 Yakima, WA ...... 1.0446 1.0303 9270 Yolo, CA: Yolo, CA ...... 1.0485 1.0330 9280 York, PA: York, PA ...... 0.9309 0.9521 9320 Youngstown-Warren, OH: Columbiana, OH; Mahoning, OH; Trumbull, OH ...... 0.9996 0.9997 9340 Yuba City, CA: Sutter, CA; Yuba, CA ...... 1.0662 1.0449 9360 Yuma, AZ: Yuma, AZ ...... 0.9924 0.9948 1 Large Urban Area 2 Hospitals geographically located in the area are assigned the statewide rural wage index for FY 2000.

5. On page 41597, in Table 5—List of b. Line 24, ‘‘*Traumatic Stupor & corrected to read ‘‘Cardiac Congenital & Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), Coma, Coma >1 hr Age 0–17’’ is Valvular Disorders Age >17 w’’; and Relative Weighting Factors, Geometric corrected to read ‘‘*Traumatic Stupor & b. Line 7, ‘‘Cardiac Congenital & and Arthmetic Mean Length of Stay, the Coma, Coma <1 hr Age 0–17’’. Valvular Disorders Age ≤17 w/o’’ is fourth column (DRG title) is amended as 6. On page 41599, in Table 5—List of corrected to read ‘‘Cardiac Congenital & follows: Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), Valvular Disorders Age >17 w/o’’. Relative Weighting Factors, Geometric 7. On page 41605, in Table 5—List of a. Line 23, ‘‘Traumatic Stupor & and Arthmetic Mean Length of Stay, the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), Coma, Coma >1 hr Age <17 w/o cc’’ is fourth column (DRG title) is amended as Relative Weighting Factors, Geometric corrected to read ‘‘Traumatic Stupor & follows: and Arthmetic Mean Length of Stay, Coma, Coma <1 hr Age >17 w/o cc’’; a. Line 5, ‘‘Cardiac Congenital & 12th line from the bottom is revised as and Valvular Disorders Age ≤17 w’’ is follows:

Relative Geometric Arthimetic weights mean LOS mean LOS

******* 480 ...... SURG ...... LIVER TRANSPLANT ...... 10.7834 17.5 23.1

*******

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Wyoming, as the community’s first local Program No. 93.773 Medicare—Hospital COMMISSION aural transmission service (RM–9458). Insurance) See 64 FR 8784, February 23, 1999. At Dated: December 9, 1999. 47 CFR Part 73 the request of counterproponent Mount Brian P. Burns, [DA 99±2672; MM Docket No. 99±55; RM± Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., we also Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information 9458, 9760] allot Channel 239A at Marbleton, Resource Management. Wyoming, as the community’s first local Radio Broadcasting Services; Thayne [FR Doc. 00–126 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] aural transmission service (RM–9760). and Marbleton, WY BILLING CODE 4120±01±P Channel 290C1 can be reallotted to AGENCY: Federal Communications Thayne in compliance with the Commission. Commission’s minimum distance ACTION: Final rule. separation requirements with a site restriction of 34.1 kilometers (21.2 SUMMARY: The Commission, at the miles) southwest to avoid a short- request of Mountain West Broadcasting, spacing to the proposed allotment site of allots Channel 290C1 at Thayne, Channel 290C at Shoshoni, Wyoming,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:11 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR1 1824 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The coordinates for Channel 290C1 at Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2000. Thayne are 42–46–27 North Latitude FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: § 73.202 [Amended] and 111–22–02 West Longitude. Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Additionally, Channel 239A can be 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 418–2180. allotted to Marbleton, Wyoming, Allotments under Wyoming, is amended without the imposition of a site by adding Thayne, Channel 290C1, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a restriction. The coordinates for Channel Marbleton, Channel 239A. synopsis of the Commission’s Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99–76, 239A at Marbleton are 42–33–27 North Federal Communications Commission. adopted December 15, 1999, and Latitude and 110–05–58 West John A. Karousos, Longitude. released December 23, 1999. The full Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules text of this Commission decision is DATES: Effective January 18, 2000. A Division, Mass Media Bureau. available for inspection and copying filing window for Channel 290C1 at [FR Doc. 00–653 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] during normal business hours in the Thayne, Wyoming, and for Channel BILLING CODE 6712±01±P FCC’s Reference Information Center 239A at Marbleton, Wyoming, will not (Room CY–A257), 445 Twelfth Street, be opened at this time. Instead, the issue SW., Washington, DC. The complete of opening a filing window for these FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS text of this decision may also be channels will be addressed by the COMMISSION purchased from the Commission’s copy Commission in a subsequent order. 47 CFR Part 73 contractor, International Transcription FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media [DA 99±3004; MM Docket No. 99±76; RM± Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. Bureau, (202) 418–2180. 9400] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 This is a Radio Broadcasting Services; synopsis of the Commission’s Report Silverton and Bayfield, CO Radio broadcasting. and Order, MM Docket No. 99–55, Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of adopted November 24, 1999, and AGENCY: Federal Communications Federal Regulations is amended as released December 3, 1999. The full text Commission. follows: of this Commission decision is available ACTION: Final rule. for inspection and copying during PART 73Ð[AMENDED] normal business hours in the FCC SUMMARY: This document reallots Reference Information Center (Room Channel 297C1 from Silverton to 1. The authority citation for part 73 CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Bayfield, Colorado, and modifies the continues to read as follows: authorization of Voice Ministries of Washington, DC. The complete text of Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. this decision may also be purchased Farmington, Inc. (File No. BPH– from the Commission’s copy 951020MA) to specify operation on § 73.202 [Amended] contractors, International Transcription Channel 296C at Bayfield, as requested, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Allotments under Colorado, is amended Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 1.420(g) of the Commission’s Rules. See 64 FR 14423, March 25, 1999. The by adding Bayfield, Channel 296C. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 allotment of Channel 296C to Bayfield 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Radio broadcasting. will provide a first and second full-time Allotments under Colorado is amended aural service (allotment priorities (1) by removing Channel 297C1 at Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of and (2)) within the proposed station’s 60 Silverton. Federal Regulations is amended as dBu service contour, as well as a first Federal Communications Commission. follows: local service (allotment priority (3)) to John A. Karousos, PART 73Ð[AMENDED] that community without depriving Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Silverton of the opportunity for local Division, Mass Media Bureau. 1. The authority citation for Part 73 service. With this action, the proceeding [FR Doc. 00–657 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] continues to read as follows: is terminated. BILLING CODE 6712±01±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:16 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A12JA0.098 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAR1 1825

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8

Wednesday, January 12, 2000

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER The purpose is to establish a self-help Dated: January 6, 2000. contains notices to the public of the proposed promotion, research, and information Barry L. Carpenter, issuance of rules and regulations. The program for the industry. Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed purpose of these notices is to give interested Program. persons an opportunity to participate in the Reason for Granting an Extension [FR Doc. 00–694 Filed 1–7–00; 1:26 pm] rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. The National Sheep Association BILLING CODE 3410±02±P (NSA) and the National Lamb Feeders Association (NLFA) have requested an DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE extension of time to submit proposals. NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT COMMISSION Agricultural Marketing Service Both organizations express the need for more producers to be involved in the 7 CFR Parts 1301, 1304, 1305, 1306, 7 CFR Part 1280 process to help generate industry 1307 and 1308 [No. LS±99±13] support. They point out that meetings of the American Sheep Association and Over-Order Price Regulation Sheep and Lamb Promotion, Research, NLFA will provide the opportunity for AGENCY: Northeast Dairy Compact and Information Order more producer input. NSA points out Commission. that many State association and other AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearing. industry meetings are being held early USDA. in the year 2000 which will provide an SUMMARY: The Northeast Dairy Compact ACTION: Invitation to submit proposals: opportunity for additional producer Commission proposes to amend the Reopening and extension of time to input on draft proposals. NSA also over-order price regulation to make submit proposals. believes results from other pending technical amendments to certain definitions and to change certain dates SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing activities should be known before the of required action. The proposed rule is Service (AMS) is reopening and issuance of an Order by the Secretary. necessary to conform the over-order extending the time to February 1, 2000, These include: (1) The specific project price regulation to similar regulations for the sheep industry to submit assistance that the U.S. sheep recently reformed by the United States proposals for a sheep and lamb Improvement Center will provide to the Department of Agriculture regarding promotion, research, and information industry and (2) the dimensions of the milk marketed in the New England order (Order) or parts of an Order as assistance available through USDA to states. These amendments will ensure provided for by the Commodity the sheep industry as a result of the continuity of regulatory definitions and Promotion, Research, and Information decision to provide assistance to offset compliance dates in the New England Act of 1996 (Act). The Act authorizes the impact of increased lamb imports. milk market. The Commission also national industry-funded programs for However we believe that any such delay proposes to amend the definition of promotion, research, and information is not necessary in connection with producer to specify every December regarding agricultural commodities. these issues. since 1996 as a condition of Interested parties are also invited to qualification. submit views on whether it would be Further, NSA believes the recently DATES: A public hearing will be held on beneficial to hold a public meeting published draft Guidelines for AMS February 2, 2000 at 10 a.m. Sworn and during an ensuing comment period to Oversight of Commodity Research and notarized written testimony, comments discuss the proposals. The invitation to Promotion Programs (Guidelines) are and exhibits may be submitted until 5 submit proposals was published in the another reason more time is needed p.m. on February 16, 2000. Federal Register on November 23, 1999. since an Order will need to be ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be DATES: Proposals must be received on or consistent with the Guidelines. NSA requested an extension of time until held at Centennial Inn, 96 Pleasant before February 1, 2000. Street, Concord, New Hampshire. Mail, February 21, 2000 and NLFA requested ADDRESSES: Proposals (two copies) or deliver, sworn and notarized an extension until February 1, 2000. should be mailed to: Ralph L. Tapp, testimony, comments and exhibits to: Chief; Marketing Programs Branch, After careful consideration of the Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, Room 2627–S; Livestock and Seed requests submitted to the Agency, AMS 34 Barre Street, Suite 2, Montpelier, Program, USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 has decided to reopen and extend the Vermont 05602. Independence Avenue, SW.; comment period until February 1, 2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Washington, D.C. 20090–0251. AMS believes this will provide a Kenneth M. Becker, Executive Director, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: sufficient period of time for all Northeast Dairy Compact Commission at Ralph L. Tapp, Chief, Marketing interested persons to discuss and review the above address or by telephone at Programs Branch on 202/720–1115. draft proposals for an Order and to (802) 229–1941, or by facsimile at (802) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submit proposals for an Order to AMS. 229–2028. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose Accordingly, AMS is reopening and extending the period to submit A request for proposals for a Order I. Background proposals until February 1, 2000. under the Act was published in the The Northeast Dairy Compact Federal Register on November 23, 1999. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7401–7425. Commission (‘‘Commission’’) was

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:01 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 12JAP1 1826 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules established under authority of the II. Proposed Technical Amendments to required activities. The proposed Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact the Over-order Price Regulation amendments change the dates required (‘‘Compact’’). The Compact was enacted The Commission proposes to amend for: (1) Announcing the over-order into law by each of the six participating the definition of producer in section obligation (from the 5th of the month to New England states as follows: 1301.11 to change the qualification the 23rd); (2) issuing statements (from Connecticut—Pub. L. 93–320; Maine— condition from ‘‘December 1996, the 15th to the 13th); (3) for making Pub. L. 89–437, as amended, Pub. L. 93– December 1997 and December 1998’’ to payments (including adjustments and 274; Massachusetts—Pub. L. 93–370; ‘‘every December since 1996.’’ This administrative assessments) to the New Hampshire—Pub. L. 93–336; language clarifies the future application producer-settlement fund (from the 18th Rhode Island—Pub. L. 93–106; of this condition, without necessitating to the 15th) and (4) for issuing payments Vermont—Pub. L. 93–57. In accordance annual rulemaking proceedings. (including adjustments) from the fund with Article I, Section 10 of the United The Commission also proposes to (from the 20th to the 16th). States Constitution, Congress consented amend definitions in Part 1301 sections The proposed amendment to Part 1301.9, 1301.10, 1301.14 and 1301.17 to to the Compact in Pub. L. 104–127 1307 section 1307.8 conforms to the conform to recent amendments to (FAIR Act), Section 147, codified at7 federal regulation at 7 CFR 1000.78 by definitions in the federal market order U.S.C. 7256. Subsequently, the United changing the language regarding charges States Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant regulations. The proposed amendment to section 1301.9, the definition of on overdue accounts to include funds to 7 U.S.C. 7256(1), authorized due to both the producer-settlement implementation of the Compact. handler, brings that section into fund and the administrative assessment Authorization of the Compact was conformity with the federal amendment fund and includes the new requirement extended until September 30, 2001 in to the definition of handler in 7 CFR that all interest accrues to the the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 1000.9 by adding certain milk brokers to administrative assessment fund. The Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106–113, 115 the definition. The proposed proposed rules also add a new section Stat. 1501, November 29, 1999. amendment to section 1301.10, the definition of producer-handler, brings at Part 1307 section 1307.9, in Pursuant to its rulemaking authority that section into conformity with the conformance with the federal regulation under Article V, Section 11 of the definition of the same term in 7 CFR at 7 CFR 1000.90, specifying that if a Compact, the Commission concluded an 1001.10, through uniform reformatting required date falls on a weekend or informal rulemaking process and voted of the definition and changing the holiday, the action is required on the to adopt a compact over-order price minimum from 300 quarts per day to next business day. regulation on May 30, 1997.1 The 150,000 pounds per month. Similarly, Commission subsequently amended and the proposed amendments to section Official Notice of Technical, Scientific extended the compact over-order price 1301.14, fluid milk products (adds or Other Matters regulation.2 In 1998 and 1999, the eggnog and changes descriptive terms Pursuant to the Commission Commission further amended specific for various products, such as skim milk) regulations, 7 CFR 1361.5(g)(5), the provisions of the over-order price and section 1301.17, cooperative Commission hereby gives public notice regulation.3 The current compact over- association (includes federation of that it may take official notice, at the order price regulation is codified at 7 cooperatives) bring those definitions public hearing February 2, 2000, or CFR Chapter XIII. into conformity with the reformed federal regulations at 7 CFR 1000.15 and afterward, of relevant facts, statistics, On November 29, 1999, the President data, conclusions, and other information signed into law the Consolidated 1000.18, respectively. The proposal to amend Part 1304 provided by or through the United Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106– section 1304.1, deletes eggnog from the States Department of Agriculture, 113, 115 Stat. 1501). That Act required list in subsection (b)(4)(iv), in including, but not limited to, matters the United States Secretary of conformity with the new federal reported by the National Agricultural Agriculture to immediately implement regulation at 7 CFR 1000.40(b)(2)(iv), Statistics Service, the Market certain reforms to the federal milk order reclassifying eggnog from Class II to Administrators, the Economic Research regulations. The required regulation was Class I. The proposal to amend Part Service, the Agricultural Marketing published in the Federal Register on 1305 section 1305.1 changes the Service and information, data and December 17, 1999, implementing and reference to the federal Class I price statistics developed and maintained by amending the final rule that was from the prior regulation reference to the Departments of Agriculture of the initially published on September 1, Zone 1, Class 1 to the reformed States or Commonwealth within the 4 1999. The Commission intends that the reference in 7 CFR 1000.52 to the Class Compact regulated area. proposed amendments will bring the I Price for Suffolk County Commission regulations into conformity Massachusetts. Public Participation in Rulemaking with the reformed federal milk market The Commission proposes to amend Proceedings order regulations and provide Part 1306 sections 1306.1 and 1306.2 to consistency and uniformity in remove the existing minimum of a daily The Commission seeks and definitions and compliance dates for average of 300 quarts to the new federal encourages oral and written testimony regulated entities. minimum of 150,000 pounds per month and comments from all interested as codified at 7 CFR 1000.8(d)(4). persons regarding these proposed rules. 1 62 FR 29626 (May 30, 1997). The proposed amendments in Parts The Commission continues to benefit 2 62 FR 62810 (Nov. 25, 1997). 1305, 1307 and 1308 sections 1305.2, from the valuable insights and active 3 See, e.g., 63 FR 10104 (Feb. 27, 1998); 63 FR 1307.2, 1307.3, 1307.4 1307.7, 1307.9 participation of all segments of the 46385 (Sept. 1, 1998); 63 FR 65517 (Nov. 27, 1998); and 1308.1 change the prescribed dates affected community including 64 FR 23532 (May 3, 1999); and 64 FR 34511 (June 28, 1999). for required action to conform to the consumers, processors and producers in 4 64 FR 70868 (Dec. 17, 1999); 64 FR 47898 (Sept. new dates used under the federal market the development and administration of 1, 1999). order reform regulations for similar the Over-order Price Regulation.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.019 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1827

Date, Time and Location of the Public qualify as handlers only under this (1) Producers receipts as described in Hearing paragraph are not subject to the paragraph (a) of this section and The Northeast Dairy Compact payment provisions of §§ 1307.3 and producer receipts as described in Commission will hold a public hearing 1308.1. paragraph (b) of this section who are at 10:00 a.m. on February 2, 2000 at the 3. Revise § 1301.10 to read as follows: qualified based on every December since 1996; Centennial Inn, 96 Pleasant Street, § 1301.10 Producer-handler. Concord, New Hampshire. * * * * * Producer-handler means a person 5. Revise § 1301.14 to read as follows: Request for Written Comments who: § 1301.14 Fluid milk product. Pursuant to the Commission rules, 7 (a) Operates a dairy farm and a CFR 1361.4, any person may participate distributing plant from which there is (a) Except as provided in paragraph in the rulemaking proceeding monthly route disposition in the (b) of this section fluid milk product independent of the hearing process by regulated area during the month; means any milk products in fluid or submitting written comments or (b) Receives milk solely from own frozen form containing less than nine exhibits to the Commission. Comments farm production or receives milk that is percent butterfat, that are intended to be and exhibits may be submitted at any fully subject to the pricing and pooling used as beverages. Such products time before 5 p.m. on February 16, 2000. provisions of any Federal order; include, but are not limited to: Milk, fat- Please note: Comments and exhibits (c) Receives at its plant or acquires for free milk, low fat milk, light milk, will be made part of the record of the route disposition no more than 150,000 reduced fat milk, milk drinks, eggnog rulemaking proceeding only if they pounds of fluid milk products from and cultured buttermilk, including any identify the author’s name, address and handlers fully regulated under any such beverage products that are occupation, and if they include a sworn Federal order. This limitation shall not flavored, cultured, modified with added and notarized statement indicating that apply if the producer-handler’s own nonfat milk solids, sterilized, the comment and/or exhibit is presented farm production is less than 150,000 concentrated or reconstituted. As used based upon the author’s personal pounds during the month; in this part, the term concentrated milk knowledge and belief. Facsimile copies (d) Disposes of no other source milk means milk that contains not less than will be accepted up until the 5 p.m. as Class I milk except by increasing the 25.5 percent, and not more than 50 deadline, but the original must then be nonfat milk solids content of the fluid percent, total milk solids. sent by ordinary mail. milk products; and (b) The term fluid milk product shall (e) Provides proof satisfactory to the not include: List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1301, compact commission that the care and (1) Plain or sweetened evaporated 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307 and 1308 management of the dairy animals and milk/skim milk, sweetened condensed Milk, Price support programs. other resources necessary to produce all milk/skim milk, formulas especially Class I milk handled (excluding receipts prepared for infant feeding or dietary Codification in Code of Federal from handlers fully regulated under any use (meal replacement) that are Regulations Federal order) and the processing and packaged in hermetically-sealed For reasons set forth in the preamble, packaging operations are the producer- containers, any product that contains by the Northeast Dairy Compact handler’s own enterprise and at its own weight less than 6.5 percent nonfat milk Commission proposes to amend 7 CFR risk. solids, and whey; and Parts 1301, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307 and 4. Amend § 1301.11 to revise (2) The quantity of skim milk 1308 as follows: paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b) equivalent in any modified product (1) to read as follows: specified in paragraph (a) of this section PART 1301ÐDEFINITIONS that is greater than an equal volume of § 1301.11 Producer. an unmodified product of the same 1. The authority citation for Part 1301 Producer means: nature and butterfat content. continues to read as follows: * * * * * 6. Revise § 1301.17 to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. (b) A dairy farmer who produces milk § 1301.17 Cooperative association. 2. Amend § 1301.9 to revise paragraph outside of the regulated area that is (e) to read as follows: moved to a pool plant, provided that on Cooperative association means any more than half of the days on which the cooperative marketing association of § 1301.9 Handler. handler caused milk to be moved from producers which the Secretary of Handler means: the dairy farmer’s farm in every Agriculture of the United States * * * * * December since 1996, all of that milk determines is qualified under the (e) Any person who does not operate was physically moved to a pool plant in provisions of the Capper-Volstead Act, a plant but who engages in the business the regulated area. Or: to be considered has full authority in the sale of milk of of receiving fluid milk products for a qualified producer, on more than half its members and is engaged in resale and distributes to retail or of the days on which the handler caused marketing milk or milk products for its wholesale outlets packaged fluid milk milk to be moved from the dairy members. A federation of two or more products received from any plant farmer’s farm during the current month cooperatives incorporated under the described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of and for five (5) months subsequent to laws of any state will be considered a this section. Any person who as a broker July of the preceding calendar year, all cooperative association if all member negotiates a purchase or sale of fluid of that milk must have moved to a pool cooperatives meet the requirements of milk products or fluid cream products plant, provided that the total amount of this section. from or to any pool, partially regulated milk at a pool plant eligible to qualify PART 1304ÐCLASSIFICATION OF or nonpool plant, and any person who producers who did not qualify in every MILK by purchase or direction causes milk of December since 1996, shall not exceed producers to be picked up at the farm the total bulk receipts of fluid milk 2. The authority citation for Part 1304 and/or moved to a plant. Persons who products less: continues to read as follows:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.020 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1828 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. 3. Revise § 1306.2 to read as follows: than the day after the payment date 3. Amend § 1304.1 to revise paragraph required in § 1307.3(b). Each handler § 1306.2 Partially regulated plant shall make payment to each producer (b)(4)(iv) to read as follows: operator's value of milk for computing basic over-order producer price. for the milk received from him during § 1304.1 Classification of milk. the month at not less than the basic For the purpose of computing the * * * * * over-order producer price per basic over-order producer price, the (b) * * * hundredweight computer under compact commission shall determine (4) * * * § 1306.3. If the handler has not received for each month the value of milk (iv) Custards, puddings, pancake full payment for the compact mixes, buttermilk biscuit mixes, disposition in the regulated area by the commission under § 1307.3(b) by the coatings, batter and similar products; operator of a partially regulated plant as date payments are due under this * * * * * directed in this section. Any partially paragraph, he may reduce pro rata his regulated plant that does not exceed payments to producers by an amount PART 1305ÐCLASS PRICE 150,000 of disposition in the compact not to exceed such underpayment. Such regulated area in the month shall not be payments shall be completed after 1. The authority citation for Part 1305 subject to the compact over-order continues to read as follows: receipt of the balance due from the obligation. The total assessment for each compact commission by the next Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. handler is to be calculated by following date for making payments multiplying the pounds of Class I fluid under this paragraph. 2. Amend § 1305.1 to revise paragraph milk products as determined pursuant (b)(2) to read as follows: to § 1304.1(a) of this chapter by the * * * * * 5. Revise § 1307.7 to read as follows: § 1305.1 Compact over-order class I price compact over-order obligation. and compact over-order obligation. § 1307.7 Adjustment of accounts. PART 1307ÐPAYMENTS FOR MILK * * * * * (a) Whenever the compact (b) * * * 1. The authority citation for Part 1307 commission verification of a handler’s (2) Deduct Class I Price for Suffolk continues to read as follows: reports or payments discloses an error County, Massachusetts; Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. in payments to or from the compact * * * * * commission under § 1307.3 or § 1308.1, 3. Revise § 1305.2 to read as follows: 2. Revise the introductory text of the compact commission shall promptly § 1307.2 to read as follows: issue to the handler a charge bill or a § 1305.2 Announcement of compact over- § 1307.2 Handlers' producer-settlement credit, as the case may be, for the order class I price and compact over-order amount of the error. Adjustment charge obligation. fund debits and credits. bills issued during the period beginning The compact commission shall On or before the 13th day after the end of the month, the compact with the 10th day of the prior month announce publicly on or before the 23rd and ending with the 9th day of the day of each month the Class I over-order commission shall render a statement to each handler showing the amount of the current month shall be payable by the price and the compact over-order handler to the compact commission on obligation for the following month. handler’s producer-settlement fund debit or credit, as calculated in this or before the 15th day of the current PART 1306ÐCOMPACT OVER-ORDER section. month. Adjustment credits issued during that period shall be payable by PRODUCER PRICE * * * * * 3. Revise § 1307.3 to read as follows: the compact commission to the handler 1. The authority citation for Part 1306 on or before the 16th day of the current continues to read as follows: § 1307.3 Payments to and from the month. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. producer-settlement fund. (b) Whenever the compact (a) On or before the 15th day after the commission’s verification of a handler’s 2. Revise § 1306.1 to read as follows: end of the month, each handler shall payments discloses payment to a pay to the compact commission the producer or a cooperative association of § 1306.1 Handler's value of milk for an amount less than is required by computing basic over-order producer price. handler’s producer-settlement fund debit for the month as determined under § 1307.4, the handler shall make For the purpose of computing the § 1307.2(a). payment of the balance due the basic over-order producer price, the (b) On or before the 16th day after the producer not later than the 16th day compact commission shall determine end of the month, the compact after the end of the month in which the for each month the value of milk of each commission shall pay to each handler handler is notified of the deficiency. handler with respect to each of the the handler’s producer-settlement fund 6. Revise § 1307.8 to read as follows: handler’s pool plants and of each credit for the month as determined § 1307.8 Charges on overdue accounts. handler described in § 1301.9(d) of this under § 1307.2(b). If the unobligated chapter with respect to milk that was balance in the producer-settlement fund Any unpaid obligation due the not received at a pool plant, as directed is insufficient to make such payments, compact commission from a handler in this section. Any pool plant that does the compact commission shall reduce pursuant to 7 CFR parts 1307 and 1308 not exceed 150,000 pounds of uniformly such payments and shall shall be increased 1.0 percent each disposition in the compact regulated complete them as soon as the funds are month beginning with the day following area in the month shall not be subject available. the date such obligation was due. Any to the compact over-order obligation. 4. Revise § 1307.5 paragraph (a) to remaining amount due shall be The total assessment for each handler is read as follows: increased at the same rate on the to be calculated by multiplying the corresponding day of each succeeding pounds of Class I fluid milk products as § 1307.4 Payments to producers. month until paid. The amounts payable determined pursuant to § 1304.1(a) of (a) For milk received during the pursuant to this section shall be this chapter by the compact over-order month, payment shall be made so that computed monthly on each unpaid obligation. it is received by each producer no later obligation and shall include any unpaid

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:01 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1829 charges previously computed pursuant rulemaking filed by Mr. Bob Christie, Directives Branch, Division of to this section. The late charges shall Performance Technology, Knoxville, Administrative Services, Office of accrue to the administrative assessment Tennessee. The petition was docketed Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory fund. For the purpose of this section, on November 15, 1999, and has been Commission, Washington, DC 20555– any obligation that was determined at a assigned Docket No. PRM–50–68. The 0001, Telephone: 301–415–7162 or Toll date later than prescribed by 7 CFR petitioner requests that the NRC amend Free: 1–800–368–5642 or email: parts 1307 and 1308 because of a its regulations concerning hydrogen [email protected]. handler’s failure to submit a report to control systems at nuclear power plants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the compact commission when due The petitioner believes that the current shall be considered to have been regulations on hydrogen control systems Grounds for Petition payable by the date it would have been at some nuclear power plants are due if the report had been filed when detrimental and present a health risk to The petitioner performed a detailed due. the public. The petitioner believes that review of the San Onofre Task Zero 7. Add a new § 1307.9 to read as similar detrimental situations may Safety Evaluation Report (Pilot Program follows: apply to other systems as well (such as for Risk-Informed Performance-Based the requirement for a 10-second diesel Regulation) conducted by the NRC staff § 1307.9 Dates. start time). The petitioner believes the and dated September 3, 1998, If a date required for payment proposed amendments would eliminate concerning that plant’s hydrogen contained in 7 CFR parts 1307 and 1308 those situations that present adverse control system. The petitioner is falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or national conditions at nuclear power plants. convinced that action by the holiday, such payment will be due on DATES: Submit comments by March 27, Commission is necessary to remedy the next day that the compact 2000. Comments received after this date possible adverse conditions at nuclear commission office is open for public will be considered if it is practical to do power plants. business. so, but the Commission is able to assure Background PART 1308ÐADMINISTRATIVE consideration only for comments ASSESSMENT received on or before this date. The petitioner includes three topics of ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: discussion in support of the proposed 1. The authority citation for Part 1308 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory amendments: continues to read as follows: Commission, Washington, DC 20555– A. Public Health Risk From Nuclear Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256. 0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Electric Power Units 2. Revise the introductory text of Adjudications Staff. § 1308.1 to read as follows: Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville The petitioner states that since the Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 publication of the Reactor Safety Study § 1308.1 Assessment for pricing a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. (WASH–1400) in 1975, there has been a regulations administration. For a copy of the petition, write to growing agreement between the On or before the 15th day after the David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and practitioners of probabilistic risk end of the month, each handler shall Directives Branch, Division of assessment and licensing personnel pay to the compact commission his pro Administrative Services, Office of (both at the NRC and within the rata share of the expense of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory industry) that there is a greater risk to administration of this pricing Commission, Washington, DC 20555– public health from the release of fission regulation. The payment shall be at the 0001. products from the reactor core during a rate of 3.2 cents per hundredweight. The You may also provide comments via severe accident at a nuclear power payment shall apply to: the NRC’s interactive rulemaking plant, than from a design-basis accident. * * * * * website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. The petitioner asserts that the NRC staff Dated: January 6, 2000. This site provides the capability to has formally recognized this position. Kenneth M. Becker, upload comments as files (any format), The petitioner sets out the following Executive Director. if your web browser supports that excerpts from the San Onofre Task Zero function. For information about the [FR Doc. 00–687 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Safety Evaluation Report in support of interactive rulemaking website, contact his assertion. BILLING CODE 1650±01±P Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415–5905 (e- 1. ‘‘Subsequent risk studies have mail:[email protected]). shown that the majority of risk to the The petition and copies of comments public is from accident sequences that NUCLEAR REGULATORY are also available electronically at the lead to containment failure or bypass, COMMISSION NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room and that the contribution to risk from on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ 10 CFR Part 50 accident sequences involving hydrogen NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this combustion is quite small.’’ [Docket No. PRM±50±68] site, the public can gain entry into the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 2. ‘‘As mentioned in the previous Bob Christie; Receipt of Petition for and Management System (ADAMS), section, the risk associated with Rulemaking which provides text and image files of hydrogen combustion is not from design-basis accidents but from severe AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory NRC’s public documents. accidents.’’ Commission. The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected and copied ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 3. ‘‘The overall public risk and for a fee at the NRC Public Document of receipt. radiological consequences from reactor Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower accidents is dominated by the more SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Level), Washington, DC. severe core damage accidents that Commission has received and requests FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: involved containment failure or public comment on a petition for David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and bypass.’’

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.023 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1830 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

B. Consideration of Design-Basis Report, the NRC granted an exemption Section 50.44 Standards for Combustible Accidents to San Onofre from the design-basis Gas Control System in Light-Water Cooled Power Reactors The petitioner also states that since accident requirements from the the publication of the Reactor Safety hydrogen control system on the basis of (a) An inerted reactor containment atmosphere shall be provided for each Study (WASH–1400) in 1975, there has information obtained in the analysis of severe accidents. According to the boiling light-water nuclear power reactor been growing agreement between with a Mark I or Mark II type containment. practitioners of probabilistic risk petitioner, NRC staff’s evaluation also indicated that adherence to the (b) Each licensee with a boiling light-water assessment and licensing personnel that nuclear power reactor with a Mark III type of compliance with some design-basis requirements of design-basis accidents containment and each licensee with an ice accident requirements can be could have a detrimental effect on condenser type of containment shall provide detrimental to public health. The public health. The petitioner asserts that its nuclear power reactor containment with a petitioner asserts that the NRC staff has it is likely that similar situations exist hydrogen control system. The hydrogen formally recognized this position. The with respect to the hydrogen control control system must be capable of handling (based on realistic calculations) the hydrogen petitioner sets out the following systems at other nuclear units, and also for other systems at San Onofre and equivalent to that generated from a metal- excerpts from the San Onofre Task Zero water reaction involving 75 percent of the Safety Evaluation Report in support of other nuclear units. The petitioner believes that the Commission should fuel cladding surrounding the active fuel his assertion. region (excluding the cladding surrounding 1. ‘‘Although the recombiners are issue an interim policy statement the plenum volume). effective in maintaining the Regulatory concerning requirements for design- (c) All light-water reactors with other types Guide 1.7 hydrogen concentration basis accidents. The petitioner believes of containment than those in paragraphs (a) below the lower flammability limit of 4 that the interim policy statement would or (b) of this section, must demonstrate that volume percent, they are overwhelmed clarify the role of the NRC staff to the reactor containment (based on realistic calculations) can withstand, without any by the larger quantities of hydrogen ensure that matters that present a risk to public health are given appropriate hydrogen control system, a hydrogen burn for associated with severe accidents which accidents with a high probability of causing are typically released over a much high-level attention. The petitioner recommends the following ‘‘strawman’’ severe reactor core damage. If such an shorter time period (e.g., 2 hours).’’ evaluation of reactor containment capability 2. ‘‘From this information, the NRC statement. can not be demonstrated, then the licensee staff concludes that the quantity of All situations where there is an indication shall provide a hydrogen control system per hydrogen, prescribed by 10 CFR that adherence to design basis requirements the backfit process. This hydrogen control 50.44(d) and Regulatory Guide 1.7, would be detrimental to public health must system must be capable of handling (based which necessitates the need for be brought to the immediate attention of the on realistic calculations) the hydrogen hydrogen recombiners and its backup, Executive Director for Operations of the equivalent to that generated from a metal- Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The water reaction involving 75 percent of the the hydrogen purge system is bounded Executive Director for Operations will make fuel cladding surrounding the active fuel by the hydrogen generated during a a decision on whether an exemption to the region (excluding the cladding surrounding severe accident. The NRC staff finds that design basis requirements should be granted the plenum volume). the relative importance of hydrogen on an expedited basis. (d) Each light-water nuclear power reactor combustion for large, dry containments shall be provided with high point vents for with respect to containment failure to be The petitioner believes that the NRC the reactor coolant system, for the reactor quite low. This finding supports the would want all individuals who may be vessel head, and for other systems required argument that the hydrogen recombiners aware of a situation where adherence to to maintain adequate reactor core cooling if are insignificant from a containment design-basis requirements could be the generation of noncondensible gases in these systems would realistically lead to integrity perspective.’’ adverse to public health, to bring the situation to the attention of the NRC severe reactor core damage during an 3. ‘‘In a postulated Loss of Coolant accident. High point vents are not required, Accident, the San Onofre Nuclear staff without fear of recrimination and regardless of the present licensing basis however, for the tubes in U-tube steam Generating Station Units 2 and 3 generators. Emergency Operating Instructions direct for each nuclear unit. The petitioner the control room operators to monitor states that, in the present culture of The petitioner proposes that 10 CFR and control the hydrogen concentration licensing at nuclear electric power Part 50, Appendix A—General Design inside the containment after they have units, there are few individuals (at the Criteria 41 be revised to read as follows: carried out the steps to maintain and NRC or within the industry) who would suggest that adherence to design-basis Appendix A—General Design Criteria 41— control the higher priority critical safety Containment Atmosphere Cleanup accident requirements can be functions. The key operator actions in As necessary, systems to control fission controlling the hydrogen concentration detrimental to safety. The petitioner believes that this culture must change products, hydrogen, oxygen, and other are to place the hydrogen recombiners substances which may be released into the or hydrogen purge system in operation and ‘‘change with NRC blessings.’’ reactor containment shall be provided, which involves many procedural steps. The petitioner states that he consistent with the functioning of other These hydrogen control activities could recommends an interim policy associated systems, to assure that reactor distract operators from more important statement because the NRC, nuclear containment integrity is maintained for tasks in the early phases of accident industry, and the public are in the accidents where there is a high probability process of changing the NRC regulations that fission products may be present in the mitigation and could have a negative reactor containment. impact on the higher priority critical to eliminate situations where adherence Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th date operator actions.’’ to the regulations could present a risk to public health. of January, 2000. C. Recommended Policy Statement on The petitioner believes that the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘‘Design-Basis Accident Requirements current regulations concerning Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Versus Severe Accident Information’’ combustible gas control systems have Secretary of the Commission. The petitioner states that according to serious flaws and proposes that 10 CFR [FR Doc. 00–725 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] the San Onofre Safety Evaluation 50.44 be revised to read as follows: BILLING CODE 7590±01±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.028 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1831

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 1998, in Los Angeles, California; on May DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 28, 1998, in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Office of Energy Efficiency and and on June 4, 1998, in Washington, DC. Federal Aviation Administration Renewable Energy A total of 110 persons spoke at the three 14 CFR Part 39 hearings, and/or submitted written 10 CFR Part 490 comments which were to be received by [Docket No. 99±NE±61±AD] [Docket No. EE±RM±99±507] July 16, 1998. RIN 2120±AA64 RIN 1904±AA98 Section 507(h) provides that ‘‘The Secretary may, by notice published in Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Alternative Fuel Transportation the Federal Register, extend the plc Tay 650±15 Series Turbofan Program; Requirements for Private and deadlines established under subsections Engines Local Government Fleets (e), (f)(2), and (g) for an additional 90 AGENCY: Federal Aviation AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and days if the Secretary is unable to meet Administration, DOT. Renewable Energy, Department of such deadlines. Such extension shall ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Energy (DOE). not be reviewable.’’ By publication of (NPRM). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed this notice, DOE is hereby extending the rulemaking; extension of deadlines. deadlines established under subsections SUMMARY: This document proposes the (e), (f)(2), and (g), from January 1, 2000, adoption of a new airworthiness SUMMARY: The Department of Energy is for an additional 90 days. directive (AD) that is applicable to extending the deadline for a rulemaking Rolls-Royce plc Tay 650–15 series The extension of the deadlines is regarding alternative fueled vehicle turbofan engines. This proposal would necessary so that DOE can comply with acquisition requirements for private and establish cyclic life limits for stage 1 the requirements for intergovernmental local government fleets. The Energy high pressure turbine (HPT) and stage 1 Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–486) consultation as specified in Executive low pressure turbine (LPT) disks allows the Department to extend the Order 13132 and a Federal Register operating under new flight plan profiles. deadlines established under the Act and Notice of final statement of policy (62 This proposal is prompted by reports requires publication of a notice of the FR 12820, March 18, 1997). Section 6 of that on some engines disk cracks in the extension in the Federal Register. Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 stage 1 HPT and stage 1 LPT could FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. FR 43255, August 10, 1999), specifies initiate and propagate at a faster rate Kenneth R. Katz, Program Manager, the consultation process that each than forecast under the flight plan Office of Energy Efficiency and agency must undertake to ensure profiles originally published at the time Renewable Energy (EE–34), U.S. meaningful and timely input by State the engine design was certified. The Department of Energy, 1000 and local officials in the development of actions specified by the proposed AD Independence Avenue SW., regulatory policies that may have are intended to prevent crack initiation Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586–9171. federalism implications. The Notice of and propagation leading to turbine disk failure, which could result in an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final statement of policy publishes DOE uncontained engine failure and damage Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102– policy on intergovernmental to the aircraft. 486) authorizes DOE to pursue a consultation under the Unfunded rulemaking concerning alternative Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Section DATES: Comments must be received by fueled vehicle acquisition requirements III of that notice specifies the process March 13, 2000. for private and local government fleets. that DOE must take when proposing a ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Section 507(g) provides for a significant intergovernmental mandate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), rulemaking, which was to be completed on State, local, or tribal governments. New England Region, Office of the by January 1, 2000. As part of that DOE will also finalize its required Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules rulemaking, section 507(c) of the Act regulatory analyses during this 90-day Docket No. 99–NE–61–AD, 12 New required DOE to publish an Advance time frame. England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments may also be Notice of Proposed Rulemaking DOE is planning on fulfilling the (ANOPR) to begin a rulemaking process submitted to the Rules Docket by using intergovernmental consultation to evaluate and examine the Act’s the following Internet address: ‘‘9-ane- requirements described above. However, replacement fuel goals and to determine [email protected]’’. Comments may whether alternative fueled vehicle at this time, DOE does not believe that be inspected at this location between (AFV) acquisition requirements for a private and local government fleet 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday private and local government fleets are program would have Federalism through Friday, except Federal holidays. necessary to achieve the Act’s energy implications, nor would it meet the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: security and other goals. 42 U.S.C. threshold established for a significant James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, 13256(c). intergovernmental mandate, which is Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine DOE published an ANOPR for the whether the aggregate annual and Propeller Directorate, 12 New purposes described in section 507(c) on compliance expenditures would equal England Executive Park, Burlington, MA April 17, 1998. 63 FR 19372. This notice or be in excess of $100 million. 01803–5299; telephone 781–238–7176, was intended to stimulate comments to Issued in Washington, DC on December 29, fax 781–238–7199. assist DOE in making decisions 1999. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: concerning future rulemaking actions Thomas J. Gross, and non-regulatory initiatives to Comments Invited promote alternative fuels and alternative Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Interested persons are invited to fueled vehicles. Three hearings were Technologies. participate in the making of the held to receive oral comments on the [FR Doc. 00–414 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] proposed rule by submitting such ANOPR. They were held on May 20, BILLING CODE 6450±01±P written data, views, or arguments as

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.018 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1832 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules they may desire. Communications must be categorized as having operated cyclic life limits, and replacing those should identify the Rules Docket under flight plan profiles C and D, as disks with serviceable parts. number and be submitted to the address described in the R–R Tay Engine specified above. All communications Manual, 70–01–10, pages 1–10. Engines Economic Analysis received on or before the closing date operating under flight plan profiles C There are approximately 242 engines for comments, specified above, will be and D have faster HPT and LPT disk of the affected design in the worldwide considered before taking action on the crack initiation and propagation rates fleet. The FAA estimates that 3 engines proposed rule. The proposals contained than engines operated under flight plan installed on aircraft of U.S. registry in this notice may be changed in light profiles A or B. Therefore, the FAA has would be affected by this proposed AD, of the comments received. determined that the stage 1 HPT and that the prorated life reduction would Comments are specifically invited on stage 1 LPT disks must be removed from the overall regulatory, economic, these three domestic engines at lower cost $26,658 per engine. Based on these environmental, and energy aspects of cyclic life limits than if operated under figures, the total cost impact of the the proposed rule. All comments flight plan profiles A or B. This proposed AD on U.S. operators is submitted will be available, both before condition, if not corrected, could result estimated to be $79,974. and after the closing date for comments, in crack initiation and propagation Regulatory Impact in the Rules Docket for examination by leading to turbine disk failure, which interested persons. A report could result in an uncontained engine This proposal does not have summarizing each FAA-public contact failure and damage to the aircraft. federalism implications, as defined in concerned with the substance of this Executive Order No. 13132, because it proposal will be filed in the Rules CAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) Differences with This Proposed Rule would not have a substantial direct Docket. effect on the States, on the relationship Commenters wishing the FAA to The CAA issued AD 004–07–99 on between the national government and acknowledge receipt of their comments July 20, 1999, in order to assure the the States, or on the distribution of submitted in response to this notice airworthiness of R–R Tay 650–15 series must submit a self-addressed, stamped power and responsibilities among the turbofan engines in the UK. The CAA postcard on which the following various levels of government. AD published a drawdown plan which statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted allows operators with engines near or Docket Number 99–NE–61–AD.’’ The with state authorities prior to slightly over the reduced life limit to postcard will be date stamped and publication of this proposal. remove those disks from service in a returned to the commenter. scheduled, but safe manner. The three For the reasons discussed above, I Availability of NPRMs engines operated on aircraft of US certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Any person may obtain a copy of this registry do not have disks that are approaching the new, lower cyclic life under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not NPRM by submitting a request to the a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT FAA, New England Region, Office of the limits, therefore, this proposed rule does not contain a drawdown schedule, but Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if Docket No. 99–NE–61–AD, 12 New only establishes the cyclic life limits for promulgated, will not have a significant England Executive Park, Burlington, MA the new flight plan profiles. economic impact, positive or negative, 01803–5299. Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement on a substantial number of small entities Discussion This engine model is manufactured in under the criteria of the Regulatory The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the UK and is type certificated for Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft which is the airworthiness authority for operation in the United States under the regulatory evaluation prepared for this the United Kingdom (UK), recently provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal action is contained in the Rules Docket. notified the Federal Aviation Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) A copy of it may be obtained by Administration (FAA) that an unsafe and the applicable bilateral contacting the Rules Docket at the condition may exist on Rolls-Royce plc airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to location provided under the caption (R–R) Tay 650–15 series turbofan this bilateral airworthiness agreement, ADDRESSES. engines. The CAA advises that on the CAA has kept the FAA informed of engines installed on Fokker F.28 Mark the situation described above. The FAA List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 0100 (F100) series airplanes cracks has examined the findings of the CAA, Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation could initiate and propagate at a faster reviewed all available information, and safety, Safety. rate than forecast under the flight plan determined that AD action is necessary profiles originally published at the time for products of this type design that are The Proposed Amendment the engine design was certified. These certificated for operation in the United published flight plan profiles, A and B, States. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the provide cyclic life limits for affected Proposed Actions engine components, specifically the Administrator, the Federal Aviation stage 1 high pressure turbine (HPT), part Since an unsafe condition has been Administration proposes to amend part numbers (P/Ns) JR32013 and JR33838, identified that is likely to exist or 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and stage 1 low pressure turbine (LPT) develop on other engines of the same (14 CFR part 39) as follows: disks, P/N JR32318A. Rolls-Royce has type design registered in the United developed two new flight plan profiles, States, the proposed AD would establish PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS C and D, and published life limits for life limits for stage 1 HPT and stage 1 DIRECTIVES the stage 1 HPT and stage 1 LPT disks LPT disks operated under the new flight associated with operating under those plan profiles, C and D, require removing 1. The authority citation for part 39 new flight plan profiles. The FAA has from service stage 1 HPT and stage 1 continues to read as follows: determined that three domestic engines LPT disks prior to reaching new, lower Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.015 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1833

§ 39.13 [Amended] Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 2. Section 39.13 is amended by and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a p.m., Monday through Friday, except adding the following new airworthiness location where the requirements of this AD Federal holidays. directive: can be accomplished. The service information referenced in Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. 99–NE–61–AD. the proposed rule may be obtained from January 5, 2000. Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Applicability: Rolls-Royce plc (R–R) Tay Thomas A. Boudreau, 650–15 series turbofan engines, with stage 1 Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. high pressure turbine (HPT) disks, part Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller This information may be examined at numbers (P/Ns) JR32013 and JR33838, and Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. the FAA, Transport Airplane stage 1 low pressure turbine (LPT) disks, [FR Doc. 00–601 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., P/N JR32318A. These engines are installed BILLING CODE 4910±13±U Renton, Washington. on but not limited to Fokker F.28 Mark 0100 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (F100) series aircraft. Norman B. Martenson, Manager, Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, applies to each engine identified in the Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 preceding applicability provision, regardless Federal Aviation Administration Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 14 CFR Part 39 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110; requirements of this AD. For engines that fax (425) 227–1149. have been modified, altered, or repaired so [Docket No. 99±NM±196±AD] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that the performance of the requirements of RIN 2120±AA64 this AD is affected, the owner/operator must Comments Invited request approval for an alternative method of Interested persons are invited to compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 and A340 Series Airplanes participate in the making of the of this AD. The request should include an proposed rule by submitting such assessment of the effect of the modification, AGENCY: written data, views, or arguments as alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition Federal Aviation addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe Administration, DOT. they may desire. Communications shall condition has not been eliminated, the ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking identify the Rules Docket number and request should include specific proposed (NPRM). be submitted in triplicate to the address actions to address it. specified above. All communications Compliance: Required as indicated, unless SUMMARY: This document proposes the received on or before the closing date accomplished previously. adoption of a new airworthiness for comments, specified above, will be To prevent crack initiation and directive (AD) that is applicable to all considered before taking action on the propagation leading to turbine disk failure, Airbus Model A330 and A340 series proposed rule. The proposals contained which could result in an uncontained engine airplanes. This proposal would require in this notice may be changed in light failure and damage to the aircraft, repetitive detailed visual and ultrasonic of the comments received. accomplish the following: inspections of the main landing gear Comments are specifically invited on Flight Plan Profile C (MLG) to detect fatigue cracks; and the overall regulatory, economic, (a) Remove from service stage 1 HPT disks, repair, if necessary. This proposal also environmental, and energy aspects of P/Ns JR32013 and JR33838, and stage 1 LPT would require replacement of certain the proposed rule. All comments disks, P/N JR32318A, operated under flight nose landing gear (NLG) handwheel submitted will be available, both before plan profile C, as defined in the R–R Tay controllers with new controllers; and after the closing date for comments, Engine Manual, 70–01–10, pages 1–10, prior replacement of certain placards with in the Rules Docket for examination by to accumulating 18,000 cycles-since-new interested persons. A report (CSN), and replace with serviceable parts. new placards; installation of steering angle recording software; corrective summarizing each FAA-public contact Flight Plan Profile D action for exceeding certain steering concerned with the substance of this (b) Remove from service stage 1 HPT disks, angles; and an AFM revision to limit the proposal will be filed in the Rules P/Ns JR32013 and JR33838, and stage 1 LPT nose wheel steering angle for pushback Docket. disks, P/N JR32318A, operated under flight and towing and to limit the nose wheel Commenters wishing the FAA to plan profile D, as defined in the R–R Tay steering for powered turns. This acknowledge receipt of their comments Engine Manual, 70–01–10, pages 1–10, prior proposal is prompted by issuance of submitted in response to this notice to accumulating 14,250 CSN, and replace must submit a self-addressed, stamped with serviceable parts. mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil postcard on which the following Alternative Methods of Compliance airworthiness authority. The actions statement is made: ‘‘Comments to (c) An alternative method of compliance or specified by the proposed AD are Docket Number 99–NM–196–AD.’’ The adjustment of the compliance time that intended to prevent MLG failure due to postcard will be date stamped and provides an acceptable level of safety may be fatigue cracking, which could result in returned to the commenter. used if approved by the Manager, Engine reduced structural capability of the Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall Availability of NPRMs airplane and collapse of the MLG. submit their request through an appropriate Any person may obtain a copy of this FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who DATES: Comments must be received by NPRM by submitting a request to the may add comments and then send it to the February 11, 2000. FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Manager, ECO. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. Note 2: Information concerning the triplicate to the Federal Aviation 99–NM–196–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, existence of approved alternative methods of Administration (FAA), Transport SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. compliance with this AD, if any, may be Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, obtained from the ECO. Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM– Discussion ´ ´ Ferry Flights 196–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., The Direction Generale de l’Aviation (d) Special flight permits may be issued in Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Civile (DGAC), which is the accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Comments may be inspected at this airworthiness authority for France,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.016 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1834 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules notified the FAA that an unsafe for modification of the functional in the service information described condition may exist on all Airbus Model software of the brake steering and previously, except as discussed below. A330 and A340 series airplanes. The control unit (BSCU). This modification The proposed AD also would require DGAC advises that a right main landing can be utilized as an alternative for the that operators report results of gear (MLG) of a Model A340 failed replacement of the nose wheel steering inspection findings to Airbus. during landing. Investigation revealed a controllers recommended by Airbus Differences Between Proposed Rule, fatigue crack had initiated in the upper Service Bulletin A330–32–3091, Service Bulletins, and French part of the MLG main fitting cylindrical Revision 01, dated December 2, 1998 Airworthiness Directives barrel. This fatigue crack is a result of (for Model A330 series airplanes), and repetitive loading during high steering Service Bulletin A340–32–4128, Operators should note that, although and/or towing angles when turning. Revision 01, dated December 2, 1998 the service bulletins and the French This condition, if not corrected, could (for Model A340 series airplanes). airworthiness directives specify that the result in MLG failure due to fatigue Airbus also has issued Service manufacturer may be contacted for cracking, which could result in reduced Bulletin A330–31–3033, dated disposition of certain repair conditions, structural capability of the airplane and September 13, 1999 (for Model A330 this proposal would require the repair of collapse of the MLG. series airplanes), and Service Bulletin those conditions to be accomplished in A340–31–4047, dated September 13, accordance with a method approved by Explanation of Relevant Service 1999 (for Model A340 series airplanes), the FAA or the DGAC (or its delegated Information which describe procedures for agent). Airbus has issued Service Bulletin installation of a software program that Operators should also note that the A330–32A3088, Revision 02, dated June automatically records all nose wheel parallel French airworthiness directives 10, 1999 (for Model A330 series steering angle exceedance above 63 require a revision of the Flight Crew airplanes), and Service Bulletin A340– degrees into the Aircraft Condition Operating Manual (FCOM) to limit the 32A4124, Revision 01, dated November Monitoring System (ACMS). This nose wheel steering angle for pushback 20, 1998, which describe procedures for installation includes modification of the and towing and to limit the nose wheel repetitive detailed visual and ultrasonic new setup database software by adding steering for powered turns. However, for inspection of the MLG to detect fatigue the existing operator customized U.S. operators, the FCOM is not cracks; and corrective actions, if version; and uploading the setup approved and required by the FAA, necessary. The corrective actions database software to the data whereas the Airplane Flight Manual is involve a detailed magnetic particle management unit (DMU). approved and required by the FAA. inspection of the MLG to detect fatigue Accomplishment of the actions Therefore, the proposed AD would cracks, and repair, if necessary. specified in the service information is require a revision to the AFM instead of Airbus also has issued Service intended to adequately address the a revision to the FCOM. Bulletin A330–32–3089, dated identified unsafe condition. The DGAC Cost Impact November 2, 1998 (for Model A330 classified this service information as series airplanes), and Service Bulletin mandatory and issued French None of the airplanes affected by this Service Bulletin A340–32–4126, dated airworthiness directives 1998–475– action are on the U.S. Register. All November 2, 1998 (for Model A340 103(B)R1, 1998–473–083(B)R1, and airplanes included in the applicability series airplanes), which describe 1999–160–096(B); all dated April 21, of this rule currently are operated by procedures for replacement of placards 1999; in order to assure the continued non-U.S. operators under foreign on the left-and right-hand sides of the airworthiness of these airplanes in registry; therefore, they are not directly aft mechanically-operated nose landing France. affected by this AD action. However, the gear doors with new placards. FAA considers that this rule is Airbus also has issued Flight FAA’s Conclusions necessary to ensure that the unsafe Operations TELEX (FOT) 999.0099/98, These airplane models are condition is addressed in the event that Revision 5, dated May 21, 1999, which manufactured in France and are type any of these subject airplanes are describes procedures for revising the certificated for operation in the United imported and placed on the U.S. procedures of the Flight Crew Operating States under the provisions of § 21.29 of Register in the future. Manual to limit the nose wheel steering the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 Should an affected airplane be angle for pushback and towing and to CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral imported and placed on the U.S. limit the nose wheel steering for airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to Register in the future, it would require powered turns. this bilateral airworthiness agreement, approximately 1 work hour to Airbus also has issued Service the DGAC has kept the FAA informed accomplish the proposed inspection of Bulletin A330–32–3091, Revision 01, of the situation described above. The the required main landing gear; dated December 2, 1998 (for Model FAA has examined the findings of the approximately 7 work hours to A330 series airplanes), and Service DGAC, reviewed all available accomplish the proposed replacement of Bulletin A340–32–4128, Revision 01, information, and determined that AD the controller; approximately 1 work dated December 2, 1998 (for Model action is necessary for products of this hour to accomplish the proposed A340 series airplanes), which describe type design that are certificated for placard replacements; approximately 1 procedures for replacement of nose operation in the United States. work hour to accomplish the proposed wheel steering controllers with new installation of the software program; and controllers. Explanation of Requirements of approximately 1 work hour to In addition, Airbus has issued Service Proposed Rule accomplish the proposed AFM revision; Bulletin A330–32–3092, Revision 02, Since an unsafe condition has been at an average labor rate of $60 per work dated June 10, 1999 (for Model A330 identified that is likely to exist or hour. The manufacturer has previously series airplanes), and Service Bulletin develop on other airplanes of the same committed to bearing the cost of the A340–32–4131, Revision 01, dated June type design registered in the United necessary parts to accomplish the 10, 1999 (for Model A340 series States, the proposed AD would require proposed actions. Based on these airplanes), which describe procedures accomplishment of the actions specified figures, the cost impact of this AD

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.010 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1835 would be $60 per airplane, per PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS (2) For Model A340 series airplanes: inspection cycle, and $600 per airplane DIRECTIVES Accomplish the detailed visual and for the remaining actions. ultrasonic inspections in accordance with 1. The authority citation for part 39 Airbus Service Bulletin A340–32A4124, Should an operator elect to continues to read as follows: Revision 01, dated November 20, 1998. accomplish the modification of the Note 4: Detailed visual and ultrasonic functional software of the brake steering Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. inspections accomplished prior to the and control unit (BSCU) instead of § 39.13 [Amended] effective date of this AD in accordance with replacing the nose wheel steering Airbus Service Bulletin A340–32A4124, handwheel controllers with new 2. Section 39.13 is amended by dated October 16, 1998, are acceptable adding the following new airworthiness methods of compliance for the inspection controllers, the modification would take directive: requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this AD. approximately 1 work hour to accomplish. Based on this figure, the Airbus Industrie: Docket 99–NM–196–AD. Repetitive Inspections cost impact of the optional modification Applicability: All Model A330 and A340 (b) If no crack is detected during the would be $60 per airplane. series airplanes, certificated in any category. inspection required by paragraph (a)(1) or Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane (a)(2) of this AD: Repeat the detailed visual The cost impact figures discussed identified in the preceding applicability and ultrasonic inspections thereafter at above are based on assumptions that no provision, regardless of whether it has been intervals not to exceed 120 landings. operator has yet accomplished any of modified, altered, or repaired in the area Corrective Actions the proposed requirements of this AD subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or (c) If any cracking is detected during any action, and that no operator would inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of repaired so that the performance of the accomplish those actions in the future if this AD: Prior to further flight, perform a requirements of this AD is affected, the this AD were not adopted. detailed magnetic particle inspection of the owner/operator must request approval for an MLG to detect fatigue cracks, in accordance alternative method of compliance in Regulatory Impact with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32A3088, accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD. Revision 02, dated June 10, 1999, or Airbus The request should include an assessment of The regulations proposed herein Service Bulletin A340–32A4124, Revision 01, the effect of the modification, alteration, or would not have substantial direct effects dated November 20, 1998, as applicable; and repair on the unsafe condition addressed by on the States, on the relationship repair in accordance with a method approved this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not between the national government and by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– been eliminated, the request should include 116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, or the States, or on the distribution of specific proposed actions to address it. ´ ´ the Direction Generale de l’Aviation Civile power and responsibilities among the Compliance: Required as indicated, unless various levels of government. Therefore, (DGAC) (or its delegated agent). For a repair accomplished previously. method to be approved by the Manager, in accordance with Executive Order To prevent main landing gear (MLG) International Branch, ANM–116, as required 12612, it is determined that this failure due to fatigue cracking, which could by this paragraph, the Manager’s approval proposal would not have sufficient result in reduced structural capability of the letter must specifically reference this AD. federalism implications to warrant the airplane and collapse of the MLG, Reporting preparation of a Federalism Assessment. accomplish the following: Inspection of the MLG (d) Within 10 days after accomplishing any For the reasons discussed above, I inspection required by paragraph (a), (b) or certify that this proposed regulation (1) (a) Prior to the accumulation of 800 total (c) of this AD, report the inspection results is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ landings on the MLG, or within 120 landings (both positive and negative) to Airbus under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not after the effective date of this AD, whichever Industrie at fax 33(0) 5 61 93 32 73. occurs later, perform detailed visual and a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT Information collection requirements ultrasonic inspections of the MLG to detect contained in this regulation have been Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 fatigue cracks, as specified in either FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if approved by the Office of Management and paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the promulgated, will not have a significant applicable. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. economic impact, positive or negative, (1) For Model A330 series airplanes: 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB on a substantial number of small entities Accomplish the detailed visual and Control Number 2120–0056. under the criteria of the Regulatory ultrasonic inspections, in accordance with Replacement of Nose Wheel Steering Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32A3088, Revision 02, dated June 10, 1999. Handwheel Controllers or Software regulatory evaluation prepared for this Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a Modification action is contained in the Rules Docket. detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An (e) Within 20 days after the effective date A copy of it may be obtained by intensive visual examination of a specific of this AD, replace the nose wheel steering contacting the Rules Docket at the structural area, system, installation, or handwheel controllers with new controllers, location provided under the caption assembly to detect damage, failure, or or modify the functional software of the ADDRESSES. irregularity. Available lighting is normally brake steering and control unit (BSCU), as supplemented with a direct source of good specified in either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by of this AD, as applicable. the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, (1) For Model A330 series airplanes: Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface Replace the controllers in accordance with safety, Safety. cleaning and elaborate access procedures Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32–3091, may be required.’’ Revision 01, dated December 2, 1998, or The Proposed Amendment Note 3: Detailed visual and ultrasonic modify the functional software of the BSCU inspections accomplished prior to the in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin Accordingly, pursuant to the A330–32–3092, Revision 02, dated June 10, authority delegated to me by the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32A3088, 1999. Administrator, the Federal Aviation dated October 16, 1998; or Revision 01, dated Note 5: Replacement of nose wheel steering Administration proposes to amend part November 20, 1998; are acceptable methods handwheel controllers with new controllers 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of compliance for the inspection accomplished prior to the effective date of (14 CFR part 39) as follows: requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. this AD in accordance with Airbus Service

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.011 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1836 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Bulletin A330–32–3091, dated November 19, operator customized version; and upload the Special Flight Permits 1998, is an acceptable method of compliance setup database software to the DMU) in (l) Special flight permits may be issued in for the replacement requirements of accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. A330–31–3033, dated September 13, 1999 Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 Note 6: Modification of the functional (for Model A330–300 series airplanes), or and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a software of the BSCU accomplished prior to Airbus Service Bulletin A340–31–4047, location where the requirements of this AD the effective date of this AD in accordance dated September 13, 1999 (for Model A340 can be accomplished. with Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32–3092, series airplanes); as applicable. Note 10: The subject of this AD is dated December 18, 1998; or Revision 01, addressed in French airworthiness directives dated February 24, 1999; is an acceptable Incorporation of Ground and Crew 1998–475–103(B)R1; 1998–473–083(B)R1; method of compliance for the software Operating Procedures and 1999–160–096(B); all dated April 21, modification requirements of paragraph (e)(1) (h) Within 20 days after the effective date 1999. of this AD. of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of Issued in Renton, Washington, on January (2) For Model A340 series airplanes: the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual 5, 2000. Replace the controllers in accordance with (AFM) by inserting the procedures to Airbus Service Bulletin A340–32–4128, incorporate ground operating procedures to Donald L. Riggin, Revision 01, dated December 2, 1998, or limit the nose wheel steering angle for Acting Manager, Transport Airplane modify the functional software of the BSCU pushback and towing and to limit nose wheel Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin steering for powered turns, in accordance [FR Doc. 00–600 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] A340–32–4131, Revision 01, dated June 10, with Flight Operations TELEX (FOT) BILLING CODE 4910±13±U 1999. 999.0099/98, Revision 5, dated May 21, 1999. Note 7: Replacement of nose wheel steering Corrective Actions for Exceedance of Nose handwheel controllers with new controllers DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION accomplished prior to the effective date of Wheel Steering Angle this AD in accordance with Airbus Service (i) For Model A330–200 series airplanes: If Federal Aviation Administration Bulletin A340–32–4128, dated November 19, after 20 days from the effective date of this 1998, is an acceptable method of compliance AD, a 63-degree hand wheel steering is 14 CFR Part 39 for the replacement requirements of exceeded, a 63 degrees is recorded on the paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. ACMS, or a 60-degree steering is exceeded [Docket No. 99±NM±372±AD] Note 8: Modification of the functional during towing or pushback, within 4 RIN 2120±AA64 software of the BSCU accomplished prior to landings after each occurrence, accomplish the effective date of this AD in accordance the actions required by paragraph (a) of this Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon with Airbus Service Bulletin A340–32–4131, AD. dated February 24, 1999, is an acceptable (Beech) Model 400A and 400T Series (j) For Model A330–300 and Model A340 Airplanes method of compliance for the software series airplanes: If after 20 days from the modification requirements of paragraph (e)(2) effective date of this AD, a 65-degree hand AGENCY: Federal Aviation of this AD. wheel steering is exceeded, a 67 degrees is Administration, DOT. Replacement of Placards on Mechanically- recorded on the ACMS, or a 60-degree ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Operated Nose Landing Gear Doors steering is exceeded during towing or (NPRM). (f) Within 20 days after the effective date pushback; within 4 landings after each of this AD, replace the placards on the left- occurrence, accomplish paragraph (j)(1) and SUMMARY: This document proposes the and right-hand sides of the aft mechanically- (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable. adoption of a new airworthiness operated nose landing gear doors with new (1) Accomplish the actions required by directive (AD) that is applicable to placards, as specified in either paragraph paragraph (a) of this AD. certain Raytheon (Beech) Model 400A (2) For airplanes on which Airbus (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable. and 400T series airplanes. This proposal (1) For Model A330 series airplanes: Modification 46804 has been accomplished: Replace placards in accordance with Airbus Reinstall a positive stop and re-rig the tiller would require replacement of Service Bulletin A330–32–3089, dated as specified in either paragraph (j)(2)(i) or temperature switch assemblies of the November 2, 1998. (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. wing ice protection system with new, (2) For Model A340 series airplanes: (i) For Model A330–300 series airplanes: improved parts. This proposal is Replace placards in accordance with Airbus Reinstall a stop and re-rig in accordance with prompted by reports of electrical Service Bulletin A340–32–4126, dated Airbus Service Bulletin A330–32–3091, continuity problems with solder joints November 2, 1998. Revision 01, dated December 2, 1998. on the temperature switches of the wing Installation of a Software Program (ii) For Model A340 series airplanes: ice protection system. The actions Reinstall a stop and re-rig in accordance with (g) Within 20 days after the effective date specified by the proposed AD are Airbus Service Bulletin A340–32–4128, intended to prevent detachment or of this AD, accomplish either paragraph (g)(1) Revision 01, dated December 2, 1998. or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. breakage of wires in the temperature (1) For Model A330–200 series airplanes: Alternative Methods of Compliance switch assemblies of the wing ice Install a software program that automatically (k) An alternative method of compliance or protection system. Such detachment or records all nose wheel steering angle adjustment of the compliance time that breakage of wires could result in the exceedance above 63 degrees into the Aircraft provides an acceptable level of safety may be flightcrew not being advised of an over- Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) [i.e., used if approved by the Manager, temperature situation on the leading modify the new setup database software by International Branch, ANM–116. Operators adding the existing operator customized edge of the wing, which could result in shall submit their requests through an version; and upload the setup database structural damage to the wing. appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance software to the data management unit (DMU)] DATES: Comments must be received by Inspector, who may add comments and then in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin February 28, 2000. A330–31–3033, dated September 13, 1999. send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in (2) For Model A330–300 and Model A340 triplicate to the Federal Aviation series airplanes: Install a software program Note 9: Information concerning the that automatically records all nose wheel existence of approved alternative methods of Administration (FAA), Transport steering angle exceedance above 67 degrees compliance with this AD, if any, may be Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, into the ACMS (i.e. modify the new setup obtained from the International Branch, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM– database software by adding the existing ANM–116. 372–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.013 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1837

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Availability of NPRMs Cost Impact Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 Any person may obtain a copy of this There are approximately 404 p.m., Monday through Friday, except NPRM by submitting a request to the airplanes of the affected design in the Federal holidays. FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 366 airplanes of U.S. registry would be The service information referenced in 99–NM–372–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, affected by this proposed AD, that it the proposed rule may be obtained from SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. would take approximately 30 work Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager hours per airplane to accomplish the Service Engineering, Beechjet/Premier Discussion proposed replacement, and that the Technical Support Department, P.O. The FAA has received a report Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. average labor rate is $60 per work hour. indicating that a technician on the This information may be examined at Required parts would be provided by production line for Raytheon (Beech) the FAA, Transport Airplane the manufacturer at no cost to the Model 400A and 400T series airplanes Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., operators. Based on these figures, the found electrical continuity problems Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. with solder joints on temperature Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita operators is estimated to be $658,800, or switches of the wing ice protection Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 $1,800 per airplane. system. Those electrical continuity Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent The cost impact figure discussed problems have been attributed to the use Airport, Wichita, Kansas. above is based on assumptions that no of solder that melts at a temperature at operator has yet accomplished any of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or below that encountered during the proposed requirements of this AD Philip Petty, Aerospace Engineer, normal operating conditions in the area action, and that no operator would Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE– of the wing where the temperature 116W, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, switches are installed. Subsequent to accomplish those actions in the future if Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, the discovery of the electrical continuity this AD were not adopted. 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid- problem, the manufacturer implemented Regulatory Impact Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas a production change to correct the 67209; telephone (316) 946–4139; fax problem. However, broken wire strands The regulations proposed herein (316) 946–4407. at the connection of the lead wire to the would not have a substantial direct temperature switch terminals were effect on the States, on the relationship SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: found on temperature switch assemblies between the national Government and Comments Invited incorporating the production change. the States, or on the distribution of Either condition (i.e., detachment or power and responsibilities among the Interested persons are invited to breakage of wires in the temperature various levels of government. Therefore, participate in the making of the switch assemblies of the wing ice it is determined that this proposal proposed rule by submitting such protection system), if not corrected, would not have federalism implications written data, views, or arguments as could result in the flightcrew not being under Executive Order 13132. they may desire. Communications shall advised of an over-temperature For the reasons discussed above, I identify the Rules Docket number and condition on the leading edge of the be submitted in triplicate to the address certify that this proposed regulation (1) wing, which could result in structural is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ specified above. All communications damage to the wing. received on or before the closing date under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not for comments, specified above, will be Explanation of Relevant Service a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT considered before taking action on the Information Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 proposed rule. The proposals contained FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if The FAA has reviewed and approved promulgated, will not have a significant in this notice may be changed in light Raytheon Service Bulletin 30–3008, of the comments received. economic impact, positive or negative, Revision 1, dated August 1999, which on a substantial number of small entities Comments are specifically invited on describes procedures for replacement of under the criteria of the Regulatory the overall regulatory, economic, temperature switch assemblies of the environmental, and energy aspects of Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft wing ice protection system with new, regulatory evaluation prepared for this the proposed rule. All comments improved assemblies. The new action is contained in the Rules Docket. submitted will be available, both before assemblies use high temperature wire A copy of it may be obtained by and after the closing date for comments, and incorporate improved connection of contacting the Rules Docket at the in the Rules Docket for examination by the lead wires to the temperature switch location provided under the caption interested persons. A report terminals. Accomplishment of the ADDRESSES. summarizing each FAA-public contact action specified in the service bulletin concerned with the substance of this is intended to adequately address the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 proposal will be filed in the Rules identified unsafe condition. Docket. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Explanation of Requirements of safety, Safety. Commenters wishing the FAA to Proposed Rule acknowledge receipt of their comments The Proposed Amendment submitted in response to this notice Since an unsafe condition has been must submit a self-addressed, stamped identified that is likely to exist or Accordingly, pursuant to the postcard on which the following develop on other products of this same authority delegated to me by the statement is made: ‘‘Comments to type design, the proposed AD would Administrator, the Federal Aviation Docket Number 99–NM–372–AD.’’ The require accomplishment of the actions Administration proposes to amend part postcard will be date stamped and specified in the service bulletin 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations returned to the commenter. described previously. (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1838 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS Alternative Methods of Compliance helicopter vibration, and subsequent DIRECTIVES (c) An alternative method of reduced controllability of the helicopter. compliance or adjustment of the DATES: Comments must be received on 1. The authority citation for part 39 compliance time that provides an or before March 13, 2000. continues to read as follows: acceptable level of safety may be used ADDRESSES: Submit comments in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. if approved by the Manager, Wichita triplicate to the Federal Aviation Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Administration (FAA), Office of the § 39.13 [Amended] FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2. Section 39.13 is amended by Operators shall submit their requests Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–28– adding the following new airworthiness through an appropriate FAA Principal AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, directive: Maintenance Inspector, who may add Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Comments comments and then send it to the may be inspected at this location Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly Manager, Wichita ACO. Beech): Docket 99–NM–372–AD. between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Note 3: Information concerning the Applicability: Model 400A series airplanes, Monday through Friday, except Federal existence of approved alternative methods of holidays. having serial numbers RK–01 through RK– compliance with this AD, if any, may be 188 inclusive; Model 400T (T–1A) series obtained from the Wichita ACO. The service information referenced in airplanes, having serial numbers TT–01 the proposed rule may be obtained from through TT–180 inclusive; and Model 400T Special Flight Permits Agusta, 21017 Cascina Costa di (TX) series airplanes, having serial numbers (d) Special flight permits may be issued in Samarate (VA), Via Giovanni Agusta TX–01 through TX–09 inclusive; certificated accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 520, telephone (0331) 229111, fax (0331) in any category. of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 229605–222595. This information may Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to be examined at the FAA, Office of the identified in the preceding applicability a location where the requirements of this AD Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, can be accomplished. provision, regardless of whether it has been 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort modified, altered, or repaired in the area Issued in Renton, Washington, on January Worth, Texas. subject to the requirements of this AD. For 5, 2000. airplanes that have been modified, altered, or Donald L. Riggin, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: repaired so that the performance of the Shep Blackman, Aerospace Engineer, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane requirements of this AD is affected, the Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft owner/operator must request approval for an Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd., [FR Doc. 00–599 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] alternative method of compliance in Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. BILLING CODE 4910±13±P (817) 222–5296, fax (817) 222–5961. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: repair on the unsafe condition addressed by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not Comments Invited been eliminated, the request should include Federal Aviation Administration Interested persons are invited to specific proposed actions to address it. participate in the making of the Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 14 CFR Part 39 accomplished previously. proposed rule by submitting such To prevent detachment or breakage of [Docket No. 99±SW±28±AD] written data, views, or arguments as wires in the temperature switch assemblies of they may desire. Communications the wing ice protection system, which could Airworthiness Directives; Agusta should identify the Rules Docket result in the flightcrew not being advised of Model A109C and A109K2 Helicopters number and be submitted in triplicate to an over-temperature situation on the leading AGENCY: Federal Aviation the address specified above. All edge of the wing, and consequent structural Administration, DOT. communications received on or before damage to the wing, accomplish the the closing date for comments, specified following: ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). above, will be considered before taking Replacement action on the proposed rule. The (a) At the next scheduled inspection, but SUMMARY: This document proposes the proposals contained in this notice may no later than 200 flight hours after the supersedure of an existing airworthiness be changed in light of the comments effective date of this AD, replace temperature directive (AD) applicable to Agusta received. Comments are specifically switch assemblies of the wing ice protection Model A109C and A109K2 helicopters. invited on the overall regulatory, system with new, improved temperature That AD currently requires removing economic, environmental, and energy switch assemblies, in accordance with the main rotor pitch control link aspects of the proposed rule. All Raytheon Service Bulletin 30–3008, Revision 1, dated August 1999. assemblies, measuring the radial play of comments submitted will be available, each upper and lower spherical rod-end both before and after the closing date for Note 2: Replacements accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance bearing (bearing), and replacing any comments, in the Rules Docket for with Raytheon Service Bulletin 30–3008, unairworthy bearing. This action would examination by interested persons. A dated March 1999, are considered acceptable require replacing the pitch control link report summarizing each FAA-public for compliance with the applicable action assembly with an assembly that has contact concerned with the substance of specified in this AD. increased durability and wear this proposal will be filed in the Rules Spares resistance. This proposal is prompted by Docket. reports of increased helicopter vibration Commenters wishing the FAA to (b) As of the effective date of this AD, no caused by wear of bearings on certain acknowledge receipt of their comments person shall install, on any airplane, a temperature switch assembly having a part pitch control link assemblies. The submitted in response to this notice number listed in the ‘‘Old Part Number’’ actions specified by the proposed AD must submit a self-addressed, stamped column of the table in 2.D. of Raytheon are intended to eliminate the need for postcard on which the following Service Bulletin 30–3008, Revision 1, dated recurring bearing inspections and to statement is made: ‘‘Comments to August 1999. prevent failure of a bearing, increased Docket No. 99–SW–28–AD.’’ The

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.003 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1839 postcard will be date stamped and total cost impact of the proposed AD on altered, or repaired so that the performance returned to the commenter. U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,860. of the requirements of this AD is affected, the The regulations proposed herein owner/operator must request approval for an Availability of NPRMs would not have a substantial direct alternative method of compliance in Any person may obtain a copy of this effect on the States, on the relationship accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. NPRM by submitting a request to the between the national government and The request should include an assessment of FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, the States, or on the distribution of the effect of the modification, alteration, or Southwest Region, Attention: Rules power and responsibilities among the repair on the unsafe condition addressed by Docket No. 99–SW–28–AD, 2601 various levels of government. Therefore, this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, it is determined that this proposal been eliminated, the request should include Texas 76137. would not have federalism implications specific proposed actions to address it. Compliance: Required before further flight, Discussion under Executive Order 13132. For the reasons discussed above, I unless accomplished previously. On January 8, 1999, the FAA issued certify that this proposed regulation (1) To prevent failure of a main rotor pitch AD 99–02–09, Amendment 39–11000 is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ control link rod-end spherical bearing, (64 FR 2559, January 15, 1999), to under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not increased vibration level, and subsequent require removing the main rotor pitch a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT reduced controllability of the helicopter, control link assemblies, measuring the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 accomplish the following: radial play of the bearings, and FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if (a) Rework each main rotor pitch control replacing any unairworthy bearings. promulgated, will not have a significant link assembly, P/N 109–0110–71–103 or That action was prompted by four economic impact, positive or negative, –105, and reidentify as pitch control link reports of increased helicopter vibration on a substantial number of small entities assembly, P/N 109–0110–71–107, in due to wear in the bearings of the pitch accordance with the Compliance Instructions under the criteria of the Regulatory control link assembly. The requirements of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico 109K–10 or Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft of that AD are intended to prevent 109–103, both dated November 22, 1995, as regulatory evaluation prepared for this increased helicopter vibration due to applicable. action is contained in the Rules Docket. unairworthy bearings resulting in (b) An alternative method of compliance or A copy of it may be obtained by subsequent reduced controllability of adjustment of the compliance time that contacting the Rules Docket at the the helicopter. provides an acceptable level of safety may be location provided under the caption Since the issuance of that AD, the used if approved by the Manager, Regulations ADDRESSES. FAA has received additional reports of Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. unairworthy bearings and notification of List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, the introduction of an upgraded pitch Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation who may concur or comment and then send control link assembly. The Registro safety, Safety. Aeronautico Italiano (RAI) issued AD’s it to the Manager, Regulations Group. 95–332, dated December 15, 1995, and The Proposed Amendment Note 2: Information concerning the 95–334, dated December 18, 1995. Accordingly, pursuant to the existence of approved alternative methods of Agusta S.p.A. issued Bollettino Tecnico authority delegated to me by the compliance with this AD, if any, may be Nos. 109K–10 and 109–103, both dated Administrator, the Federal Aviation obtained from the Regulations Group. November 22, 1995 (BT). The BT’s Administration proposes to amend part (c) Special flight permits may be issued in specify replacing each pitch control link 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 rod end assembly, part number (P/N) (14 CFR part 39) as follows: of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 109–0110–71–103 and –105, on Agusta 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter Model A109K2 helicopters through PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS to a location where the requirements of this serial number (S/N) 10023 (S/N 10014 DIRECTIVES AD can be accomplished. excluded), and on Model A109C Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed through S/N 7677, (S/N’s 7633, 7654, 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: in Registro Aeronautico Italiano (Italy) AD’s and 7667 excluded) by reworking and 95–332, dated December 15, 1995, and 95– reidentifying as pitch control link Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 334, dated December 18, 1995. assembly, P/N 109–0110–71–107. § 39.13 [Amended] Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 5, Since an unsafe condition has been 2000. identified that is likely to exist or 2. Section 39.13 is amended by develop on other Agusta Model A109C removing Amendment 39–11000 (64 FR Henry A. Armstrong, and A109K2 helicopters of the same 2559, January 15, 1999, and by adding Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, type designs, the proposed AD would a new airworthiness directive (AD), to Aircraft Certification Service. supersede AD 99–SW–28–AD to require read as follows: [FR Doc. 00–598 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] replacing the main rotor pitch link Agusta S.p.A.: Docket 99–SW–28–AD. BILLING CODE 4910±13±P assemblies with assemblies that have Supersedes AD 99–02–09, Amendment increased durability and wear 39–11000, Docket 97–SW–55–AD. resistance. Applicability: Model A109C and A109K2 The FAA estimates that 3 helicopters helicopters, with main rotor pitch control of U.S. registry would be affected by this link assemblies, part number (P/N) 109– 0110–71–103 or –105, installed, certificated proposed AD, that it would take in any category. approximately 7 work hours per Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter helicopter to accomplish the proposed identified in the preceding applicability actions, and that the average labor rate provision, regardless of whether it has been is $60 per work hour. Required parts otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in would cost approximately $2,200 per the area subject to the requirements of this helicopter. Based on these figures, the AD. For helicopters that have been modified,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.004 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1840 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION at the FAA, New England Region, Office turboprop engines. The CAA advises of the Regional Counsel, 12 New that there has been an incident where Federal Aviation Administration England Executive Park, Burlington, the RGB annulus gear failed, which MA. resulted in the malfunctioning of an 14 CFR Part 39 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: engine in service. Manual feathering of [Docket No. 99±NE±50±AD] Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine the propeller was initiated, but the Certification Office, FAA, Engine and propeller failed to feather. The propeller RIN 2120±AA64 Propeller Directorate, 12 New England disconnected from the gearbox and Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803– oversped to the point where it Ltd. Dart 511, 511±7E, 514±7, 528, 528± 5299; telephone 781–238–7747, fax separated. This caused extensive 7E, 529±7E, 532±7, 532±7L, 532±7N, 781–238–7199. damage to the adjacent engine and to 532±7P, 532±7R, 535±7R, 551±7R, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the airplane fuselage. 552±7R Turboprop Engines Comments Invited Service Information AGENCY: Federal Aviation Interested persons are invited to R–R has issued service bulletin (SB) Administration, DOT. participate in the making of the Da72–348, Revision 13, dated December ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking proposed rule by submitting such 22, 1998, that specifies modification (NPRM). written data, views, or arguments, as instructions for: they may desire. Communications • Installation of a probe to trigger a SUMMARY: This document proposes the should identify the Rules Docket low-torque switch, which will adoption of a new airworthiness number and be submitted in triplicate to automatically feather the propeller in directive (AD) that is applicable to the address specified above. All the event of a failure of the annulus Rolls-Royce Ltd. (R–R) Dart 511, 511– communications received on or before gear. 7E, 514–7, 528, 528–7E, 529–7E, 532–7, the closing date for comments, specified • Installation of a steel retaining ring 532–7L, 532–7N, 532–7P, 532–7R, 535– above, will be considered before acting between the nose casing and the front 7R, 551–7R, and 552–7R turboprop on the proposed rule. The proposals bearing panel to maintain engagement engines. This proposal would require contained in this notice may be changed between the annulus gear teeth and the installation of a feathering probe and in light of the comments received. layshafts following a gear failure. a steel retaining ring in the reduction Comments are specifically invited on • Replacement of a transfer bobbin the overall regulatory, economic, gear housing (RGH), and replacement of with a new design that allows a more environmental, and energy aspects of a transfer bobbin installed in the rapid torquemeter oil pressure drop in the proposed rule. All comments torquemeter. This proposal is prompted order to initiate the auto feather submitted will be available, both before by two reports of the failure of a function. propeller to feather following the failure and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by The CAA classified this service of the RGH annulus gear, which resulted bulletin as mandatory and issued AD in the propeller overspeeding and the interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact 1935 in order to assure the release of a propeller blade, causing airworthiness of these R–R Dart 511, damage to the airplane. The actions concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules 511–7E, 514–7, 528, 528–7E, 529–7E, specified by the proposed AD are 532–7, 532–7L, 532–7N, 532–7P, 532– intended to prevent a propeller from Docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to 7R, 535–7R, and 551–7R, 552–7R overspeeding and the release of a turboprop engines in the U.K. propeller blade after a failure of the acknowledge receipt of their comments RGH annulus gear, which could result submitted in response to this notice Difference Between Service Bulletin in damage to an adjacent engine or to must submit a self-addressed, stamped Information and This AD the airplane. postcard on which the following statement is made: ‘‘Comments to R–R SB Da72–348, Revision 13, dated DATES: Comments must be received by December 22, 1998, requires that the March 13, 2000. Docket Number 99–NE–50–AD.’’ The postcard will be date stamped and probe and retaining ring be installed ADDRESSES: Submit comments in returned to the commenter. before December 31, 2000. The FAA has triplicate to the Federal Aviation determined that the probe and ring Administration (FAA), New England Availability of NPRM’s should be installed at the next engine Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Any person may obtain a copy of this shop visit or by December 31, 2000, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NE–50– NPRM by submitting a request to the whichever occurs first. AD, 12 New England Executive Park, FAA, New England Region, Office of the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules may also be submitted to the Rules Docket No. 99–NE–50–AD, 12 New This engine model is manufactured in Docket by using the following Internet England Executive Park, Burlington, MA the U.K. and is type certificated for address: ‘‘[email protected].’’ 01803–5299. operation in the United States under the Comments may be inspected at this provisions of Section 21.29 of the location between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Discussion Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Monday through Friday, except Federal The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 21.29) and the applicable bilateral holidays. which is the airworthiness authority for airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to The service information referenced in the United Kingdom (UK), recently this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the proposed rule may be obtained from notified the Federal Aviation the CAA has kept the FAA informed of Rolls-Royce Limited, Attn: Dart Engine Administration (FAA) that an unsafe the situation described above. The FAA Service Manager, East Kilbride, Glasgow condition may exist on R–R Dart 511, has examined the findings of the CAA, G74 4PY, Scotland; telephone: 011–44– 511–7E, 514–7, 528, 528–7E, 529–7E, reviewed all available information, and 1355–220–200, fax: 011–44–1141–778– 532–7, 532–7L, 532–7N, 532–7P, 532– determined that AD action is necessary 432. This information may be examined 7R, 535–7R, 551–7R, and 552–7R for products of this type design that are

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.024 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1841 certificated for operation in the United contacting the Rules Docket at the (2) Install a steel retaining ring between the States. location provided under the caption nose casing and the front bearing panel in ‘‘ADDRESSES.’’ accordance with paragraph 2.C. of SB Da72– Requirements of This AD 348, revision 13, dated April 13, 1999. Since an unsafe condition has been List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (3) Replace the existing transfer bobbin identified that is likely to exist or Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation with an aluminum bobbin in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of SB Da72–348, revision develop on other R–R Dart 511, 511–7E, safety, Safety. 13, dated April 13, 1999. 514–7, 528, 528–7E, 529–7E, 532–7, The Proposed Amendment 532–7L, 532–7N, 532–7P, 532–7R, 535– Definition of a Shop Visit 7R, 551–7R, and 552–7R turboprop Accordingly, pursuant to the (b) For the purposes of this AD, a shop visit engines of the same type design authority delegated to me by the is defined as any maintenance action that registered in the United States, the Administrator, the Federal Aviation results in the removal or disassembly of the proposed AD would require: Administration proposes to amend part reduction gearbox. • Installation of a feathering probe. 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations Alternative Method of Compliance • Installation of a steel retaining ring (14 CFR part 39) as follows: (c) An alternative method of compliance or in the reduction gear housing. • adjustment of the compliance time that Replacement of a torquemeter oil PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS provides an acceptable level of safety may be pressure transfer bobbin. DIRECTIVES used if approved by the Manager, Engine The actions would be required to be 1. The authority citation for part 39 Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall accomplished at the next shop visit after continues to read as follows: submit their request through an appropriate the effective date of the proposed AD, or FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who by December 31, 2000, whichever Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. may add comments and then send it to the Manager, ECO. occurs first, in accordance with the § 39.13 [Amended] service bulletin described previously. Note 2: Information concerning the 2. Section 39.13 is amended by existence of approved alternative methods of Cost Impact adding the following new airworthiness compliance with this airworthiness directive, directive: if any, may be obtained from the ECO. There are approximately 1500 engines of the affected design in the worldwide Rolls Royce Ltd.: Docket No. 99–NE–50–AD. (d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 fleet. The FAA estimates that 100 Applicability: Rolls-Royce Ltd. (R–R) Dart 511, 511–7E, 514–7, 528, 528–7E, 529–7E, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR engines installed on aircraft of U.S. 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to registry would be affected by this 532–7, 532–7L, 532–7N, 532–7P, 532–7R, 535–7R, 551–7R, and 552–7R turboprop a location where the requirements of this AD proposed AD, that it would take engines, installed on but not limited to can be accomplished. approximately 2 work hours per engine Fokker Aircraft B.V. F27 series and Maryland Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on to accomplish the proposed actions and Air Industries (formerly Fairchild) F–27 and January 5, 2000. that the average labor rate is $60 per FH–227 series airplanes. Thomas A. Boudreau, work hour. Required parts would cost Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller approximately $300 per engine. Based applies to each engine identified in the Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service on these figures, the total cost impact of preceding applicability provision, regardless [FR Doc. 00–722 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] of whether it has been modified, altered, or the proposed AD on U.S. operators is BILLING CODE 4910±13±P estimated to be $42,000. repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that Regulatory Impact have been modified, altered, or repaired so This proposed rule does not have that the performance of the requirements of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION federalism implications, as defined in this AD is affected, the owner/operator must AGENCY request approval for an alternative method of Executive Order 13132, because it compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 would not have a substantial direct of this AD. The request should include an effect on the States, on the relationship assessment of the effect of the modification, [MO 091±1091a; FRL±6519±8] between the national government and alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition the States, or on the distribution of addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe Approval and Promulgation of power and responsibilities among the condition has not been eliminated, the Implementation Plans and Part 70 various levels of government. request should include specific proposed Operating Permits Program; State of Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted actions to address it. Missouri Compliance: Required as indicated, unless with state authorities prior to AGENCY: Environmental Protection accomplished previously. publication of this proposed rule. Agency (EPA). For the reasons discussed above, I To prevent a propeller from overspeeding ACTION: Proposed rule. certify that this proposed regulation (1) resulting in propeller release after a failure of the annulus gear, which could result in is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ damage to an adjacent engine or to the SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not airplane, accomplish the following: State Implementation Plan (SIP) a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT revision submitted by the state of Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Installation of a Sensor Probe and Retaining Missouri. This revision updates the Ring FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if state’s definitions rule, 10 CSR 10– promulgated, will not have a significant (a) At the next shop visit after the effective 6.020, Definitions and Common economic impact, positive or negative, date of this AD, or by December 31, 2000, Reference Tables. EPA is also approving on a substantial number of small entities whichever occurs first, do all of the following: the definitions rule under the part 70 under the criteria of the Regulatory (1) Install a feathering probe in the front program. Approval of this revision will Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft bearing panel of the reduction gearbox in make it Federally enforceable. regulatory evaluation prepared for this accordance with paragraph 2.A. of service In the final rules section of the action is contained in the Rules Docket. bulletin (SB) Da72–348, revision 13, dated Federal Register, EPA is approving the A copy of it may be obtained by April 13, 1999. state’s SIP revision as a direct final rule

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.025 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1842 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules without prior proposal because the in suitable facilities. EPA is issuing an Region VII, ARTD/SWPP, 901 N. 5th Agency views this as a noncontroversial adequacy determination to the state Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, revision amendment and anticipates no programs for Kansas, Missouri, and phone (913) 551–7632, or by e-mail at relevant adverse comments. A detailed Nebraska. [email protected]. rationale for the approval is set forth in Elsewhere in the final rule section of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The the direct final rule. If no relevant today’s Federal Register, EPA is issuing official record for this action will be adverse comments are received in a direct final rule that sets forth the kept in paper form. Therefore, EPA will response to this action, no further Agency’s determination of program transfer all comments received activity is contemplated in relation to adequacy. EPA views this as a electronically into paper form and place this rule. If EPA receives relevant noncontroversial action that declares them in the official record, which will adverse comments, the direct final rule that specific state programs for disposal also include all comments submitted will be withdrawn and all public of CESQG waste meet all of the statutory directly in writing. The official record is comments received will be addressed in and regulatory needs set up under the the paper record kept at the address in a subsequent final rule based on this Resource Conservation and Recovery ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a Act (RCRA). Thus, we expect no adverse document. second comment period on this comments. A detailed rationale for this EPA responses to comments, whether document. Any parties interested in decision is in the preamble to the final the comments are written or electronic, commenting on this action should do so rule of program adequacy. If no relevant will be in a document in the Federal at this time. adverse comments are received in Register or in a response to comments DATES: Comments on this action must be response to this action, no further document placed in the official record received in writing by February 11, Agency action is needed. If EPA for this rulemaking. EPA will not 2000. receives relevant adverse comments, immediately reply to commenters ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to EPA will withdraw the direct final rule electronically other than to seek Wayne Kaiser, Environmental and discuss the comments in a later clarification of electronic comments that Protection Agency, Air Planning and final rule. This is your only chance to may be garbled in transmission or Development Branch, 901 North 5th comment. If EPA receives relevant during conversion to paper form, as Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. adverse comment concerning the discussed above. adequacy of only certain state programs, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603. the Agency’s withdrawal of the direct final rule will only apply to those state SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As set out in detail in the related See the programs. Comments on the inclusion information provided in the direct final direct final rule, EPA has decided that or exclusion of one state permit program specific state permit programs for rule which is located in the rules will not affect the timing of the decision section of the Federal Register. facilities receiving CESQG waste meet on the other state permit programs. the needs for program approval under Dated: December 7, 1999. DATES: Comments must be submitted on RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C). Today’s William Rice, or before February 11, 2000. document applies to the state programs Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII. ADDRESSES: Send or hand deliver an for Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. [FR Doc. 00–356 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] original and one copy of your comments Programs developed by these states for BILLING CODE 6560±50±U referencing docket number R7/ARTD/ permitting either hazardous waste SWPP–00–01 to: Region VII Information facilities or MSWLF have been reviewed Resource Center, U.S. Environmental and approved or authorized by the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Protection Agency, 901 N. 5th Street, Agency. The regulatory programs are AGENCY Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments more comprehensive and/or more may also be submitted electronically stringent than the federal revised 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 through the Internet to: r7- criteria for facilities receiving CESQG [FRL±6521±3] [email protected]. Comments in hazardous waste. The Agency has found electronic format should also be that the above states have already Adequacy of State Permit Programs identified by the docket number listed submitted the documentation that Under RCRA Subtitle D above. All electronic comments must be would have been needed for the AGENCY: Environmental Protection submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the determination of permit program Agency (EPA). use of special characters and any form adequacy under RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C). Further, the Agency has ACTION: Proposed rule. of encryption. You can view and copy documents found that the technical review SUMMARY: EPA is proposing this action pertaining to this regulatory docket in conducted for either approval or to streamline the approval process for the Region VII Information Resource authorization can substitute for the specific state permit programs for solid Center (Library), located on the Plaza technical review of the standards for the waste disposal facilities other than Level at the address noted above. The federal revised criteria. Library is open to the public from 9 a.m. municipal solid waste landfills Additional Information (MSWLF) that receive conditionally to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, exempt small quantity generator excluding federal holidays. For more information, see the (CESQG) hazardous waste. States whose FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For corresponding direct final rule Subtitle D MSWLF permit programs or general information, call (913) 551–7241 published elsewhere in the rule section Subtitle C hazardous waste management or TTY (913) 321–9516. For information of this Federal Register. If you wish to programs have been reviewed and on accessing paper and electronic comment, you should review the more approved or authorized by the Agency copies of documents or supporting detailed discussion in that section of are eligible for this streamlined approval materials relating to the proposed rule, today’s Federal Register. process if their state programs require or for information on specific aspects of Authority: This document is issued under the disposal of CESQG hazardous waste this rule, contact Wes Bartley, U.S. EPA the authority of sections 2002 and 4005 of the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:01 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1843

Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 Federal Communications Commission. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS U.S.C. 6912 and 6945. John A. Karousos, COMMISSION Dated: December 29, 1999. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Dennis Grams, Division, Mass Media Bureau. 47 CFR Part 73 [FR Doc. 00–656 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Regional Administrator, Region VII. [FR Doc. 00–615 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712±01±U [DA 99±2653; MM Docket No. 97±203, RM± 9132] BILLING CODE 6560±50±U FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS FM Broadcasting Services; Wallace, ID, COMMISSION and Lolo, MT

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 47 CFR Part 73 AGENCY: Federal Communications COMMISSION [DA 99±2688; MM Docket No. 99±157; RM± Commission. 9614] 47 CFR Part 73 ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. Radio Broadcasting Services; [DA 99±2841; MM Docket No. 98±158; RM± Warrenton, OR SUMMARY: In MM Docket No. 97–203, 9342] the Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy AGENCY: Federal Communications and Rules Division, denied the petition Radio Broadcasting Services; Grants Commission. for rulemaking filed by Hawkeye and Peralta, NM ACTION: Proposal rule; withdrawal. Properties, Inc., seeking the amendment of the FM Table of Allotments by SUMMARY: The Commission denies the AGENCY: changing the community of license of Federal Communications request of Mountain West Broadcasters Commission. Station KQWK(FM), Channel 248C2, to allot Channel 259A to Warrenton, OR, from Wallace, Idaho to Lolo, Montana, ACTION: Proposed Rule; withdrawal. as its first local aural service, as the and modifying its license to specify Lolo proposed reference coordinates for the as its new community of license and to allotment are in the Columbia River. See SUMMARY: The Commission denies the operate on downgraded Channel 248C3. 64 FR 28133, May 25, 1999. There is no request of Educational Media Hawkeye’s proposal was set forth in transmitter site on land which would Foundation to substitute Channel 288C1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62 FR allow compliance with the for Channel 288C at Grants, NM, reallot 50,549, published September 26, 1997, Commission’s minimum distance Channel 288C1 to Peralta, NM, as its requesting public comment. With this separation and city-grade coverage action, the proceeding is terminated. first local aural service, and modify requirements. Station KQLV’s construction permit to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. specify Peralta as its community of Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media license. See 63 FR 49683. The (202) 418–2180. Bureau, (202) 418–2180. Commission found that Peralta does not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: have sufficient indicia to qualify as a This is a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s Report community for allotment purposes. summary of the Report and Order, MM and Order, MM Docket No. 99–157, Docket 97–203, adopted November 24, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: adopted November 24, 1999, and 1999, and released November 30, 1999. Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, released December 3, 1999. The full text The full text of this Commission (202) 418–2180. of this Commission decision is available decision is available for inspection and for inspection and copying during copying during normal business hours SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a normal business hours in the FCC synopsis of the Commission’s Report in the Commission’s Reference Center, Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC and Order, MM Docket No. 98–158, Street, SW, Washington, DC. The 20554. The complete text of this adopted December 8, 1999, and released complete text of this decision may also decision may be also purchased from December 17, 1999. The full text of this be purchased from the Commission’s the Commission’s copy contractor, Commission decision is available for copy contractor, International International Transcription Service, inspection and copying during normal Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857– 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC business hours in the FCC Reference 3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, 20036, (202) 857–3805. Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20036. Washington, DC. The complete text of List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 this decision may also be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, Radio broadcasting. Radio broadcasting. International Transcription Services, Federal Communications Commission. Federal Communications Commission. Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, John A. Karousos, John A. Karousos, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Division, Mass Media Bureau. Division, Mass Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 00–655 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 00–654 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Radio broadcasting. BILLING CODE 6712±01±P BILLING CODE 6712±01±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:01 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 12JAP1 1844 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION statement to coincide with the extended proposed rule and its own proposed comment period for the proposed joint statement of agency policy concerning Federal Railroad Administration FRA/FTA statement. its safety jurisdiction over railroad In response to a request from the operations, which discussed the extent 49 CFR Chapter II and Part 209 association representing the transit and exercise of FRA’s jurisdiction, [FRA Docket No. FRA±1999±5685, Notice industry for an extension of the provided guidance on which of FRA’s No. 5] comment period for FRA’s statement, safety rules are likely to apply in and to ensure that all interested parties particular operational situations, and RIN 2130±AB33 have a sufficient amount of time to fully summarized how the process of develop their comments, this document obtaining waivers of FRA’s safety Proposed Joint Statement of Agency announces an extension of the deadline Policy Concerning Shared Use of the regulations may work. The expectation for the submission of written comments of the two agencies was that General Railroad System by on both statements. Conventional Railroads and Light Rail commenters would then have the ability DATES: Written comments must be Transit Systems; Proposed Statement to study and analyze both statements received by February 14, 2000. of Agency Policy Concerning before January 14, 2000, the deadline for Comments received after that date will Jurisdiction Over the Safety of submission of written comments. be considered to the extent possible Railroad Operations In a letter dated December 10, 1999, without incurring additional expense or the American Public Transit Association delay. AGENCY: Federal Railroad (APTA) (writing on behalf of its 1,270 Administration (FRA), Federal Transit ADDRESSES: Procedures for written member organizations) requested that Administration (FTA), DOT. comments: Submit one copy to the FRA grant a 30-day extension to the ACTION: Extension of comment period. Department of Transportation Central comment period for FRA’s proposed Docket Management Facility located in statement. In making its request, APTA SUMMARY: room PL–401 at the Plaza level of the By notice of a proposed indicated that on January 11, 2000 it Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, policy statement (Notice No. 1) will be convening a ‘‘large, diverse published on May 25, 1999 (64 FR SW, Washington, DC 20590. All docket gathering of the transit industry to 28238), FRA and FTA proposed how material on the proposed statement will discuss the proposed policy statement,’’ they intend to coordinate use of their be available for inspection at this and noted that a comment period respective safety authority to address address and on the Internet at http: extension will provide it with the safety issues related to light rail transit dms.dot.gov. (Docket hours at the Nassif necessary time in which to complete the operations that take place, or are Building are Monday–Friday, 10 a.m. to comment process. planned to take place, on the general 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.) railroad system of transportation. The Persons desiring notification that their FRA does not wish to inhibit the proposal also summarized how the comments have been received should ability of any person to fully develop its process of obtaining waivers of FRA’s submit a stamped, self-addressed comments and seeks to provide safety regulations may work, postcard with their comments. The sufficient time for all interested persons particularly where the light rail and postcard will be returned to the to gather information. Consequently, conventional rail operations occur at addressee with a notation of the date on FRA believes it is in the best interest of different times of day. In that notice, the which the comments were received. all persons involved to extend the deadline for the submission of written FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: period for the submission of written comments was July 30, 1999. By notice Gregory B. McBride, Deputy Chief comments on its proposed rule and published on July 28, 1999 (64 FR Counsel, FTA, TCC–2, Room 9316, 400 policy statement until February 14, 40931), the deadline for the submission Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 2000. Although APTA did not request of written comments was extended until 20590 (telephone: (202) 366–4063); and an extension of the comment deadline October 29, 1999, and by notice Daniel C. Smith, Assistant Chief for the proposed joint FRA/FTA published on October 28, 1999 (64 FR Counsel for Safety, FRA, RCC–10, 1120 statement, the agencies are extending 58124), the deadline was extended once Vermont Avenue, NW, Mail Stop 10, the comment deadline for both again until January 14, 2000. Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) proposed statements until February 14, By notice of a proposed rule and 493–6029). 2000 to allow commenters to focus on policy statement published on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Notices No. 1 and 4 without the need to November 1, 1999 (64 FR 59046), FRA proposed joint policy statement issued file duplicative comments. FRA and described the extent of its statutory on May 25, 1999 by FRA and FTA, the FTA do not anticipate any further jurisdiction over railroad passenger agencies explained that the proposal is extension of the comment period in this operations and explained how it would intended to delineate the nature of the proceeding. The two agencies will exercise that jurisdiction. The proposal most important safety issues related to consider comments submitted after also explained FRA’s waiver process shared use of the general railroad February 14, 2000, only to the extent and discussed factors that should be system by convention and rail transit possible without causing additional addressed in any petition submitted by equipment and summarize the expense or delay. light rail operators and other railroads application of FRA safety rules to such Issued in Washington, DC, on January 6, seeking approval of shared use of the shared-use operations. The proposal 2000. general railroad system. In that notice, will help transit authorities, railroads, Jolene M. Molitoris, FRA established a deadline for the and other interested parties understand submission of written comments of how the respective safety programs of Federal Railroad Administrator. January 14, 2000, thereby permitting the the two agencies will be coordinated. [FR Doc. 00–678 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] comment period for FRA’s proposed On November 1, 1999, FRA issued a BILLING CODE 4910±06±M

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:01 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.XXX pfrm11 PsN: 12JAP1 Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1845

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Wildlife Service, pursuant to Jeffrey A. Humphrey, at the above section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Fish and Wildlife Service address, 602/640–2720. Pursuant to 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2), the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Service may extend or reopen a 50 CFR Part 17 comment period upon finding that there Background is good cause to do so. Full participation RIN 1018±AF76 We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, of the affected public in the species proposed designation of critical habitat listing process, allowing the Service to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act consider the best scientific and and Plants; Extension of Comment of 1973, as amended (Act), for the commercial data available in making a Period and Notice of Public Hearing on spikedace and the loach minnow in the final determination on the proposed Proposed Critical Habitat Federal Register (64 FR 69324) on action, is deemed as sufficient cause. Determination for the Spikedace and December 10, 1999. This proposal was Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act, as Loach Minnow made in response to a court order amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Southwest Center for Biological requires that a public hearing be held if AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Diversity v. Clark, CIV 98–0769 M/JHG, it is requested within 45 days of the Interior. directing us to complete designation of publication of a proposed rule. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of critical habitat for the spikedace and However, due to the expeditious comment period and notice of public loach minnow by February 17, 2000. treatment of these proposed critical hearing. The court has provided an extension of habitat determinations under Federal the deadline to April 21, 2000. District Court order as described in the SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife The spikedace, a small fish, was listed proposed rules, the Service arranged for Service (Service) gives notice that a as a threatened species under the Act on and conducted three public hearings in public hearing will be held and the July 1, 1986 (51 FR 23769); however, proximity to the areas proposed for comment period extended on the final designation of the proposed critical critical habitat designation. Granting of proposed determination of critical habitat was postponed until March 8, an extension by the District Court habitat for two threatened fishes, the 1994 (59 FR 10906). Similarly, the loach allows us to conduct an additional spikedace (Meda fulgida) and the loach minnow, another small fish, was listed public hearing on the date and at the minnow (Tiaroga = (Rhinichthys) as a threatened species under the Act on address described above. cobitis). The hearing and the extension October 28, 1986 (51 FR 39468) and Anyone wishing to make an oral of the comment period will allow all final designation of the proposed critical statement for the record is encouraged interested parties to submit oral or habitat was postponed until March 8, to provide a written copy of their written comments on the critical habitat 1994 (59 FR 10898). Critical habitat for statement and present it to the Service proposal and the draft Economic spikedace and loach minnow was set at the start of the hearing. In the event Analysis and draft Environmental aside by order of the Federal courts in there is a large attendance, the time Assessment for the proposal. Catron County Board of Commissioners, allotted for oral statements may have to New Mexico v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife DATES: The public hearing will be held be limited. Oral and written statements Service, CIV No. 93–730 HB (D.N.M., from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on January receive equal consideration. There are Order of October 13, 1994). The court 31, 2000, in Sierra Vista, Arizona. The no limits to the length of written cited our failure to analyze the effects of comment period for this proposal will comments presented at the hearings or critical habitat designation under the be extended from January 14, 2000, to mailed to the Service. Legal notices National Environmental Policy Act February 14, 2000. Comments on the announcing the date, time, and location (NEPA) as its basis for setting aside proposal, draft Economic Analysis, and of the hearings will be published in critical habitat for the two species. As a draft Environmental Assessment must newspapers concurrently with the result, we removed critical habitat for be received by the closing date. Any Federal Register notice. spikedace and loach minnow on March comments that are received after the The current comment period on this 25, 1998 (63 FR 14378). proposal closes on January 14, 2000. In closing date may not be considered in We have proposed approximately the final decision on the proposal. order to accommodate this public 1,443 kilometers (km) (894 miles (mi)) hearing, the Service extends the public ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be of rivers and creeks for the two species. comment period. Written comments held at Buena Performing Arts Center The entire designation is proposed as may now be submitted until February (Buena High School), 5225 Buena critical habitat for the loach minnow 13, 2000, to the Service office in the School Boulevard, Sierra Vista, Arizona. and approximately 1325 km (822 mi) of ADDRESSES section. Written comments should be sent to the those miles are proposed as critical Author: The primary author of this State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife habitat for the spikedace in portions of notice is Jeffrey A. Humphrey (see Service, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, the Gila, San Francisco, Blue, Black, ADDRESSES). Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021. Verde, and San Pedro rivers and some Copies of the proposal, draft Economic of their tributaries in Apache, Cochise, Authority: The authority for this action is Analysis, and draft Environmental Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544). Assessment are available from the State and Yavapai counties in Arizona, and Supervisor or on the Internet at http:// Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo counties in Dated: January 5, 2000. ifw2es.fws.gov/Arizona. Comments and New Mexico. Ren Lohoefener, materials received will be available for If this proposed rule is finalized, Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and public inspection, by appointment, Federal actions that may affect the areas Wildlife Service. during normal business hours at the designated as critical habitat will be [FR Doc. 00–685 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] above Service address. subject to consultation with the Fish BILLING CODE 4310±55±U

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 09:23 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A12JA2.030 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAP1 1846

Notices Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8

Wednesday, January 12, 2000

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER participating in this program should marketing channels and methods contains documents other than rules or contact their State Department of consistent with maintaining or proposed rules that are applicable to the Agriculture’s Marketing Division to improving the environment, with public. Notices of hearings and investigations, discuss their proposal. emphasis on projects aimed at committee meetings, agency decisions and Mutually acceptable proposals are expanding consumers’ choices with rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency submitted by the State Agency and must regard to the environmental impact of statements of organization and functions are be accompanied by a completed alternative production and marketing examples of documents appearing in this Standard Form (SF)–424 with SF–424A technologies. section. and SF–424B attached. FSMIP funds Copies of the FSMIP guidelines may may not be used for advertising or, with be obtained by contacting the person limited exceptions, for the purchase of listed as the contact for further DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE equipment or facilities. Guidelines may information. FSMIP is listed in the be obtained from your State Department ‘‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Agricultural Marketing Service of Agriculture or the above AMS Assistance’’ under number 10.156 and [TM±00±200] contact. subject agencies must adhere to Title VI Funds can be requested for a wide of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Notice of Program Continuation range of marketing research and bars discrimination in all Federally marketing service activities, including assisted programs. AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, projects aimed at: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. USDA. (1) Developing and testing new or Dated: January 6, 2000. ACTION: Notice Inviting Applications for more efficient methods of processing, Eileen S. Stommes, fiscal year (FY) 2000 Grant Funds Under packaging, handling, storing, the Federal-State Marketing Deputy Administrator, transporting, and distributing food and Transportation and Marketing. Improvement Program. other agricultural products; [FR Doc. 00–714 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] (2) Assessing customer response to SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that BILLING CODE 3410±02±P the Federal-State Marketing new or alternative agricultural products Improvement Program (FSMIP) was or marketing services and evaluating allocated $1,200,000 in the Federal potential opportunities for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE budget for FY 2000. Funds remain producers, processors and other available for this program. States agribusinesses, in both domestic and Forest Service interested in obtaining funds under the international markets; and, Interim Flat Fee Policy for Outfitting program are invited to submit proposals. (3) Identifying problems and impediments in existing channels of and Guiding Activities; Alaska National While only State Departments of Forests Agriculture or other appropriate State trade between producers and consumers of agricultural products and devising Agencies are eligible to apply for funds, AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. improved marketing practices, facilities, State Agencies are encouraged to ACTION: Notice of availability. involve industry organizations in the or systems to address such problems. development of proposals and the While all proposals which fall within SUMMARY: The Regional Forester, Alaska conduct of projects. the FSMIP guidelines will be Region, has adopted an interim flat fee considered, States are encouraged to DATES: policy for all outfitting and guiding Applications will be accepted submit proposals in the following areas, through May 1, 2000. activities on National Forest Systems which correspond with ongoing, (NFS) lands in the Alaska Region. ADDRESSES: Proposals may be sent to: National initiatives in support of: Developed in response to an order from FSMIP Staff, Transportation and (1) Small farms—to increase the base the Federal District Court in Alaska Marketing, Agricultural Marketing of marketing research and marketing arising from a lawsuit filed by The Service (AMS), U.S. Department of services of particular importance to Tongass Conservancy, the interim flat Agriculture, Room 4006 South Building, small-scale, limited-resource farmers fee policy is designed to charge fees that P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090– and rural agribusinesses, with emphasis are fair and equitable to the Federal 6456. on projects aimed at identifying and government and the Alaska outfitter and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. improving producers’ abilities to guide industry. Larry V. Summers, (202) 720–2704. participate in alternative domestic and On July 21, 1999, the Forest Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSMIP is export markets; requested comments on a proposed authorized under Section 204(b) of the (2) Direct marketing—to identify and interim flat fee policy for all outfitting Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 evaluate opportunities for producers to and guiding activities on NFS lands in U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). The program is a respond directly to new or expanding the Alaska Region. Notification of the matching fund program designed to consumer demands for products and policy was published in the Federal assist State Departments of Agriculture value-adding services, with emphasis on Register, in the local newspapers, or other appropriate State agencies in projects which concurrently address the distributed to interested parties, and conducting studies or developing needs of presently under served posted on the worldwide web. innovative approaches related to the consumers; and Consideration was given to all responses marketing of agricultural products. (3) Sustainable agriculture—to in formulation of the final interim Other organizations interested in encourage the development of policy. The interim policy is issued as

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 17:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1847 a regional supplement to Section 37.2 of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE is located about 50 feet from the plant the Forest Service Special Uses site. Handbook, FSH 2709.11. Rural Utilities Service Environmental Audits and Copies of the interim flat fee schedule Consultants, Inc., of Vandalia, Illinois, Freedom Power Station Plant: Notice prepared an environmental report on and policy are being sent to all holders of Availability of an Environmental behalf of the SWEC and submitted it to of Forest Service outfitting and guiding Assessment RUS for its evaluation. The permits in Alaska and other potentially AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. environmental report describes the interested parties. In addition, notice of project and assesses its potential the proposal is being published in local ACTION: Notice of availability of an environmental assessment. environmental impacts. RUS has newspapers of record, and the policy conducted an independent evaluation of and fee schedule are being posted on the SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the environmental report and believes worldwide web. The purpose of this the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is that it accurately assesses the impacts of notice is to advise others who may have issuing an environmental assessment the proposed project. This an interest in the interim fee policy. (EA) for its Federal action related to a environmental report will serve as RUS’ DATES: Effective February 14, 2000. project proposed by Southwestern EA of the project. No significant impacts Except for outfitters and guides using Electric Cooperative, Inc., (SWEC) of are expected as a result of the the Begich, Boggs Visitor Center, who Greenville, Illinois. The project consists construction of the project. of constructing a natural gas-fired The EA can be reviewed at the will continue to operate under the simple cycle, combustion turbine power headquarters of SWEC and the RUS, at mandatory flat fee schedule that was generation facility near Wright’s Corner the addresses provided above in this implemented in 1996, and outfitters and in Fayette County, Illinois. RUS may notice. guides who are paying fees that have provide financing assistance to SWEC Questions and comments should be been determined through a competitive for the project. sent to RUS at the address provided in process, permit holders will have the FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nurul this notice. RUS will accept questions choice of using the interim flat fee Islam, Environmental Protection and comments on the EA for at least 30 schedule or one of the current fee Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, days from the date of publication of this calculations methods for the 1999 and Engineering and Environmental Staff, notice. 2000 permit periods through December Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Avenue, Any final action by RUS related to the 31, 2000. Permit holders must notify SW, Washington, DC 20250–1571, proposed project will be subject to, and their permit administrators of their telephone: (202) 720–1414. His e-mail contingent upon, compliance with all choice of fee calculation methods for the address is [email protected]. relevant Federal environmental laws 1999 operating season by March 15, Information is also available from Mr. and regulations and completion of 2000. For the year 2000 operating Joe Richardson, Business Development environmental review procedures as season, eligible permit holders must and Marketing Manager, SWEC, 525 US prescribed by the 7 CFR Part 1794, select the preferred method of fee Route 40, Greenville, IL 62246, Environmental Policies and Procedures. calculation prior to the year 2000 telephone (618) 664–1025. Questions Dated: January 6, 2000. operating season. Beginning January 1, and comments should be sent to RUS at Lawrence R. Wolfe, 2001, permit fees for all outfitting and the address provided. RUS should Acting Director, Engineering and guiding in Alaska’s national forests will receive comments on the EA in writing Environmental Staff. be determined using flat fees except for within 30 days of the publication of this [FR Doc. 00–715 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] notice to insure that RUS prior to those permits which have had their fees BILLING CODE 3410±15±P established by a competitive process. making its environmental impact determination considers them. ADDRESSES: For copies of the proposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SWEC DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE interim flat fee policy, write to the proposes to construct the Freedom Regional Forester, Attention: Public Power Generation Plant near Wright’s International Trade Administration Services, Alaska Region, P.O. Box Corner in Fayette County, Illinois. The 21628, Juneau, AK 99802–1628 or primary purpose of the facility is to [A±485±803] access the document online at http:// meet SWEC peak electrical load. The Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel www.fs.fed.us/r10/what’slhot/hot.htm. generation unit consists of a turbine Plate From Romania: Final Results of similar to those found in commercial FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Antidumping Duty Administrative airline engines. Natural gas will be used local Forest Service Ranger District, Review as generating fuel for the plant. The unit Supervisor’s Office, or Arn Albrecht, will have a peak capacity of 45 MW. AGENCY: Import Administration, (907) 586–7886, or Don fisher, (907) The facility will be located on a 1.5-acre International Trade Administration, 586–7861, in the Alaska Regional Office. tract of land on the east side of County Department of Commerce. Dated: January 5, 2000. Highway 4 approximately six miles ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Rick D. Cables, north of the city of St. Elmo, Illinois. Antidumping Duty Administrative Regional Forester. The power generated from the facility Review. will be distributed through an existing [FR Doc. 00–679 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] transmission line owned and operated SUMMARY: On September 7, 1999 the BILLING CODE 3410±11±M jointly by SWEC and Ameren. No Department of Commerce (the additional construction of the Department) published the preliminary transmission facility will be required. results of review of the antidumping Kansas-Nebraska Energy will provide duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel natural gas fuel for the facility. The plate from Romania. This review covers Kansas-Nebraska Energy’s gas pipeline one manufacture/exporter of the subject

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.058 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1848 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices merchandise to the United States and to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from unaffiliated producer C.S. Sidex S.A. the period August 1, 1997 through July Romania; Extension of Time Limits for (Sidex). 31, 1998. We gave interested parties an Preliminary Results of Antidumping Use of Facts Available opportunity to comment on our Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR preliminary results. Based on our 14689. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that analysis of the comments received, we On September 7, 1999 the Department if necessary information is not available have changed the results from those published in the Federal Register the on the record, the Department shall use, presented in the preliminary results of preliminary results of review of the subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the review. antidumping duty order on cut-to-length facts otherwise available in reaching the EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2000. carbon steel place from Romania (64 FR applicable determination. In this 48581). The Department has now review, information is not on the record FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred completed this administrative review in to enable the Department to make an Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD accordance with section 751 of the Act. adjustment to U.S. price for a Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import miscellaneous fund account using the Administration, International Trade Scope of the Review surrogate value method the Department Administration, U.S. Department of The products covered in this review uses in calculating margins for Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution include hot-rolled carbon steel universal shipments from non-market economy Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products (NME) countries. Therefore, as a non- telephone (202) 482–2924 (Baker), (202) rolled on four faces or in a closed box adverse facts available, we have made 482–5222 (James). pass, of a width exceeding 150 this adjustment using the exact amount SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 Windmill recorded in its books. Applicable Statute millimeters and of a thickness of not Windmill records this amount in a less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and market-economy currency. For more Unless otherwise indicated, all without patterns in relief), of information, see comment 3 (below). citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as rectangular shape, neither clad, plated amended (the Act) are references to the nor coated with metal, whether or not Analysis of Comments Received provisions effective January 1, 1995, the painted varnished, or coated with We gave interested parties an effective date of the amendments made plastics or other nonmetallic substances; opportunity to comment on the to the Act by the Uruguay Round and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat- preliminary results. We received Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, rolled products in straight lengths, of comments from the petitioners. unless otherwise indicated, all rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither references to the Department’s clad, plated, nor coated with metal, Comment 1: Use of Surrogate Value for regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 whether or not painted, varnished, or Foreign Inland Freight (1998). coated with plastics or other Petitioners argue that the Department Background nonmetallic substances, 4.75 erred by using a surrogate value for millimeters or more in thickness and of foreign inland freight, rather than the The Department published an a width which exceeds 150 millimeters invoiced value. They argue that even antidumping duty order on certain cut- and measures at least twice the though nothing on the record indicates to-length carbon steel plate from thickness, as currently classifiable in the whether the freight provider was a Romania on August 19, 1993 (58 FR HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, market economy or non-market 44167). The Department published a 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, economy provider, the record does notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, indicate that the foreign inland freight Administrative Review’’ of the 7208.42,0000, 7208.43,0000, was invoiced and paid in U.S. dollars, antidumping duty order fur the 1997/98 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, and that therefore the Department review period on August 11, 1998 (63 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, should use that value in its computation FR 42821). On August 31, 1998, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, of net U.S. price. respondents Windmill International 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, Department’s Position: We disagree. PTE Ltd. of Singapore, Windmill 7212.40.1000, 7212.50.5000 and Evidence on the record suggests that the International Romania Branch, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this review foreign inland freight was originally Windmill International Ltd. (USA) are flat-rolled products of calculated in Romanian lei and only (collectively ‘‘Windmill’’) requested that nonrectangular cross-section where later converted into U.S. dollars prior to the Department conduct an such cross-section is achieved invoicing. See Romanian verification administrative review. On August 31, subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., exhibit 34 of the August 30, 1999 1998, we also received a request for an products which have been ‘‘worked verification report, p. 3. Furthermore, administrative review from Bethlehem after rolling’’)—for example, products the address of the freight provider Steel Corporation and U.S. Steel Group, which have been bevelled or rounded at suggests that it was a nonmarket a Unit of USX Corporation (petitioners). the edges. Excluded from this review is economy provider. Id. at 1 and 3. We published a notice of initiation of grade X–70 plate. Therefore, in these final results of the review on September 29, 1998 (63 These HTS item numbers are review, we have continued to use a FR 51893). provided for convenience and U.S. surrogate value for computation of the Under the Act, the Department may Customs purposes. The written foreign inland freight. extend the deadline for completion of description remains dispositive. administrative reviews if it determines The period of review is August 1, Comment 2: Tax on Foreign Inland that it is not practicable to complete the 1997, through July 31, 1998. This review Freight review within the statutory time limit of covers sales of certain cut-to-length Petitioners argue that the Department 365 days. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the carbon steel plate by Windmill erred by not deducting from the U.S. Act. On March 26, 1999, the Department International PTE Ltd. of Singapore price the tax that Windmill pays to the extended the time limit for the (Windmill Singapore). Windmill’s Romanian government on the foreign preliminary results in this case. See Cut- supplier during the POR was the inland freight. They argue that this tax

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 17:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1849 should be considered a charge incident Final Results of the Review protective orders (APOs) of their to bringing the subject merchandise to As a result of this review, we have responsibility concerning the the United States, and should thus be determined that a weighted-average disposition of proprietary information deducted from the U.S. price. They dumping margin of 21.07 percent exists disclosed under 19 CFR 351.306. Timely further argue that even though the tax is for Windmill for the period August 1, written notification of the return/ invoiced and paid in Romanian lei, the 1997 through July 31, 1998. destruction of APO materials or Department should use the U.S. dollar The Department shall determine, and conversion to judicial protective order is amount of the tax because only that the U.S. Customs shall assess, hereby requested. Failure to comply value is on the record. antidumping duties on all appropriate with the regulations and the terms of an Department’s Position: We disagree. entries. The Department shall issue APO is a sanctionable violation. Because Windmill paid the tax at issue appraisement instructions directly to We are issuing and publishing this to the Romanian government, we the Customs Service. In accordance with administrative review and notice in consider it to be an intra-NME expense. 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and We do not use such expenses in our calculated an importer-specific 771(i)(1) of the Act. margin calculations, but rather rely on assessment rate by dividing the Dated: January 5, 2000. surrogate values. Therefore, we have dumping margin found on the subject Robert S. LaRussa, continued to rely exclusively on the merchandise examined by the entered Assistant Secretary for Import calculated surrogate value for foreign value of such merchandise. We will Administration. inland freight. direct the United States Customs [FR Doc. 00–744 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Service to assess antidumping duties on BILLING CODE 3510±DS±M Comment 3: Deduction for appropriate entries by applying the Miscellaneous Expense Account assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise entered during the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Petitioners argue that the Department POR. erred by failing to deduct from U.S. Furthermore, the following deposit International Trade Administration price a cost Windmill records in its requirements will be effective upon books under the account for [A±570±825] publication of the final results of this ‘‘commissions.’’ The verification report administrative review for all shipments Sebacic Acid From the People's describes this accounting code as ‘‘a of the subject merchandise entered, or Republic of China; Amended Final miscellaneous fund used to facilitate, withdrawn from warehouse, for Results of Antidumping Duty for example, shipments and loading.’’ consumption on or after the publication Administrative Review See the verification report at 28. They date, as provided for by section AGENCY: argue that this expense should be 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the case Import Administration, considered a charge incident to bringing deposit rate for Windmill will be the International Trade Administration, the subject merchandise to the United rate established in the final results of Department of Commerce. States, and should thus be deducted this administrative review; (2) for all ACTION: Amended final results of form U.S. price. They further argue that other Romanian exporters, the case antidumping duty administrative review even though the expense is paid in deposit rate will be the Romania-wide of sebacic acid from the People’s Romanian lei, the Department should rate made effective by the final Republic of China. use the U.S. dollar amount of the determination in the less-than-fair-value SUMMARY: On October 19, 1999, the expense because only that value is on investigation (see Final Determination United States Court of International the record. of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the remand and Department’s Position: We agree in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate upheld the Department of Commerce’s part. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, from Romania, 58 FR 37209 (July 9, (‘‘the Department’’) findings in Remand the record does not indicate in what 1993)); (3) for non-Romanian exporters Determination: Union Camp currency this expense was paid, and is of subject merchandise from Romania, Corporation v. United States (‘‘Second unclear as to whether it was paid at all. the cash deposit rate will be the rate Remand’’), Consol. Court No. 97–03– However, the record does indicate that applicable to the Romanian supplier of 00483, Slip Op. 99–40 (September 2, Windmill recognizes this expense as a that exporter. 1999), affecting the final assessment rate cost in its accounting records. Although These deposit requirements will for the 1994/95 administrative review in it is not our practice to make an remain in effect until publication of the the case of sebacic acid from the adjustment for expenses paid, as here, to final results of the next administrative People’s Republic of China. See Union NME suppliers (except through the use review. of surrogate values), we regard the This notice also serves as a final Camp Corporation v. United States, Slip expense at issue as a movement expense reminder to importers of their Op. 99–111, (CIT October 19, 1999) and, therefore, we agree with petitioners responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) (Consol. Court No. 97–03–00483). that we should make an adjustment for to file a certificate regarding the Because no appeal was filed within the it. As non-adverse facts available, we reimbursement of antidumping duties requested period, that decision is final have deducted from U.S. price, as prior to liquidation of the relevant and conclusive. Therefore, we are petitioners suggested, the exact amount entries during this review period. amending our final results of review, that Windmill records in its accounting Failure to comply with this requirement and we will instruct the U.S. Customs records. We used this method because could result in the Secretary’s Service to liquidate entries subject to Windmill records the expense in presumption that reimbursement of this review. A summary of the specific market-economy currency and because antidumping duties occurred and the issues from the two remands in this case the record explains how Windmill subsequent assessment of double are listed below. determines the amount to be recorded in antidumping duties. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2000. its books. See the verification report, p. This notice also serves as a reminder FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 28. to parties subject to administrative Brandon Farlander or Rick Johnson,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 17:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1850 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Import Administration, International Indian rupee figure 23.32/kg; and (4) a reasonable surrogate value for octanol- Trade Administration, U.S. Department allocate the glycerine by-product credit 2. of Commerce, 14th and Constitution to sebacic acid and octanol-2. As Third, we noted that, as directed by Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; discussed below, the Department the statue, to the extent possible, the telephone: (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482– complied with the Court’s order. Department values factors of production 3818, respectively. On June 25, 1998, the Department from a country comparable to the non- submitted to the CIT the results of the market economy in terms of overall Applicable Statute and Regulations first remand. See Remand economic development. We continued, Unless otherwise indicated, all Determination: Union Camp stating that while the Department may citations to the statute are references to Corporation v. United States (‘‘First use specific values from a country not the provisions effective January 1, 1995, Remand’’), Consol. Court No. 97–03– at a comparable level of development the effective date of the amendments 00483, Slip Op. 98–38 (June 25, 1998). (including the United States), we do so made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the A summarization of our response for only rarely and only if we cannot find Act’’) by the Uruguay Round each of the four issues is listed below. an appropriate value in a comparable Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition, For the first issue, we valued the economy. See Final Determination of unless otherwise indicated, all citations subsidiary product, capryl alcohol, also Sales at Less Than Fair Value: to the Department’s regulations are to known as octanol-2, based on the ‘‘cost’’ Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium the current regulations at 19 CFR Part of crude octanol-2, as the CIT Alloys from the Republic of Kazakstan, 351 (1998). instructed. Based on our recalculation of 62 FR 2648 (January 17, 1997). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the by-product/co-product analysis for For the second issue, we did not this subsidiary product, we determined deduct taxes for castor oil, castor seed, Background that octanol-2 was now a by-product, and castor seed cake price quotes from On March 7, 1997, the Department instead of a co-product, as determined The Economic Times (India), consistent published its final results of the first in the Final Results. We complied with with the Department’s practice to administrative review of the the CIT’s order; however, we exclude taxes only when a price quote antidumping duty order on sebacic acid respectfully disagreed with the CIT’s is specifically identified as being from the People’s Republic of China remand to value octanol-2 based on the inclusive of taxes. See Final (‘‘PRC’’). See Sebacic Acid From the ‘‘cost’’ of crude octanol-2. Instead, we Antidumping Duty Determination: People’s Republic of China; Final stated that we believe that the refined Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s Results of Antidumping Duty octanol value from the Chemical Weekly Republic of China, 61 FR 14057 (March Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 10530 (India) is an appropriate surrogate, 29, 1996). (March 7, 1997) (‘‘Final Results’’). In the based on the following reasons. First, For the third issue, we used the Final Results, we used the Indian price the Department believed that a more Indian rupee value of 23.32/kg for castor for octanol-1 as a surrogate for octanol- accurate margin results if subsidiary oil as the surrogate value. 2 because we determined that octanol- products, such as octanol-2, are valued For the fourth issue, we did not 1 was comparable to octanol-2 based on using publicly available information allocate the glycerine by-product credit its similar molecular formula. While we reflecting actual market prices rather to sebacic acid and octanol-2 because determined that the value of octanol than petitioner’s internal cost. We noted there was no co-product. cited in the Chemical Weekly (Indian) that we used petitioner’s U.S. internal On April 29, 1999, the CIT issued its was a value for octanol-1, it was not cost for octanol-2 because we did not second remand in this segment of the clear from the publication whether the have any other surrogate value for crude proceeding to the Department to octanol value quoted was actually for octanol-2. Also, we noted that the reconsider the following three issues: (1) octanol-1, octanol-2, or a combination of production of sebacic acid results in the Value the octanol-2 that results from the the two products. We also determined production of crude octanol-2 as a sebacic acid production process based that the surrogate values obtained from subsidiary product. However, the on an appropriate surrogate value for The Economic Times (Bombay) were additional sebacic acid factors of this product, and then recalculate the inclusive of taxes. We used an average, production used to calculate normal by-product/co-product determination in tax-exclusive, castor oil value of $17.93/ value already incorporate the relatively light of this surrogate value. This kg. Finally, we did not allocate a few factors of production (labor and surrogate value may be an appropriate glycerine by-product credit to sebacic energy) necessary to refine crude foreign or U.S. price or cost for acid and octanol-2. octanol-2. Thus, the Department comparable merchandise. In seeking the Both Union Camp and Dastech believed that its use of the surrogate best information available to use as a challenged the Department’s final value for refined octanol-2 resulted in a surrogate, the Department was results on several grounds, and on more accurate by-product/co-product instructed to specifically consider and March 27, 1998, the CIT issued its first analysis. Finally, we noted our belief to address all alternative surrogate values remand to the Department to reconsider the CIT that the use of crude octanol-2 that have been placed on the record by the following four issues: (1) Value as a surrogate value results in less the parties; (2) open the administrative octanol-2 based on an appropriate cost accurate dumping margins. record and consider the letter from the of crude octanol-2 (which may be the Second, we addressed additional editor of the Chemical Weekly (India). U.S. cost but which may not be based information on the record, which Unless the Department was unable to solely on similar molecular structure demonstrated that octanol-1 and identify substantial record evidence on without any additional evidence), and octanol-2 are comparable merchandise, remand which demonstrated that, then recalculate the by-product/co- based on overlapping uses. Thus, we notwithstanding the letter from the product determination with the correct noted that given the fact that the editor of the Chemical Weekly (India), value; (2) reconsider whether the Chemical Weekly (India) does not the ‘‘octanol’’ quote from the Chemical surrogate values obtained from The specify a particular type of octanol, we Weekly (India) was actually a quote for Economic Times were inclusive or believed that evidence on the record octanol-1, the Department may not exclusive of taxes; (3) calculate the suggested that the refined octanol price continue to argue for the use of this average castor oil prices using the listed in the Chemical Weekly (India) is figure on the grounds that octanol-1 and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.140 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1851 octanol-2 are ‘‘comparable Thus, we concluded that the Chemical This determination is issued and merchandise’’; and (3) consider, and Weekly (India) value for 2-ethylhexanol published in accordance with sections express its views on, whether it should is the most appropriate surrogate value. 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. accept new evidence concerning the As noted above, on October 19, 1999, Dated: January 5, 2000. comparability of 2-ethylhexanol and the CIT sustained and upheld our Robert S. LaRussa, octanol-2. Should the Department come finding of the Department’s Second to the conclusion that it should accept Remand and no appeal was filed. As Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. such evidence, the Department may do there is now a final and conclusive so on remand and, if appropriate, use court decision in this action, we are [FR Doc. 00–745 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] this evidence as a basis for justifying its amending our final results of review in BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P use of the Chemical Weekly (India) this matter and we will instruct the U.S. value for ‘‘octanol.’’ As discussed Customs Service to liquidate entries DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE below, the Department complied with subject to this review in accordance the Court’s order. with the remand results. Because the International Trade Administration On September 2, 1999, the Department has published subsequent Department submitted the results of the administrative reviews that govern Commerce Advisory Committee on second remand to the CIT. See Second future cash deposits, the cash deposit Africa: Membership Remand, Consol. Court No. 97–03– rates will be governed not by the rate 00483, Slip Op. 99–40 (September 2, published in the Second Remand, but AGENCY: International Trade 1999). A summarization of our response by the most recently completed Administration, Commerce. for each of the three issues is listed administrative review, according to the ACTION: Notice of committee below. Department’s normal procedures. See establishment and membership For the first issue, we determined that Sebacic Acid From the People’s opportunity. 2-ethylhexanol and octanol-2 are Republic of China; Final Results of comparable chemicals, and that the Antidumping Duty Administrative SUMMARY: A committee comprised of octanol value quoted in the Chemical Review, 63 FR 43373–43379 (August 13, U.S. businesses active in Sub-Saharan Weekly (India) is a value for 2- 1998). Africa is to be established to advise the ethylhexanol. We considered the other Secretary on issues of U.S. commercial Amended Final Results surrogate values placed on the record, policy in Africa. This action is taken to such as the U.S. cost for crude octanol- Pursuant to 516A(e) of the Act, we are ensure regular consultation with the 2 and the U.S. price for refined octanol- now amending the final results of U.S. business community and to reflect 2, and determined, based on our criteria administrative review of the its views in the Clinton for selecting the appropriate surrogate antidumping duty order on sebacic acid Administration’s Africa Initiative. The value for octanol-2 as stated in the First from the People’s Republic of China for Advisory Committee will meet Remand, that the refined octanol value the period July 1, 1994, through June 30, quarterly, or more often as determined from Chemical Weekly (India), which 1995. As a result of our recalculation of by the Secretary. was for 2-ethylhexanol, was the best the margins from the Second Remand, DATES: In order to receive full available surrogate value. Based on the final weighted-average margins for consideration, requests must be received reexamination of the by-product/co- Sinochem International Chemicals no later than January 27, 2000. product determination in light of this Company (‘‘SICC’’), Tianjin Chemicals ADDRESSES: surrogate value, we determined that Import and Export Corporation Please send your requests octanol-2 was a co-product of sebacic (‘‘Tianjin’’), and Guangdong Chemicals for consideration to Mrs. S. K. Miller, acid production because the overall Import and Export Corporation Director, Office of Africa by fax on 202/ value of octanol-2 was significant (‘‘Guangdong’’) changed. The final 482–5198 or by mail at Room 2037, U.S. relative to the value of sebacic acid and weighted-average margins for the above Department of Commerce, Washington, the other subsidiary products. Also, period of review are as follows: DC 20230. because octanol-2 was now a co- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. product, rather than a by-product, we Manufacturer/exporter Margin S. K. Miller, Director, Office of Africa, were able to allocate the glycerine by- (percent) Room 2037, U.S. Department of product credit to sebacic acid and Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; SICC ...... 75.36 octanol-2, as instructed by the CIT in Tianjin ...... 5.74 telephone: 202/482–4227. the First Remand. Guangdong ...... 36.5 Notice of Committee Establishment For the second issue, after an analysis Sinochem Jiangu Import and of certain information placed on the Export Corporation ...... 243.40 In accordance with the provisions of record, we determined that the octanol Country-Wide Rate ...... 243.40 the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 value quoted in the Chemical Weekly U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services (India) was for 2-ethylhexanol, and not The Department will determine, and Administration (GSA) rule on Federal for octanol-1. the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, Advisory Committee Management, 41 For the third issue, we determined to antidumping duties on all appropriate CFR Part 101–6, and, after consultation open the administrative record to accept entries. We calculated importer-specific with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce new evidence concerning the duty assessment rates for the has determined that the establishment comparability of 2-ethylhexanol and merchandise based on the ratio of the of the Advisory Committee on Africa is octanol-2. Based on this new total amount of antidumping duties in the public interest in connection with information, we determined that we had calculated for the examined sales to the the performance of duties imposed on substantial evidence establishing that 2- total entered value of sales examined. the Department by law. ethylhexanol (also known as 2- The Department will issue appraisement In furtherance of the President’s ethylhexanol alcohol and octyl alcohol) instructions to the U.S. Customs Service Africa Initiative, the Committee will and octanol-2 were comparable after publication of this amended final advise the Secretary, through the Under merchandise based on similar uses. results of review. Secretary for International Trade, on

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.141 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1852 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

U.S. commercial policy on trade with and identifying commercial Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.; Sub-Saharan Africa. opportunities; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979, 19 U.S.C. 2171 Note, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The ACA will be composed of not —Developing sectoral or project- more than 21 individuals representing oriented approaches to expand Sally Miller, companies, and will be chaired by business opportunities; Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa. Secretary of Commerce William M. [FR Doc. 00–461 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] —Identifying further steps to facilitate Daley. To assure a balanced BILLING CODE 3510±DA±P representation of interests, members and encourage the development of will be selected based on the criteria set commercial expansion between the forth below, to obtain a balance in United States and Africa; and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE industry sectors, company size, —Taking any other appropriate steps for location, gender and ethnic fostering commercial relations National Institute of Standards and representation. between the U.S. and Africa. Technology The Committee will function solely as Criteria Announcement of a Partially Closed an advisory body, and in compliance Meeting of the Manufacturing with the provisions of the Federal In order to be eligible for membership Extension Partnership Board Advisory Committee Act. The Charter in the U.S. section, potential candidates will be filed under the Act, fifteen days must be: AGENCY: National Institute of Standards from the publication of this notice. (1) U.S. citizens or permanent and Technology, Commerce. The inaugural meeting of the ACA is residents; expected to take place during the first ACTION: Notice of partially closed quarter of the year 2000 Meetings will (2) CEOs or other senior management meeting. be scheduled quarterly throughout the level employees of a U.S. company or year at the Department’s headquarters. organization with demonstrated SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Additional meetings may be called as involvement in trade with and/or Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. determined by the Secretary. investment in Sub-Saharan Africa who 2, notice is hereby given that the will participate in not less than 75% of National Institute of Standards and Notice of Opportunity to Apply for the meetings, which will be held in the Technology’s (NIST’s) Manufacturing Membership United States. Representative Extension Partnership National Membership Obligations nominated should be the individual Advisory Board (MEPNAB) will meet to who will actively participate in the hold a meeting on Thursday, January 27, Members will be expected to serve a ACA); 2000. The MEPNAB is composed of term of two years. However, to set up a (3) Not a Registered Foreign Agent; nine members appointed by the Director staggered membership renewal, one and of NIST who were selected for their third of the private sector members from expertise in the area of industrial this initial appointment will serve for a (4) Actively doing business in Sub- extension and their work on behalf of two year term; a second third will serve Saharan Africa or actively developing smaller manufacturers. The Board was for a three year term and a final third entry plans for doing business in Sub- set up, under the direction of the for a four year term. Each year, a third Saharan Africa. Director of the NIST, to fill a need for of the ACA membership will be To the extent possible, the outside input on MEP. MEP is a unique replaced. Department of Commerce will strive to program consisting of centers in all 50 Nominations are now being sought for achieve membership composition that states and Puerto Rico. The centers have private sector members to serve for a reflects U.S. entrepreneurial diversity. been created by state, federal and local two, three, or four year period from Therefore, in reviewing eligible partnerships. The Board works closely January 1, 2000 until December 31, candidates, the Department of with the MEP to provide input and 2001–2004, respectively. Members will Commerce will consider such selection advice on MEP’s programs, plans and serve at the discretion of the Secretary factors as: policies. The purpose of this meeting is and shall serve as representatives of the (1) Depth of experience in the Sub- to cover areas of operation determined business community and, specifically, Saharan African market; during the previous Board meeting. The the industry in which their business is agenda will include an MEP overview, engaged. They are expected to (2) Export/investment experience; an update for the new members, and a participate fully in implementing the (3) Representation of industry or look at how MEP staff working with the Committee’s work program. It is service sectors of importance to our centers can provide more of a consultant expected that private sector individuals commercial relationship with Sub- role. The agenda will also look at what chosen for ACA membership will attend Saharan Africa; products, services, and training the not less than 75% of the ACA meetings (4) Company size or, if an NIST MEP staff needs to provide strong each year. organization, size and number of assistance to Centers. The portion of the Private sector members are fully member companies; meeting, which involves personnel and responsible for travel, per diem, and (5) Location of company or proprietary budget information, will be personal expenses associated with their organization; and closed to the general public. All other participation on the ACA. The ACA will work on issues of (6) Contribution to the Committee’s portions of the meeting will be open to common interest to encourage trade and ethnic and gender diversity. the public. investment, including the following: To apply for membership, please DATES AND ADDRESSES: The meeting will —Resolving obstacles to trade and provide a company information sheet convene on January 27, 2000, at 8 a.m. investment between the United States and a personal resume and any other and will adjourn at 3:30 p.m. and will and Africa; pertinent information which be held at the National Institute of —Expanding commercial activity demonstrate how the applicant satisfies Standards and Technology, Building between the United States and Africa the selection criteria identified. 101, 10th Floor, Gaithersburg,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 17:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1853

Maryland. The closed portion of the ACTION: Issuance of photography permit meeting of the Defense Partnership meeting is scheduled from 8–9:30 a.m. no. 954–1517 Council to be held January 11, 2000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The This notice is to announce that the SUMMARY: Assistant Secretary for Administration Notice is hereby given that meeting is cancelled due to conflicts in with the concurrence of the General Mr. Michael Kundu, Project SeaWolf, members’ schedules. P.O. Box 987, Marysville, WA 98270– Counsel formally determined on July 15, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 1999, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 0987, has been issued a permit to take by Level B harassment several species of Kenneth Oprisko, Chief, Labor Relations Federal Advisory Committee Act, that Branch, Field Advisory Services these portions of the meeting may be non-threatened, non-endangered marine mammals for purposes of commercial Division, Defense Civilian Personnel properly closed because they are Management Service, 1400 Key concerned with matters that are within photography. ADDRESSES: The permit  and related documents are available for Boulevard, Suite B–200, Arlington, VA, the purview of 5 U.S.C. 552 (4), (6) 22209–5144, (703) 696–1450. and (9)(b). A copy of the determination review upon written request or by is available for public inspection in the appointment in the following offices: Dated: January 6, 2000. Permits Division, Office of Protected Central Reference and Records L.M. Bynum, Resources, NMFS, Inspection Facility, Room 6219, Main Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 1315 East-West Highway, Room Commerce. Officer, Department of Defense. 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/ MEP’s services to smaller [FR Doc. 00–658 Filed 1–11–99; 8:45 am] manufacturers address the needs of the 713–2289); Regional Administrator, Southwest BILLING CODE 5001±10±M national market as well as the unique Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean needs of each company. Since MEP is Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA committed to providing this type of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 90802–4213 individualized service through its (562/980–4015); Office of the Secretary centers, the program requires the Regional Administrator, Northwest perspective of locally based experts to Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way Defense Science Board Task Force on be incorporated into its national plans. NE, Bin C15700, Building 1, Seattle, WA Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile The MEPNAB was established at the 98115–0070 (206/526–6150); and direction of the NIST Director to Regional Administrator, Alaska ACTION: Notice of advisory committee maintain MEP’s focus on local and Region, 709 W. 9th Street, Federal meetings. market-based needs. The MEPNAB was Building Room 461, P.O. Box 21668, approved on October 24, 1996, in Juneau, AK 99802 (907/586–7235). SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board accordance with the Federal Advisory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Task Force on Patriot Anti-Cruise Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2., to On Missile (PACM) will meet in closed provide advice on MEP programs, plans, September 27, 1999, notice was session on February 1, 2000, at Science and policies; to assess the soundness of published in the Federal Register (64 Applications International Corporation MEP plans and strategies; to assess the FR 51960) that the above-named (SAIC), 4001 North Fairfax Drive, current performance against MEP applicant had submitted a request for a Arlington, VA. program plans, and to function in an permit to take several species of marine advisory capacity. The Board will meet mammals by Level B harassment during The mission of the Defense Science three times a year and reports to the the course of commercial photographic Board is to advise the Secretary of Director of NIST. This will be the first activities in California, Alaska, Defense through the Under Secretary of meeting of the MEPNAB in 2000. Washington waters, excluding the area Defense for Acquisition, Technology west of 124° west longitude and north FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Logistics and Director, Ballistic of 48° north latitude. The requested Linda Acierto, Assistant to the Director Missile Defense Organization on permit has been issued, under the for Policy, Manufacturing Extension programmatic and technical matters as authority of § 104(c)(6) of the Marine Partnership, National Institute of they affect the perceived needs of the Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as Standards and Technology, Department of Defense. At this meeting, amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone the Task Force will review and compile number (301) 975–5033. Dated: December 30, 1999. recommendations for the Secretary of Defense on how to best respond to the Dated: January 4, 2000. Ann D. Terbush, Congressional directive to assess the Karen H. Brown, Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National capability of the PACM to counter Deputy Director, NIST. Marine Fisheries Service. cruise missiles, including low- [FR Doc. 00–652 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 00–716 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] observable cruise missiles, compared to BILLING CODE 3510±13±M BILLING CODE 3510±22±F the capability of the Patriot PAC–3 missile and other upgraded versions of the Patriot missile to counter such DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE threats, and the opportunity costs of PACM acquisition. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of the Secretary In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Defense Partnership Council Meeting [I.D. 122199E] Pub. L. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Marine Mammals AGENCY: Department of Defense. App. II, (1994)), it has been determined ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation. that this DSB Task Force meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and SUMMARY: On December 20, 1999, 64 FR 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 71124, the Department of Defense this meeting will be closed to the Commerce. published a notice to announce a public.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.059 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1854 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Dated: January 6, 2000. activities including the capacity to will be published in local newspapers. L.M. Bynum, function as: a major U.S. Army This meeting will provide the Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison command and control operation; a opportunity for the public to become Officer, Department of Defense. center for premier medical training aware of the PEIS and for the Army to [FR Doc. 00–659 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] facilities; Brooke Army Medical center gather public input regarding the scope BILLING CODE 5001±10±M (BAMC); a Garrison headquarters of the study. Those unable to attend the providing administrative support for the scheduled scoping meeting may submit installation and its tenants; a major written comments regarding the scope DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE mobilization station for the U.S. Army of the PEIS throughout the scoping in the event of a national or regional period. A mailing list has been prepared Department of the Army emergency requiring a Reserve call-up; for public scoping and review and an established military complex throughout the preparation process of Notice of Intent to Prepare a with the capability to support other this PEIS. This list includes local, state, Programmatic Environmental Impact unforeseen national contingencies. Statement (PEIS) for the Fort Sam and Federal agencies with jurisdictions The normal operations associated or other interests in the project. In Houston Master Plan, Fort Sam with the daily functions of Fort Sam Houston, Texas addition, the mailing list includes all Houston and its associated properties adjacent property owners, affected AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. are diverse and encompass nearly all the municipalities and other interested ACTION: Notice of Intent. activities of a small city, but with the parties such as conservation addition of military training functions. organizations. Anyone wishing to be SUMMARY: The Department of the Army The broad categories of activities added to the mailing list should contact is updating components of the Real associated with Fort Sam Houston can the person identified above. Property Master Plan for Fort Sam be broken down into the following eight Houston, Texas. This series of basic functions: administration and Dated: January 6, 2000. documents is referred to in the aggregate support; construction (including Raymond J. Fatz, as the Real Property Master Plan or the demolition); operation and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army installation Master Plan. As a part of its maintenance; light industry; research, (Environment, Safety and Occupational efforts to manage the overall mission of development, test and evaluation; Health) (ASA(I&E). Fort Sam Houston, the Army will medical services; recreation; and [FR Doc. 00–704 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] prepare a PEIS on proposed revisions training. BILLING CODE 3710±08±M resulting from master planning activities The largest organizational occupants at Fort Sam Houston in accordance with of Fort Sam Houston include five major the National Environmental Policy Act tenants and the U.S. Army Garrison, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (NEPA), Public Law 91–190 (42 U.S.C. Fort Sam Houston (Garrison), which 4341). The PEIS will evaluate potential provides the headquarters function for Notice of Restricted Eligiblity Support impacts for Fort Sam Houston should the installation itself. The five major of Advanced Fossil Resource the installation adopt revisions to the tenants are: Headquarters, U.S. Army Utilization Research by Historically installation’s Master Plan. MEDCOM; Brooke Army Medical Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions ADDRESSES: Direct written questions or Center, U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School (AMEDDC&S); comments concerning the scope of the AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy Fort Sam Houston Master Plan PEIS to: Headquarters, Fifth U.S. Army; and Headquarters, U.S. Army 5th Recruiting (DOE), National Energy Technology Ms. Jackie Schlatter, PEIS Project Laboratory (NETL). Manager, Environmental and Natural Brigade. There are also numerous other ACTION: Notice of restricted eligibility. Resources Division, Fort Sam Houston smaller tenants and service agencies ATTN: MCGA–PW–ENR, 2202 15th located on or supported by the post. Alternatives: The PEIS will describe SUMMARY: The Department of Energy Street (bldg. 4196), Fort Sam Houston, the master planning process, existing announces that it intends to conduct a Texas 78234–5007. master plan, and proposed revisions to competitive Program Solicitation and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. the existing master plan for Fort Sam award financial assistance (grants) to Jackie Schlatter at (210) 221–5093. Houston. The PEIS will describe the U.S. Historically Black Colleges and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fort Sam existing environment, cultural and Universities (HBCU) and Other Minority Houston is an integral part of the U.S. natural resources, social, economic, and Institutions (OMI) in support of Army Medical Command (MEDCOM). environmental justice conditions and innovative research and development of Fort Sam Houston has approximately impacts to those existing conditions advanced concepts pertinent to fossil 31,000 acres distributed among the Fort associated with the revised master plan resource conversion and utilization. Sam Houston Military Reservation for Fort Sam Houston. The alternatives Applications will be subjected to a (3,150 acres), the Camp Bullis Military will wither be status quo, reuse through review by a DOE technical panel, and Reservation (CBMR) (27,994 acres) and Military Construction, Army project, awards will be made to a select number the Canyon Lake Recreation Area reuse through leasing, sale for off-site of applicants based on the scientific (CLRA) (110 acres). The CBMR is removal, or demolition. merit of the application, relevant located 18 miles northwest of Fort Sam A significant issue that will be program policy factors, and the Houston and provides land for training addressed is the reuse and/or availability of funds. Collaboration with areas and ranges. The CLRA is leased by disposition of property that may be private industry is encouraged. Fort Sam Houston from the U.S. Army eligible for listing in the National FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the Register of Historic Places. Debra A. Duncan, U.S. Department of recreation of its permanent and Scoping: A public scoping meeting in Energy, National Energy Technology temporary duty personnel. connection with this PEIS will be held Laboratory, Acquisition and Assistance The overall mission of Fort Sam at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Division, P.O. Box 10940, MS 921–107, Houston includes several discrete Texas. The meeting time and location Pittsburgh PA 15236–0940, Telephone:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.061 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1855

412–386–5700, FAX: 412–386-6137, E- Department’s OCR as a ‘‘Minority Topic 7—Faculty/Student Exploratory mail: [email protected]. The Institution,’’ institutions should contact Research Training Grants solicitation (available in both Word the Education Department directly at Note: Technical Topic No. 7, Faculty/ Perfect 6.1 for Windows and Portable the following address: Mr. Peter A. Student Exploratory Research Training Document Format (PDF)) will be McCabe, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Grants, is the only topic under this Program released on DOE’s NETL World Wide Department of Education, Washington Solicitation wherein the inclusion or Web Server Internet System (http:// DC 20202, Telephone 202–205–9567. exclusion of private sector collaboration will www.netl.doe.gov/business/solicit) on Note: The Education Department should not affect the technical evaluation of the or about January 7, 2000. If applicants only be contacted on matters related to application. do not have Internet capability, a 3.5′′ Institutional status; questions regarding double sided/high density diskette copy the Program Solicitation should be Awards: DOE anticipates issuing of the solicitation will be available, directed to Mrs. Duncan at DOE. financial assistance (grants) for each upon receipt of a written request Applications from HBCU/OMI- project selected. DOE reserves the right submitted via fax or e-mail to Mrs. affiliated research institutes must be to support or not support, with or Duncan. No telephone requests will be submitted through the college or without discussions, any or all honored for request of diskettes. university with which they are applications received in whole or in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: affiliated. The university (not the part, and to determine how many Title of Solicitation: ‘‘Support of university-affiliated research institute) awards may be made through the Advanced Fossil Resource Utilization will be the recipient of any resultant solicitation subject to funds available in Research by Historically Black Colleges DOE grant award. Applications this fiscal year. The limitation on the and Universities and Other Minority submitted in response to the solicitation maximum DOE funding for each must meet the following two criteria: Institutions.’’ selected grant to be awarded under this the Principal Investigator or a Co- Objectives: Through Program Program Solicitation is as follows: Solicitation No. DE–PS26–00FT40760, Principal Investigator must be a the Department of Energy seeks teaching professor at the submitting Maximum applications from HBCU and OMI and university listed in the application; and award HBCU/OMI-affiliated research institutes a minimum of 30% of personnel time for innovative research and invoiced under the grant is to pay for Topics 1±6: development of advanced concepts student assistance for each year of the Award 0±12 months grant pertinent to fossil resource conversion grant. Although it is not required as an duration ...... $85,000 and utilization. The resultant grants are application qualification criterion, 13±24 months grant duration 150,000 intended to maintain and upgrade collaboration with the private sector is 25±36 months grant duration 200,000 educational, training, and research encouraged, and applications proposing Topic 7: 0±12 months grant du- capabilities of our HBCU/OMI in the private sector collaboration may be ration ...... 20,000 fields of science and technology related evaluated more favorably. The to fossil energy resources; to foster solicitation will contain a complete Approximately $900,000 is planned private sector participation, description of the technical evaluation for this solicitation. The total should collaboration, and interaction with factors and relative importance of each provide support for four to eight HBCU/OMI; and to provide for the factor. Collaboration by the private research and development application exchange of technical information and sector with the HBCU/OMI may be in selections (Topics 1–6), and to raise the overall level of HBCU/OMI the form of cash cost sharing, approximately two to twelve faculty/ competitiveness with other institutions consultation, HBCU/OMI access to student exploratory research training in the field of fossil energy research and industrial facilities or equipment, application selections (Topic 7). development. Thus, the establishment experimental data and/or equipment not Solicitation Release Date: The of linkages between the HBCU/OMI and available at the university, or as a Program Solicitation is expected to be the private sector fossil energy subgrantee/subcontractor to the HBCU/ community is critical to the success of OMI. ready for release on or about January 7, this program, and consistent with the Areas of Interest: In order to develop 2000. Applications must be prepared Nation’s goal of ensuring a future and sustain a national program of and submitted in accordance with the supply of fossil fuel scientists and HBCU/OMI research in advanced and instructions and forms contained in the engineers from an previously under- fundamental fossil fuel studies, the Program Solicitation. To be eligible, utilized resource. Department of Energy is interested in applications must be received by the Eligibility: Eligibility for participation innovative research and development of designated DOE office by the closing in this Program Solicitation is restricted advanced concepts pertinent to fossil time and date specified in the Program to HBCU and OMI recognized by the fuel conversion and utilization limited Solicitation (anticipated to be on or Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. to the following seven (7) technical about February 18, 2000, at 5:00 PM Department of Education, and identified topics: Eastern Standard Time). on the OCR’s U.S. Department of Topic 1—Advanced Environmental Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Education list of U.S. Accredited Control Technologies for Coal January 5, 2000. Postsecondary Minority Institutions list Topic 2—Advanced Coal Utilization William R. Mundorf, in effect on the closing date of the Topic 3—Clean Fuels Technology program solicitation. Applications Topic 4—Heavy Oil Upgrading and Contracting Officer, Acquisition and submitted by any institution not on Processing Assistance Division. OCR’s aforementioned list are ineligible Topic 5—Advanced Recovery, [FR Doc. 00–748 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] for technical evaluation and award. For Completion/Stimulation, and BILLING CODE 6450±01±P information regarding the qualification Geoscience Technologies for Oil criteria and process of becoming Topic 6—Natural Gas Supply, Storage, recognized by the Education and Processing

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.114 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1856 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Marathon, an Ohio corporation with its commercial parties to freely negotiate principal place of business in Houston, their own trade arrangements. Parties [FE Docket No. 99±110±LNG] Texas, is a wholly owned subsidiary of that may oppose this application should Office of Fossil Energy; Phillips Alaska USX Corporation, also a Delaware comment in their responses on these Natural Gas Corporation and Marathon corporation. PANGC and Marathon are issues as they relate to the requested Oil Company; Application for Blanket not affiliated with each other. They own export authority. PANGC and Marathon Authorization To Export Liquefied and operate natural gas liquefaction and assert the proposed export arrangement Natural Gas marine terminal facilities at Kenai, will be in the public interest. Parties Alaska. opposing the arrangement bear the AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. On March 17, 1993, DOE granted a burden of overcoming this assertion. ACTION: Notice of application. request by PANGC and Marathon for a two-year blanket authorization to export NEPA Compliance SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy up to 10 Bcf of LNG from their Kenai The National Environmental Policy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) facilities beginning on the date of the Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., gives notice of receipt of an application first delivery. See DOE/FE Order No. requires DOE to give appropriate filed jointly on December 16, 1999, by 786 (1 FE ¶ 70,777). That authorization consideration to the environmental Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation was first used March 25, 1997, and effects of its proposed decisions. No (PANGC) and Marathon Oil Company expired March 24, 1999. PANGC and final decision will be issued in this (Marathon) requesting blanket Marathon currently have long-term proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA authorization to export up to 10 trillion authority to export to Japan up to 64.4 responsibilities. Btu’s (approximately 10 billion cubic trillion Btu’s (approximately 64.4 Bcf) of Public Comment Procedures feet (Bcf)) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) LNG per year through March 31, 2009, to various countries. The proposed pursuant to DOE/FE Opinion and Order In response to this notice, any person exports would take place over a period Nos. 261, et al. (July 28, 1988–March 2, may file a protest, motion to intervene of two years, beginning on the date of 1995) and 1473 (April 2, 1999). See 1 or notice of intervention, as applicable, first export, from the existing PANGC/ ERA ¶ 70,130, 1 FE ¶ 70,454, ¶ 70,506, and written comments. Any person Marathon LNG facilities at Kenai, 1 FE ¶ 70,607, 1 FE ¶ 71,087, and 2 FE wishing to become a party to the Alaska. ¶ 70,317. In granting Order 1473, DOE proceeding and to have the written The application is filed under section determined an extension of the LNG comments considered as the basis for 3 of the Natural Gas Act and DOE export would not be inconsistent with any decision on the application must, Delegation Order Nos. 0204–111 and the public interest. In particular, DOE however, file a motion to intervene or 0204–127. Protests, motions to intervene found there is a sufficient supply of notice of intervention, as applicable. or notices of intervention, and written natural gas in Alaska to satisfy local and The filing of a protest with respect to comments are invited. export demand through the extension this application will not serve to make the protestant a party to the proceeding, DATES: Protests, motions to intervene or period. although protests and comments notices of intervention, as applicable, PANGC and Marathon indicate the received from persons who are not requests for additional procedures and Kenai facilities at times can parties will be considered in written comments are to be filed at the manufacture LNG in excess of the determining the appropriate action to be address listed below no later than 4:30 volume required by their currently taken on the application. All protests, p.m., eastern time, February 11, 2000. authorized long-term sales arrangements with Japan. They would like to make motions to intervene, notices of ADDRESSES: Office of Natural Gas and this additional LNG available to intervention, and written comments Petroleum Import and Export Activities, international markets. PANGC and must meet the requirements that are Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department Marathon further indicate the short-term specified by the regulations in 10 CFR of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E– LNG export transactions for which they Part 590. Protests, motions to intervene, 042, FE–34, 1000 Independence now request authorization will be notices of intervention, requests for Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. subject to monthly price adjustments additional procedures, and written FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: based on market conditions and the comments should be filed with the Patrick J. Fleming, Allyson C. Reilly, prices of comparable competing fuels. Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum They also assert the proposed exports Import and Export Activities at the Import and Export Activities, Office of will benefit Alaskan producers and address listed above. Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of suppliers who otherwise may not have It is intended that a decisional record Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E– a market for their excess gas. In on this application will be developed 042, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, addition, they maintain the exports will through responses to this notice by Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– benefit Alaskan citizens by generating parties, including the parties’ written 4819, (202) 586–9394 tax and other revenues related to gas comments and replies thereto. Diane Stubbs, Office of the Assistant production that may not otherwise have Additional procedures will be used as General Counsel for Fossil Energy, a market. necessary to achieve a complete U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal The decision on the application of understanding of the facts and issues. A Building, Room 6E–042, GC–75, 1000 PANGC and Marathon for export party seeking intervention may request Independence Avenue, SW, authority will be made consistent with that additional procedures be provided, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– the DOE’s gas export policy guidelines, such as additional written comments, an 6667 under which DOE considers the oral presentation, a conference, or trial- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: domestic need for the gas to be exported type hearing. Any request to file PANGC, a Delaware corporation with and any other issues determined to be additional written comments should its principal place of business in appropriate, including whether the explain why they are necessary. Any Bartlesville, Oklahoma, is a wholly arrangement is consistent with the DOE request for an oral presentation should owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum policy of promoting competition in the identify the substantial question of fact, Company, a Delaware corporation. natural gas marketplace by allowing law, or policy at issue, show that it is

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1857 material and relevant to a decision in This order is available for inspection Any person wishing to become a party the proceeding, and demonstrate why and copying in the Office of Natural Gas must file a motion to intervene. Copies an oral presentation is needed. Any and Petroleum Import and Export of this filing are on file with the request for a conference should Activities docket room, 3E–042, Commission and are available for public demonstrate why the conference would Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence inspection in the Public Reference materially advance the proceeding. Any Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, Room. This filing may be viewed on the request for a trial-type hearing must (202) 586–9478. The docket room is web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ show that there are factual issues open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for genuinely in dispute that are relevant 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, assistance). and material to a decision and that a except Federal holidays. The Order may Linwood A. Watson, Jr., trial-type hearing is necessary for a full also be found on the FE website at http:/ Acting Secretary. and true disclosure of the facts. /www.fe.doe.gov., or on the electronic [FR Doc. 00–666 Filed 1–11–00 8:45 am] If an additional procedure is bulletin board at (202) 586–7853. BILLING CODE 6717±01±M scheduled, notice will provide notice to Issued in Washington, DC, on December all parties. If no party requests 17, 1999. additional procedures, a final opinion DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and order may be issued based on the John W. Glynn, official record, including the application Manager, Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Federal Energy Regulatory and responses filed by parties pursuant Natural Gas and Petroleum Import and Export Activities, Office of Fossil Energy. Commission to this notice, in accordance with 10 [Docket No. RP99±176±011] CFR 590.316. [FR Doc. 00–746 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450±01±P Phillips and Marathon’s application is Natural Gas Pipeline Company of available for inspection and copying in America; Notice of Proposed Changes the Natural Gas and Petroleum Import in FERC Gas Tariff and Export Activities Docket Room, 3E– DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 042, at the above address. The docket Federal Energy Regulatory January 6, 2000. room is open between the hours of 8:00 Commission Take notice that on January 4, 2000, a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Natural Gas Pipeline Company of Friday, except Federal holidays. [Docket No. RP98±404±008] America (Natural) tendered for filing to Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 6, be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Mississippi River Transmission Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet 2000. Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing John W. Glynn, No. 26C, to be effective January 1, 2000. Manager, Natural Gas Regulation, Office of January 6, 2000. Natural states that the purpose of this Natural Gas and Petroleum, Import and Take notice that on December 30, filing is to implement Negotiated Rate Export Activities, Office of Fossil Energy. 1999, Mississippi River Transmission transactions with North Shore Gas [FR Doc. 00–747 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as Company and The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company under Rate BILLING CODE 6450±01±P part of the General Terms and Schedule FTS pursuant to Section 49 of Conditions to FERC Gas Tariff, Third the General Terms and Conditions Revised Volume No. 1, the following DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GT&C) of Natural’s Tariff. revised tariff sheet: Natural requested waiver of Section [FE Docket No. 99±93±LNG] 5th Substitute Original Sheet No. 99–D 49.1(e) of the GT&C of Natural’s Tariff MRT states that the purpose of this and of the Commission’s Regulations, Office of Fossil Energy; Sonat Energy filing is to comply with Commission including the 30-day notice requirement Services Company, Order Granting order of December 16, 1999, to include of Section 154.207, to the extent Long-Term Authorization To Import required language that MRT will necessary to permit Original Sheet No. Liquefied Natural Gas From Trinidad disclose the identity of successful 26C to become effective January 1, 2000. and Tobago bidders of available capacity via its Natural states that copies of the filing AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. electronic bulletin board and designated are being mailed to its customers, ACTION: Notice of order. internet site. interested state commissions and all MRT states that a copy of this filing parties set out on the Commission’s SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy is being mailed to each of MRTs official service list in Docket No. RP99– (FE) of the Department of Energy gives customers and to the state commissions 176. notice that it has issued an order of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri. Any person desiring to protest this granting Sonat Energy Services Any person desiring to be heard or to filing should file a protest with the Company (Sonat) long-term protest said filing should file a motion Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, authorization to import up to 82 billion to intervene or a protest with the 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 20426, in accordance with Sections per year from Trinidad and Tobago over 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and a period of 22 years beginning on the 20426, in accordance with Sections Regulations. All such protests must be date of the first delivery, in accordance 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s filed as provided in Section 154.210 of with Sonat’s final supply agreement Rules and Regulations. All such motions the Commission’s Regulations. Protests with British Gas Trinidad and Tobago or protests must be filed in accordance will be considered by the Commission Limited, AGIP Trinidad and Tobago with Section 154.210 of the in determining the appropriate action to Limited, Veba Oil & Gas Trinidad Commission’s Regulations. Protests will be taken, but will not serve to make GmbH, and Petroleum Company of be considered by the Commission in protestants parties to the proceedings. Trindad and Tobago Limited and determining the appropriate action to be Copies of this filing are on file with the authorizations of the Federal Energy taken, but will not serve to make Commission and are available for public Regulatory Commission. protestants parties to the proceedings. inspection in the Public Reference

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1858 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Room. This filing may be viewed on the Counties, Mississippi all as more fully Petal says it intends to continue web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ set forth in the application which is on charging market-based rates for storage rims.htm (call (202) 208–2222 for file with the Commission and open to services and does not seek any changes assistance). public inspection. The filing may be in its current authorization to charge Linwood A. Watson, Jr., viewed at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ market-based rates. Acting Secretary. rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Petal also seeks approval of certain pro-forma changes and additions to [FR Doc. 00–667 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] assistance). Any questions regarding the Volume 1, Part A of its effective FERC BILLING CODE 6717±01±M application should be directed to Mr. tariff that are required to conform the David Hayden, Petal Gas Storage tariff with firm storage services Petal DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Company, 229 Milam Street, will be providing over the proposed Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 or call facilities. Petal intends that the changes Federal Energy Regulatory (318) 677–5511. will become effective upon the in- Commission Petal seeks to construct pipeline service date of the facilities. facilities necessary to interconnect its Additionally, Petal requests certain [Project No. 137±002] existing storage facilities with Southern waivers of the Commission’s Natural Gas Company (SONAT), near regulations. Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Any person desiring to participate in Notice of Meetings Enterprise, Mississippi and to increase the deliverability of Petal’s storage the hearing process or to make any January 6, 2000. facilities. Specifically, Petal proposes to protest with reference to said Take notice of the following construct, own, and operate: application should on or before January scheduled meetings of the Mokelumme (1) 5.5 miles of 36-inch diameter, 27, 2000, file with the Federal Energy Relicensing Collaborative. There will be storage header loop that will loop Regulatory Commission, Washington, a meeting of the Ecological Resources Petal’s existing 5.5 mile, 20-inch DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a subgroup on Tuesday, January 11 and diameter storage header; protest in accordance with the Wednesday, January 12, 2000. There (2) A new compressor station, requirements of the Commission’s Rules will be a full group meeting on consisting of four units totaling 20,000 of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Wednesday, January 26, 2000, and horsepower, adjacent to the existing 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations Thursday, January 27, 2000. There will compressor units and equipment under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). All be a Recreational subgroup meeting on including valves and appurtenant protests filed with the Commission will Friday, January 28, 2000. flowlines at the Petal storage facility; be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will All meetings will be from 9:00 a.m. to (3) 58.7 miles of new bi-directional not serve to make the protestants parties 4:00 p.m. at the PG&E offices, 2740 36-inch diameter pipeline extending to the proceeding. The Commission’s Gateway Oaks Drive, in Sacramento, from the terminus of the proposed 36- rules require that protestors provide California. Expected participants need inch diameter header loop to a site copies of their protests to the party or to give their names to David Moller adjacent to Destin’s meter station; (4) A new 15,590 horsepower, four parties directly involved. Any person (PG&E) at (415) 973–4696 so that they unit compressor station on the proposed wishing to become a party to a can get through security. line near Heidelberg, Mississippi; proceeding or to participate as a party For further information, please contact (5) Three new metering facilities at in any hearing therein must file a Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 208–0771. proposed interconnects with motion to intervene in accordance with Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line the Commission’s Rules. Acting Secretary. Corporation, Southern Natural Gas A person obtaining intervenor status [FR Doc. 00–663 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Company, and Destin; will be placed on the service list BILLING CODE 6717±01±M (6) Bi-directional pig traps at the Petal maintained by the Secretary of the storage facility and the proposed Destin Commission and will receive copies of meter station; and all documents filed by the applicant and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (7) Mainline block valves at seven by every one of the intervenors. An points along the new header loop and intervenor can file for rehearing of any Federal Energy Regulatory along the new pipeline facility. Commission order and can petition for Commission Petal estimates that the pipeline court review of any such order. [Docket No. CP00±59±000] facilities (exclusive of those related to However, an intervenor must submit the storage facility) will cost copies of comments or any other filing Petal Gas Storage Company; Notice of $72,373,005 and proposes to finance the it makes with the Commission to every Application cost of the facilities through a other intervenor in the proceeding, as combination of existing cash, or cash well as 14 copies with the Commission. January 6, 2000. equivalent instruments on hand, A person does not have to intervene, Take notice that on December 28, internally generated funds, and debt however, in order to have comments 1999, Petal Gas Storage Company issued by the parent company. Petal considered. A person, instead, may (Petal), 229 Milam Street, Shreveport, proposes an in-service date of May 31, submit two copies of comments to the Louisiana 71101, filed in Docket No. 2001 for the facilities. Secretary of the Commission. CP00–59–000 an application pursuant Petal requests that the Commission Commenters will be placed on the to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act approve initial cost-of-service rates, and Commission’s environmental mailing (NGA), for a certificate of public terms and conditions of services, for list, will receive copies of the convenience and necessity authorizing firm and interruptible transportation environmental documents and will be Petal to construct, install, own, operate, services over the new 64.2 mile, 36-inch able to participate in meetings and maintain certain storage, pipeline, diameter pipeline. Petal also seeks associated with the Commission’s compression, and appurtenant facilities negotiated rate authority for services environmental review process. in Forrest, Jones, Jasper, and Clarke over the proposed 64.2 mile pipeline. Commenters will not be required to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.034 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1859 serve copies of filed documents on all PG&E GT–NW further states that a ADDITIONAL STUDY REQUESTS. The other parties. However, commenters copy of this filing has been served on notice established February 15, 2000, as will not receive copies of all documents PG&E GT–NW’s jurisdictional the deadline for additional study filed by other parties, or issued by the customers, and interested state requests. Commission and will not have the right regulatory agencies. The February 15, 2000, deadline for to seek rehearing or appeal the Any person desiring to protest this filing additional study requests is Commission’s final order to a federal filing should file a protest with the canceled. Action on PGE’s and the court. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tribe’s joint request will be taken in a The Commission will consider all 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. future order. comments and concerns equally, 20426, in accordance with Section Linwood A. Watson, Jr., whether filed by commenters or those 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and requesting intervenor status. Regulations. All such protests must be Acting Secretary. Take further notice that, pursuant to filed as provided in Section 154.210 of [FR Doc. 00–703 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] the authority contained in and subject to the Commission’s Regulations. Protests BILLING CODE 6717±01±M the jurisdiction conferred upon the will be considered by the Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in determining the appropriate action to by Sections 7 and 15 of the NGA and the be taken, but will not serve to make DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission’s Rules of Practice and protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Procedure, a hearing will be held Commission without further notice before the Commission and are available for public Commission or its designee on this inspection in the Public Reference application if no motion to intervene is Room. This filing may be viewed on the [Docket No. RP96±200±049] filed within the time required herein, if web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ the Commission on its own review of rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Reliant Energy Gas Transmission the matter finds that a grant of the assistance). Company; Notice of Proposed certificate is required by the public Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Changes in FERC Gas Tariff convenience and necessity. If a motion Acting Secretary. January 6, 2000. for leave to intervene is timely filed, or [FR Doc. 00–670 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Take notice that on December 30, if the Commission on its own motion BILLING CODE 6717±01±M believes that a formal hearing is 1999, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission required, further notice of such hearing Company (REGT) tendered for filing as will be duly given. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Under the procedure provided for, Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets unless otherwise advised, it will be Federal Energy Regulatory to be effective January 1, 2000. Commission unnecessary for Petal to appear or be First Revised Sheet No. 8A represented at the hearing. [Project Nos. 2030±031 and 11832±000] Second Revised Sheet No. 8L Linwood A. Watson, Jr., REGT states that the purpose of this Acting Secretary. Portland General Electric Company; filing is to reflect a corporate name [FR Doc. 00–662 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; Notice change for an existing negotiated rate BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Canceling Deadline for Additional contract and the expiration of an Study Requests existing negotiated rate contract. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Any person desiring to protest this January 6, 2000. filing should file a protest with the On December 16, 1999, Portland Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, General Electric Company (PGE) filed a Commission 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC new major license application for the 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of portions of the Pelton Round Butte [Docket No. RP99±518±007] the Commission’s Rules and Project No. 2030 for which it is the Regulations. All such protests must be licensee. On December 17, 1999, the PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest filed as provided in § 154.210 of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Corporation; Notice of Proposed Commission’s Regulations. Protests will Springs Reservation of Oregon (Tribes) Change in FERC Gas Tariff be considered by the Commission in filed a new major license application for determining the appropriate action to be January 6, 2000. the entire project, docketed as Project taken, but will not serve to make Take notice that on December 30, No. 11832–000. protestants parties to the proceedings. 1999, PG&E Gas Transmission, On December 23, 1999, PGE and the Copies of this filing are on file with the Northwest Corporation (PG&E GT–NW) Tribes filed a joint request to extend Commission and are available for public tendered for filing as part of its FERC deadlines for post-filing actions, in light inspection in the Public Reference Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1– of a global settlement the competing Room. This filing may be viewed on the A, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 7 and Second applicants have reached and will web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ Revised Sheet No. 7A. PG&E GT–NW subsequently file with the Commission. rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for requests that the above-referenced tariff On December 28, 1999, the assistance). become effective January 1, 2000. Commission’s staff, who had not yet PG&E GT–NW states that these sheets received the December 28 filing, issued Linwood A. Watson, Jr., are being filed to reflect the a NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS Acting Secretary. implementation of a negotiated rate TENDERED FOR FILING WITH THE [FR Doc. 00–665 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] agreement. COMMISSION AND SOLICITING BILLING CODE 6717±01±M

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1860 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY in determining the appropriate action to in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make be taken, but will not serve to make Federal Energy Regulatory protestants parties to the proceedings. protestants parties to the proceedings. Commission Copies of this filing are on file with the Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public [Docket No. RP99±257±004] Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference inspection in the Public Reference Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Room. This filing may be viewed on the Room. This filing may be viewed on the Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ Gas Tariff rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for assistance. assistance). January 6, 2000. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Take notice that on December 30, Acting Secretary. Acting Secretary. 1999, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, [FR Doc. 00–668 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 00–669 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing to BILLING CODE 6717±01±M become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with the proposed effective DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY date of November 1, 1999: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory First Revised Sheet Nos. 30–33 and 266 Federal Energy Regulatory Second Revised Sheet No. 267, 272, 286, and Commission 287 Commission [Docket No. RP99±381±003] First Revised Sheet Nos. 289 and 290 Williams states that it filed on June Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; [Docket No. RP00±76±001] 18, 1999 an Offer of Settlement Notice of Compliance Filing Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; (Settlement) in the above-referenced January 6, 2000. Notice of Compliance Filing docket, which resolved all issues related Take notice that on December 30, to Williams’ gas supply realignment January 6, 2000. (GSR) costs. The Commission approved 1999, Wyoming Interstate Company, the Settlement on August 30, 1999. No Ltd. (WIC) tendered for filing as part of Take notice that on December 30, party sought rehearing, so the its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 1999, Wyoming Interstate Company Settlement is now final. Williams is Volume No. 2, via its ‘‘Motion to Place (WIC) tendered for filing a compliance concurrently sending invoices (or Suspended Rates in Effect,’’ the filing. WIC asserts that the purpose of checks) for the amount of each following tariff sheets, to become this filing is to comply with customer’s direct bill as reduced by effective on January 1, 2000: Commission’s order dated December 16, payments previously received in Sub. Alternate Tenth Revised Sheet No. 4 1999 (89 FERC ¶ 61,268). accordance with the provisions of the Sub. Alternate Ninth Revised Sheet No. 4A WIC states that copies of the filing Settlement. Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4B Sub. Alternate Second Revised Sheet No. 5A were served upon the company’s Williams states that the purpose of jurisdictional customers and interested this filing is to set forth the amount of Alternate Original Sheet No. 85A Alternate Original Sheet No. 85B state commissions, and is otherwise each customer’s direct bill or refund available for public inspection at WIC’s amount in Williams’ FERC Gas Tariff WIC asserts that the purpose of this office in Colorado Springs, Colorado. and to modify Articles 14.2, 27 and 28 filing is to comply with Commission’s to refer only to the Settlement. Previous orders issued on July 29, 1999 (88 FERC Any person desiring to protest this direct bill amounts set forth on Sheet ¶ 61,134) and November 29, 1999 (89 filing should file a protest with the Nos. 30–37 are eliminated and the FERC ¶ 61,250), in Docket No. RP99– Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, previous provisions of Articles 14.2, 27 381. Specifically, the filing reflects the 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. and 28 are no longer needed. This filing elimination from the data underlying 20426, in accordance with Section also constitutes Williams’ Refund and WIC’s Docket No. RP99–381 rates costs 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and Reconciliation Report pursuant to associated with facilities not placed in Regulations. All such protests must be Article III(A) of the Settlement. service by November 30, 1999. filed as provided in section 154.210 of Williams states that a copy of its filing WIC states that a full copy of its filing the Commission’s Regulations. Protests was served on all participants listed on is being served on each jurisdictional will be considered by the Commission the service lists maintained by the customer, interested state commission, in determining the appropriate action to Commission in the dockets referenced and each party that has requested be taken, but will not serve to make above and on all of Williams’ service as well as upon each party protestants parties to the proceedings. jurisdictional customers and interested appearing on the Commission’s official Copies of this filing are on file with the state commissions. service list for Docket No. RP99–381. Commission and are available for public Any person desiring to protest this Any person desiring to protest this inspection in the Public Reference filing should file a protest with the filing should file a protest with the Room. This filing may be viewed on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for 20426, in accordance with Section 20426, in accordance with Section assistance). 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be Regulations. All such protests must be Linwood A. Watson, Jr., filed as provided in Section 154.210 of filed as provided in Section 154.210 of Acting Secretary. the Commission’s Regulations. Protests the Commission’s Regulations. Protests [FR Doc. 00–671 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] will be considered by the Commission will be considered by the Commission BILLING CODE 6717±01±M

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1861

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY reproduction at the address in item h Partnership for the Magnesium Industry above. is an important voluntary program Federal Energy Regulatory Linwood A. Watson, Jr., contributing to the country’s overall Commission Acting Secretary. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. [FR Doc. 00–664 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Like Energy Star Buildings, the Notice of Application Tendered for Voluntary Aluminum Industrial BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Filing With the Commission Partnership, the PFC Emission January 6, 2000. Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry, and other Take notice that the following ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION programs, the SF6 Emission Reduction hydroelectric application has been filed AGENCY Partnership for the Magnesium Industry with the Commission and is available [FRL±6522±3] is a voluntary effort aimed at preventing for public inspection: pollution before it is generated. These a. Type of Application: New Major Agency Information Collection voluntary programs all focus on License. Activities: Proposed Collection; reducing greenhouse gas emissions and b. Project No.: 2016–044. Comment Request; Reporting and tracking progress by collecting c. Date filed: December 27, 1999. Recordkeeping Activities Associated information from partners on a periodic d. Applicant: City of Tacoma. With EPA's SF6 Emission Reduction basis. Partnership for the Magnesium The SF6 Emissions Reduction e. Name of Project: Cowlitz River Industry Partnership for the Magnesium Industry Hydroelectric Project. is a voluntary, non-regulatory program f. Location: On the Cowlitz River, in AGENCY: Environmental Protection that promotes reduction of sulfur Lewis County, Washington. About 5 Agency (EPA). hexafluoride (SF6) emissions from acres are included within the Gifford ACTION: Notice. companies that melt and cast Pinchot National Forest. magnesium. These companies generally g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power SUMMARY: In compliance with the include primary magnesium plants and Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. magnesium casting facilities. EPA’s h. Applicant Contact: Toby Freeman, 3501 et seq.), this document announces Climate Protection Division (CPD) Tacoma Power, 3628 South 35th Street, that EPA is planning to submit the manages the voluntary program. Tacoma, WA 98411; (253) 502–8862. following proposed Information SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of i. FERC Contact: David Turner (202) known; it is 23,900 times as effective as Management and Budget (OMB): 219–2844, Email: carbon dioxide (CO2) at trapping heat in Reporting and Recordkeeping Activities [email protected] the Earth’s atmosphere. Once released, Associated with EPA’s SF6 Emission it will remain in the atmosphere for j. Brief Project Description: The 462- Reduction Partnership for the more than 3,000 years. Magnesium megawatt (MW) project consists of the Magnesium Industry, EPA ICR No. companies use SF6 gas to prevent the following: (1) 606-foot-high, 1,300-foot- 1942.01. Before submitting the ICR to molten metal from violent oxidation long Moosyrock Dam and powerhouse OMB for review and approval, EPA is (i.e., burning or explosions). containing two generating units with a soliciting comments on specific aspects EPA’s partnership with the combined capacity of 300 MW, (2) of the proposed information collection magnesium industry seeks to inform 11,830-acre Riffe Lake at maximum as described below. partners about available cost-effective operating pool elevation of 778.5 feet, DATES: emission reduction technologies and (3) 250 foot-high, 850-foot-long Mayfield Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2000. keep track of successful emission Dam and powerhouse containing four reduction efforts. EPA works with the ADDRESSES: To obtain a free copy of the generating units with a combined U.S. magnesium companies and serves proposed ICR, contact Scott Bartos, U.S. capacity of 162 MW, (4) 2,250-acre as a clearinghouse for technical Environmental Protection Agency 401 Mayfield Lake at maximum operating information on strategies for reducing M Street, SW (6202J) Washington, DC pool elevation of 425 feet, (5) 17.9 miles SF emissions that are economically, 20460. 6 of 230 kilovolt transmission line, (6) technically, and environmentally sound. Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery, (7) a 400-feet- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA will also conduct preliminary long, 28-foot-high zoned earthen Scott Bartos, Program Manager Tel.: assessments of possible substitute gases embankment that connects to a 320-foot- (202) 564–9167, Fax: (202) 565–2078, E- and share this information with long, 12-foot-high concrete fish barrier mail: [email protected]. partners. Ultimately, EPA provides at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery, known SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: recognition to companies for their at Barrier Dam, (8) Cowlitz Trout Affected entities: Entities potentially successes in reducing SF6 emissions, Hatchery, (9) Mossyrock Park, (10) affected by this action are those which either through certificates and awards or Taidnapam Park, and other associated produce or cast magnesium and through assistance in publishing their facilities. magnesium-based alloys. achievements. k. Locations of the application: A Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Participation in the program begins by copy of the application is available for Activities Associated with EPA’s SF6 completing a Memorandum of inspection and reproduction at the Emission Reduction Partnership for the Understanding (MOU) that outlines EPA Commission’s Public Reference Room, Magnesium Industry (EPA ICR No. and partner company responsibilities. located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 1942.01). This MOU defines a voluntary 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, or by Abstract: In April 1993, President agreement between the magnesium calling (202) 208–1371. The application Clinton issued the Climate Change company and EPA. All U.S. magnesium may be viewed on the web at http:// Action Plan (CCAP), which established producing and casting companies are www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call a national commitment to reduce U.S. invited to join the partnership. The (202) 208–2222 for assistance). A copy greenhouse gas emissions. EPA’s newly MOU agreement can be terminated by is also available for inspection and launched SF6 Emission Reduction either party 30 days after receipt of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.031 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1862 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices written notice by the other party with use of appropriate automated electronic, submitted DFW 9% Rate-of-Progress no penalties or continuing obligations. mechanical, or other technological (ROP) for ozone State Implementation By joining the partnership, a company collection techniques or other forms of Plan (SIP) are adequate for agrees to track and report an estimate of information technology, e.g., permitting transportation conformity purposes. As its SF6 emissions to EPA annually. The electronic submission of responses. a result of this determination, the International Magnesium Association Burden Statement: In estimating the budgets from the submitted DFW 9% (IMA) acts as a third party, assembling expected burden, EPA assumes 10 ROP SIP may be used for future the reported data and transmitting it to companies will join in the first year and conformity determinations in the DFW EPA for the purpose of protecting the 5 companies will join in each of the area. No comments were received confidentiality of data submitted by second and third years for an average of during the public comment period. individual companies. A partner 15 partners/year over the 3 years DATES: These budgets are effective company’s annual report will indicate: covered by this ICR. January 27, 2000. • An estimated normalized SF6 Average annual reporting burden FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. emission rate in terms of the weight of hours = 1,834. J. Behnam, P. E., The U.S. SF6 emitted (kg) per unit weight of Average burden hours/response = 122. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 magnesium produced or processed Frequency of response = 1/year. Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202; (metric tons). Estimated number of telephone (214) 665–7247. • Estimated total SF6 emissions. respondents = 15. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Information provided at the Estimated total annual cost Transportation conformity is required partner’s discretion on efforts the burden = $95,251. by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. company has undertaken to reduce SF6 Total capital and start-up The EPA’s conformity rule, 40 CFR part use or emissions. costs = $931. 93, requires that transportation plans, Total operation and maintenance It is anticipated that SF6 emissions will programs, and projects conform to SIPs costs = $26,400. be reported based on records of SF6 use, and establishes the criteria and Burden means the total time, effort, or with any necessary adjustments made to procedures for determining whether or financial resources expended by persons account for emission reductions not they do. Conformity to a SIP means to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose achieved by the Company during the that transportation activities will not or provide information to or for a year. IMA will prepare a report for EPA produce new air quality violations, Federal agency. This includes the time that presents a total SF6 emissions worsen existing violations, or delay needed to review instructions; develop, estimate for all reporting partners. The timely attainment of the national acquire, install, and utilize technology partnership will track progress as a ambient air quality standards. The and systems for the purposes of group using the aggregate total SF6 criteria by which EPA determines collecting, validating, and verifying emissions estimate and by individual whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission information, processing and company using the normalized budgets are adequate for conformity maintaining information, and disclosing emissions rate. The emissions data will purposes are outlined in 40 CFR and providing information; adjust the be presented along with the optional 93.118(e)(4). An adequacy review is existing ways to comply with any descriptions of partner activities in an separate from EPA’s completeness previously applicable instructions and annual report in an effort to promote review, and it should not be used to requirements; train personnel to be able technical information sharing. In prejudge EPA’s ultimate approval of the to respond to a collection of preparing this report, any information SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, information; search data sources; designated confidential by partners will the SIP could later be disapproved. be omitted or otherwise protected. An complete and review the collection of On March 2, 1999, the D. C. Circuit agency may not conduct or sponsor, and information; and transmit or otherwise Court of Appeals ruled that budgets a person is not required to respond to, disclose the information. contained in submitted SIPs cannot be a collection of information unless it Dated: December 20, 1999. used for conformity determinations displays a currently valid OMB control Jeanne Briskin, unless EPA has affirmatively found the number. The OMB control numbers for Chief, State Outreach & Industrial Branch. conformity budget adequate. We have EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR [FR Doc. 00–731 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] described our process for determining part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets The EPA would like to solicit in the policy guidance dated May 14, comments to: 1999, and titled Conformity Guidance (i) Evaluate whether the proposed ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION on Implementation of March 2, 1999 collection of information is necessary AGENCY Conformity Court Decision. You may for the proper performance of the obtain a copy of this guidance from functions of the agency, including [FRL±6522±5] EPA’s conformity web site: http:// whether the information will have Adequacy Status of Submitted State www.epa.gov/oms/traq (once there, practical utility; Implementation Plans for click on ‘‘conformity’’ and then scroll (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Transportation Conformity Purposes: down) or by contacting us at the address agency’s estimate of the burden of the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 9% Rate-of- above. proposed collection of information, Progress for Ozone By this notice, we are simply including the validity of the announcing the adequacy determination methodology and assumptions used; AGENCY: Environmental Protection that we have already made. On October (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and Agency (EPA). 29, 1999, we received the DFW 9% ROP clarity of the information to be ACTION: Notice of adequacy status. SIP which contained a volatile organic collected; and compounds budget of 147.22 tons/day (iv) Minimize the burden of the SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is and a nitrogen oxides budget of 284.14 collection of information on those who announcing that the motor vehicle tons/day. Notice that we had received are to respond, including through the emissions budgets contained in the this SIP was parallel processed and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.144 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1863 posted on the EPA’s website for a ADDRESSES: Please send relevant Assessments Completed in FY 1999 and 30-day public comment period on scientific information to the IRIS Early FY 2000 August 16, 1999. The public comment Submission Desk in accordance with the The following assessments were period closed on September 15, 1999. instructions provided under completed and entered into IRIS in FY We did not receive any comments. After ‘‘Submission of Information’’ in this 1999 and early FY 2000. These the public comment process and formal Notice. Note the new address for the assessments were announced in the submission of this SIP without IRIS Submission Desk. Federal Register notice of December 10, substantive change, we sent a letter to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For 1998. All health endpoints, cancer and the Texas Natural Resource information on the IRIS program, non-cancer, were assessed unless Conservation Commission stating that contact Amy Mills, National Center for otherwise noted. Where information these budgets are adequate and can be Environmental Assessment (mail code was available, oral reference doses, used for conformity determinations. 8601D), U.S. Environmental Protection inhalation reference concentrations, and Therefore, the budgets contained in Agency, Washington, DC 20460, or call cancer unit risks and slope factors were the submitted DFW 9% ROP SIP as (202) 564–3204, or send electronic mail developed. referenced above may be used for inquiries to [email protected]. For transportation conformity by the general questions about access to IRIS, Name CAS No. Metropolitan Planning Organization in or the content of IRIS, please call the DFW. Risk Information Hotline at (513) 569– Acetonitrile ...... 75±05±8 Benzene (inhalation carcino- Dated: December 16, 1999. 7254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: genicity) ...... 71±43±2 Jerry Clifford, Ethylene glycol monobutyl Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6. Background ether ...... 111±76±2 [FR Doc. 00–730 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] IRIS is an EPA data base containing BILLING CODE 6560±50±U Agency consensus scientific positions Assessments in Progress—Completion on potential adverse human health Planned for FY 2000 or FY 2001 effects that may result from chronic (or The following assessments are ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION lifetime) exposure to chemical underway or generally complete, and AGENCY substances found in the environment. are planned for entry into IRIS in FY IRIS currently provides health effects 2000 or FY 2001. These assessments [FRL±6422±4] information on over 500 specific were announced in the December 10, chemical substances. 1998, Federal Register notice. All health Integrated Risk Information System IRIS contains chemical-specific endpoints, cancer and non-cancer, are (IRIS); Announcement of 2000 summaries of qualitative and being assessed unless otherwise noted. Program; Request for Information quantitative health information in Where information is available, oral AGENCY: Environmental Protection support of the first two steps of the risk reference doses, inhalation reference Agency. assessment process, i.e., hazard concentrations, cancer unit risks and identification and dose-response slope factors are being developed. ACTION: Notice; Announcement of IRIS evaluation. IRIS information includes 2000 Program and request for scientific the reference dose for non-cancer health Name CAS No. information on health effects that may effects resulting from oral exposure, the result from chronic exposure to reference concentration for non-cancer Acetaldehyde ...... 75±07±0 chemical substances. health effects resulting from inhalation Acetone ...... 67±64±1 exposure, and the carcinogen Ammonium perchlorate (and SUMMARY: The Integrated Risk associated salts) ...... 7790±98±9 Information System (IRIS) is an EPA assessment for both oral and inhalation Benzene (oral carcinogenicity data base that contains EPA scientific exposure. Combined with specific and non-cancer endpoints) 71±43±2 consensus positions on human health situational exposure assessment Benzo[a]pyrene ...... 50±32±8 effects that may result from chronic information, the summary health hazard Boron ...... 7440±42±8 exposure to chemical substances in the information in IRIS may be used as a Bromate ...... 7758±01±2 source in evaluating potential public 1,3-Butadiene ...... 106±99±0 environment. On December 10, 1998, health risks from environmental Cadmium ...... 7440±43±9 EPA announced the 1999 IRIS agenda contaminants. Chloral hydrate ...... 75±87±6 and solicited scientific information from Chlorine dioxide ...... 10049±04±4 the public for consideration in assessing The IRIS Program Chlorite (sodium salts) ...... 7758±19±2 health effects from specific chemical EPA’s process for developing IRIS Chloroethane ...... 75±00±3 substances (63 FR 68285). Most of the Chloroform ...... 67±66±3 consists of, (1) an annual Federal Chloroprene ...... 126±99±8 assessments listed are near completion, Register announcement of EPA’s IRIS and EPA is preparing a new set of Copper ...... 7440±50±8 agenda and call for scientific Cyclohexane ...... 110±82±7 chemical health assessments for IRIS. information from the public on the Dichloroacetic acid ...... 79±43±6 This Notice describes the Agency’s selected chemical substances, (2) a 1,3-Dichloropropene ...... 542±75±6 plans, and solicits scientific data and search of the current literature, (3) Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ...... 117±81±7 evaluations for consideration in EPA’s development of health assessments and Diflubenzuron ...... 35367±38±5 new assessments. This Notice also draft IRIS summaries, (4) peer review Diesel emissions ...... [N.A.] discusses public availability of draft within EPA, (5) peer review outside Ethylbenzene ...... 100±41±4 Ethylene oxide ...... 75±21±8 assessments, and cooperation between EPA, (6) EPA consensus review and EPA and external parties on assessment Formaldehyde ...... 50±00±0 management approval, (7) preparation Hexachlorocyclopentadiene .... 77±47±4 development. of final IRIS summaries and supporting Isopropanol ...... 67±63±0 DATES: Please submit information in documents, and (8) entry of summaries Methyl chloride ...... 74±87±3 response to this Notice by March 13, and supporting documents into the IRIS Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) 108±10±1 2000. data base. Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 1634±04±4

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1864 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Name CAS No. documents will be available from the Name CAS No. ‘‘What’s New’’ page of the IRIS web site Nickel (soluble salts) ...... [N.A.] at www.epa.gov/iris, along with EPA’s Methyl mercury (noncancer Nitrobenzene ...... 98±95±3 charge to the external peer reviewers, endpts.) ...... 22967±92±6 Pendimethalin ...... 40487±42±1 and information on where the public Methylene chloride ...... 75±09±2 Phenol ...... 108±95±2 Mirex ...... 2385±85±5 Quinoline ...... 91±22±5 may submit any scientific views for Pebulate ...... 1114±71±2 Pentachlorophenol ...... 87±86±5 EPA’s consideration. Interested parties Phosgene ...... 75±44±5 Polychlorinated biphenyls should check the ‘‘What’s New’’ page Refractory ceramic fibers ...... [N.A.] (PCBs) (noncancer frequently for the availability of these 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) ...... 1746±01±6 endpoints) ...... 1336±36±3 drafts. Silica (crystalline) ...... 14808±60±7 Follow-up annual Federal Register Information Requested on New Styrene ...... 100±42±5 notices will address new starts for Assessments for FY 2000 Tetrachloroethylene (``perc'') .. 127±18±4 subsequent fiscal years. In the future, Tetrahydrofuran ...... 109±99±9 EPA will continue building and Toxaphene ...... 8001±35±2 these notices will include chemical Trichlopyr ...... 55335±06±3 updating the IRIS data base. The Agency substances selected for assessment or Trichloroethylene ...... 79±01±6 recognizes that many of the assessments reassessment under EPA’s new Uranium (natural)* ...... 7440±61±1 on IRIS need updating to incorporate guidelines for carcinogen risk Vinyl acetate ...... 108±05±4 new scientific information and assessment that are also planned for Vinyl chloride ...... 75±01±4 methodologies. Further, many inclusion in IRIS (64 FR 32799, June 25, Xylenes ...... 1330±20±7 additional substances are candidates for 1996). Zinc and compounds ...... 7440±66±6 adding to IRIS. However, due to limited Submission of Information * FY 2001Ð2002 completion. resources in the Agency to address the spectrum of needs, EPA developed a list As in previous Federal Register The IRIS summaries and support of priority substances for attention notices announcing the annual IRIS documents for the substances listed beginning in FY 2000. The following list agenda, EPA is soliciting public above will be provided on the IRIS web of substances are priorities for IRIS due involvement in new assessments site at www.epa.gov/iris. This publicly- to one or more of the following reasons: starting in FY 2000. While EPA available web site is EPA’s primary (1) Agency statutory, regulatory, or conducts a thorough literature search for location for IRIS documents. program implementation need; (2) new each chemical substance, there may be In addition to the assessment of the scientific information or methodology is other articles or unpublished studies we individual polynuclear aromatic available that might significantly change are not aware of. We would greatly hydrocarbon (PAH) benzo[a]pyrene, current IRIS information, (3) interest to appreciate receiving scientific EPA also initiated in FY 1999 a other levels of government or the public, information from the public during the literature review on the health effects of (4) most of the scientific assessment information gathering stage for the list a larger set of PAHs. Additional health work has been completed while meeting of ‘‘new assessments’’ listed above. assessments on this class of chemicals other Agency requirements, and only a Interested persons should provide will be considered for initiation in FY modest additional effort will be needed scientific comments, analyses, studies, 2001. to complete the review and and other pertinent scientific The reassessment of Lindane [CAS documentation for IRIS. information. The most useful No. 58–89–9] discussed in the previous The following IRIS health assessments documents for EPA are unpublished Federal Register notice has been deleted have recently begun or will be started in studies or other primary technical from the IRIS agenda for this year due FY 2000, with completion expected sources that we may not otherwise to delays in a cancer study anticipated between FY 2001 and FY 2002. It is for obtain through open literature searches. for use in the reassessment. these substances that the Agency is Also note that if you have submitted Public Availability of Draft IRIS primarily requesting information from certain information previously then Assessments the public for consideration in the there is no need to resubmit that information. Information from the In response to public interest, and in assessment. Unless otherwise noted, noncancer and cancer endpoints will be public is being solicited for 60 days via an effort to provide greater transparency this notice. of the IRIS program, EPA has decided to assessed for each substance. Where make draft assessments widely available information is available, oral reference Procedures for Submission for public viewing. Concurrent with doses, inhalation reference Similar to the process described in the each external peer review period, EPA concentrations, and cancer unit risks December 10, 1998, Federal Register will post draft IRIS assessments on the and slope factors will be developed. notice, submissions will be handled in Internet for public information. a three-step process: Name CAS No. Although EPA is not required to invite 1. Submission Inventory: First, you comments on draft IRIS assessments or Acrolein ...... 107±02±8 should simply provide a list within 60 respond to individual comments Antimony and compounds ...... 7440±36±0 days of this Notice briefly identifying all received, EPA will consider any Arsenic, inorganic ...... 7440±38±2 the information (reports, papers, scientific views pertaining to the Bisphenol-A ...... 80±05±7 articles, etc.) you wish to submit. The assessment submitted by the general Carbon tetrachloride ...... 56±23±5 list should specify by name and CASRN public during each external peer review Chlorothalonil ...... 1897±45±6 (Chemical Abstract Service Registry period. EPA will then summarize and 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ...... 95±50±1 Number) the chemical substance(s) to address any major scientific issues 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ...... 541±73±1 which the information pertains, state 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ...... 106±46±7 received from the public and external 1,1-Dichloroethylene ...... 75±35±4 the type of assessment that is being peer reviewers in an appendix to the Ethylene dibromide ...... 106±93±4 addressed (e.g., carcinogenicity), and final IRIS Toxicological Review or other Ethylene dichloride ...... 107±06±2 describe briefly the information to be EPA support document for the final Glyphosate ...... 1071±83±6 submitted for consideration. Where assessment. External peer review draft Hydrogen sulfide ...... 7783±06±4 possible, documents should be listed in

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.122 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1865 scientific citation format, that is, EPA staff. Such requests should be the Ozone Transport Commission. This author(s), title, journal, and date. Your made directly to Amy Mills, IRIS meeting is for the Ozone Transport cover letter should state that the Program Manager (see FOR FURTHER Commission to deal with appropriate correspondence is an IRIS Submission, INFORMATION). matters within the Ozone Transport describe in general terms the purpose of Region in the Northeast and Mid- Assessment Development Input from the submission, and include names, Atlantic States, as provided for under External Parties addresses, and telephone numbers of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. persons to contact for additional In addition to the opportunity for This meeting is not subject to the information. Mail two copies of the public input via the IRIS Submission provisions of the Federal Advisory submission to the IRIS Submission Desk described above, EPA is testing Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as Desk, c/o Courtney R. Johnson, National ways to involve the public in the amended. Center for Environmental Assessment development of health assessment DATES: The meeting will be held on (8601D), U.S. Environmental Protection documents which are submitted to EPA January 27, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 Agency, Washington, DC 20460. Note by external parties as supporting p.m. that the address for the IRIS Submission documents for IRIS. Considerable ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Desk has changed. expertise in assessing health risks exists the Hilton Washington & Towers, 1919 Alternatively, you may submit the outside of EPA, such as in other Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, submission inventory and cover letter government agencies, industries, DC; (202) 483–3000. electronically to [email protected]. universities, professional organizations, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Electronic information must be and other non-governmental Judith M. Katz, U.S. Environmental submitted in WordPerfect or as an ASCII organizations. Cooperation between Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 file. Information will also be accepted EPA and external parties in the Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; on 3.5′′ floppy disks. All information in assessment development process can (215) 814–2900. electronic form must be identified as an improve the quality of IRIS supporting IRIS Submission. documents. EPA can provide scientific FOR DOCUMENTS AND PRESS INQUIRIES CONTACT: 2. EPA Replies to Submission dialogue and feedback during the Bruce S. Carhart, Ozone Inventory: In the second step, EPA will development of external parties’ Transport Commission, 444 North compare the submission inventory to assessments. Capitol Street N.W., Suite 638, existing files and identify the For several assessments in progress Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508–3840; information that should be submitted. now, specifically for the chemical e-mail: [email protected]; website: http:// This step will help prevent an influx of substances Ethylene oxide, Styrene, and www.sso.org/otc duplicative information. You will Toxaphene, external parties are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean receive notification requesting full developing assessment documents with Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at submission of the selected material. dialogue and feedback from EPA. EPA section 184 provisions for the ‘‘Control 3. Full Submission of Selected will then consider these documents, in of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution.’’ Material: In the third step, you should whole or in part, as possible sources or Section 184(a) establishes an ‘‘Ozone send in the information indicated by supporting documents for IRIS Transport Region’’ (OTR) comprised of EPA within 30 days of EPA’s reply. assessments. Over the coming year, EPA the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Prompt response to EPA will ensure that will evaluate its experience with these Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New your material can be considered in the three externally-generated assessments Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, assessment in a timely fashion. in terms of process efficiency and Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Submittals should include a cover letter quality of the documents produced. If parts of Virginia and the District of addressing all of the points in item 1 the experience is positive, EPA will Columbia. above. In addition, when you submit invite similar involvement on future The Assistant Administrator for Air results of new health effects studies health assessments in the IRIS program. and Radiation of the Environmental concerning existing substances on IRIS, Protection Agency convened the first you should include a specific Dated: January 5, 2000. meeting of the commission in New York explanation of how and why the study William H. Farland, City on May 7, 1991. The purpose of the results could change the information in Director, National Center for Environmental Ozone Transport Commission is to deal IRIS. Assessment. with ground level ozone formation, Please send two copies, at least one of [FR Doc. 00–732 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] transport, and control within the OTR. which should be unbound, to the IRIS BILLING CODE 6560±50±P The purpose of this notice is to Submission Desk, as described in Step announce that this Commission will 1. The IRIS Submission Desk will meet on January 27, 2000. The meeting acknowledge receipt of your ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION will be held at the address noted earlier information. AGENCY in this notice. Confidential Business Information Section 176A(b)(2) of the Clean Air [FRL±6522±7] (CBI) should not be submitted to the Act Amendments of 1990 specifies that IRIS Submission Desk. CBI must be Meeting of the Ozone Transport the meetings of the Ozone Transport submitted to the appropriate EPA Office Commission for the Northeast United Commission are not subject to the via established procedures for States provisions of the Federal Advisory submission of CBI (see 40 CFR, Part 2, Committee Act. This meeting will be Subpart B). If you believe that a CBI AGENCY: Environmental Protection open to the public as space permits. submission contains information with Agency (EPA). Type of Meeting: Open. implications for IRIS, please note that in ACTION: Notice of meeting. Agenda: Copies of the final agenda the cover letter accompanying the will be available from Bruce Carhart of submission to the appropriate office. SUMMARY: The United States the OTC office (202) 508–3840 (by e- You may also request to augment your Environmental Protection Agency is mail: [email protected] or via our website submission with a scientific briefing to announcing the 2000 Winter Meeting of at http://www.sso.org/otc) on Thursday,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.124 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1866 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

January 20, 2000. The purpose of this adjacent to the escalator to the Federal Availability of Review Materials meeting is to review air quality needs Triangle Metro Station on 12th Street The review materials include a brief within the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic NW. The public is encouraged to attend program description, the ETV Quality States, including reduction of motor the meetings in the conference room Management Plan, several pilot study vehicle and stationary source air noted above, however, the public may protocols and selected final reports. The pollution. The OTC is also expected to also attend through a telephonic link. general program description is available address issues related to the transport of Additional instructions about how to from Ms. Penny Hansen (via e-mail at: ozone into its region, including actions participate in either conference call can or phone at by EPA under sections 110 and 126 of be obtained by calling Ms. Mary (202) 564–3212). A limited number of the Clean Air Act, to evaluate the Winston approximately a week prior to paper copies of the other documents potential for additional emission each meeting (by January 19 or February will be available from Ms. Hansen as reductions through new motor vehicle 17, respectively) at (202) 564–4538, or well. If available, electronic versions of emission standards, and to discuss via e-mail at . these other documents will also be market-based programs to reduce Purpose of the Meetings made available on the SAB Website pollutants that cause ozone. (http://www.epa.gov) approximately Dated: January 5, 2000. At the January 26th conference call three weeks prior to the meeting. The Bradley M. Campbell, meeting, the Subcommittee intends to Subcommittee is likely to reference the refine the charge for its review of EPA’s Regional Administrator, Region III. following Agency quality management natural attenuation research. At the documents: EPA Quality System [FR Doc. 00–728 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] February 24th conference call meeting, BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Overview (G–0); Guidance for the Data the Subcommittee intends to hear Quality Objectives Process—Final 9/94 preliminary reactions of individual (G–4); and G–5: Guidance on Quality ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION reviewers to the written materials and to Assurance Project Plans—Final 2/98 (G– AGENCY clarify the agenda for a face-to-face 5). These documents are available review meeting in March (as announced through the following website: http:// [FRL±6521±9] below). es.epa.gov/ncerqa/qa/qaldocs.html, or Science Advisory Board, Availability of Review Materials in hard copy from Ms. Hansen. Environmental Engineering The review materials include 3. Environmental Engineering Committee; Notification of Public background information such as the Committee Meeting on March 6–10 Advisory Committee Meetings Directive on Natural Attenuation (http:/ The Environmental Engineering Pursuant to the Federal Advisory /www.epa.gov/swerust1/directiv/ Committee of the Science Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, d9200417.pdf); the Waste Research Board (SAB) will meet Monday through notice is hereby given that the Strategy (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/ Friday, March 6–10, 2000 in conference Environmental Engineering Committee WebPubs/final/wastepub.pdf); a list of room 6530, USEPA, Ariel Rios Building (and its Subcommittees) of the USEPA publications based on the completed North, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Science Advisory Board (SAB) will hold research; project descriptions for on- Washington, D.C. 20004 (adjacent to the two conference calls and two face-to- going research; and a description of escalator to the Federal Triangle Metro face meetings on the dates and times planned research not yet underway. Station on 12th Street NW). The meeting noted below. All times noted are Eastern Where an electronic version of a will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday and Time. All meetings are open to the document is available, the website has end no later than 4 p.m. on Friday. been noted. A limited number of paper public, however, seating is limited and Note: Members of the public wishing to available on a first come basis. copies of these documents can be provide substantive comments are obtained from Dr. Stephen Schmelling encouraged to provide them in writing well Important notice: Documents that are the at e-mail: subject of SAB reviews are normally in advance of the March meeting; details available from the originating EPA office and or via phone at (580) 436–8540. about providing public comment appear below. are not available from the SAB Office unless 2. Technology Evaluation otherwise noted; information concerning Subcommittee Meeting on February 23– Purpose of the Meeting availability of documents from the relevant Program Office is included below. 25 (a) The EEC’s Natural Attenuation The Technology Evaluation Subcommittee will review EPA’s natural 1. Natural Attenuation Research Subcommittee of the Science Advisory attenuation research (much of this Subcommittee—Teleconference Board’s Environmental Engineering activity is planned for Monday through Meetings on January 26 and February Committee will meet Wednesday Wednesday, March 6–8); (b) the 24 through Friday, February 23–25, 2000 in Technology Evaluation Subcommittee The Natural Attenuation Research Conference Room 6530, USEPA, Ariel will report on its review of Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Rios Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania Implementation of Quality Management Board’s (SAB) Environmental Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 in the Environmental Technology Engineering Committee (EEC) will (adjacent to the escalator to the Federal Verification Program; (c) the Committee conduct public teleconference meetings Triangle Metro Station on 12th Street will review responses to FY1998 and Wednesday January 26, 2000 and NW). The meeting will begin at 9:30 FY1999 reports and discuss potential Thursday February 24, 2000 between a.m. on Wednesday and end no later FY2000 activities; (d) the Committee the hours of 3 p.m.–5 p.m (Eastern than 4 p.m. on Friday. will consider the progress of initiatives Standard Time). The meetings will be on measures of technology performance, coordinated through a conference call Purpose of the Meeting sediments, and the use of social connection in Room 6450V in the The Subcommittee will review the sciences to reduce impediments to USEPA, Ariel Rios Building North, 1200 implementation of quality management environmental protection associated Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, in the Environmental Technology with industrial and commercial DC 20004. The Ariel Rios Building is Verification (ETV) program. activities; and (e) as time permits, the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.126 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1867

Committee may also discuss and/or hear Meeting Access that, as new information becomes briefings on other issues of interest. Individuals requiring special available and/or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions they contain Availability of Review Materials accommodation at this teleconference meeting, including wheelchair access to may change. Information on the availability of the conference room, should contact Ms. DATES: Comments on these assessments, background/review materials for the two Conway at least five business days prior identified by the docket control number subcommittee reviews is given under 1. to the meeting so that appropriate for the particular organophosphate above. If other materials are arrangements can be made. pesticide of interest, must be received on or before March 13, 2000. Use the subsequently provided to the Committee Dated: January 5, 2000. for the March meeting, they will be table in Unit I.C. of the Donald G. Barnes, ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’ available from Ms. Mary Winston at Staff Director, Science Advisory Board. (202) 564–4538, or via e-mail at to determine the docket control number. [FR Doc. 00–734 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Comments may be approximately three weeks prior to the BILLING CODE 6560±50±P submitted by mail, electronically, or in meeting dates. person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION For Further Information provided in Unit I. of the AGENCY ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ Any member of the public wishing [OPP±34214; FRL±6486±9] To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is further information concerning these imperative that you identify the docket four meetings or wishing to submit brief Organophosphate Pesticides; control number for the particular oral comments for any of the meetings Availability of Preliminary Risk organophosphate pesticide of interest in must contact Ms. Kathleen White Assessments the subject line on the first page of your Conway, Designated Federal Officer, response. Use the table in Unit I.C. to AGENCY: Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. Environmental Protection determine the docket control number. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Agency (EPA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rios Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania ACTION: Notice. Karen Angulo, Special Review and Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; Reregistration Division (7508C), Office telephone (202) 564–4559; FAX (202) SUMMARY: This notice announces the of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 501–0582; or via e-mail at availability of documents that were Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., . Requests developed as part of the EPA’s process 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., for oral comments must be in writing (e- for making reregistration eligibility Washington, DC 20460; telephone mail, fax or mail) and received by Ms. decisions for the organophosphate number: (703) 308–8004; e-mail address: Conway no later than noon Eastern pesticides and for tolerance [email protected]. Time one week prior to each meeting. reassessments consistent with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Providing Oral or Written Comments at (FFDCA), as amended by the Food I. General Information SAB Meetings Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). These documents are the preliminary A. Does this Action Apply to Me? The Science Advisory Board expects human health risk assessments and This action is directed to the public that public statements presented at its related documents for mevinphos and meetings will not be repetitive of in general, nevertheless, a wide range of phosalone. This notice also starts a 60- stakeholders will be interested in previously submitted oral or written day public comment period for the statements. In general, each individual obtaining the preliminary risk preliminary risk assessments. assessments for mevinphos and or group making an oral presentation Comments are to be limited to issues phosalone, including environmental, will be limited to a total time of ten directly associated with the two human health, and agricultural minutes. For teleconference meetings, organophosphates that have the risk advocates; the chemical industry; opportunities for oral comment will assessments placed in the docket and pesticide users; and members of the usually be limited to no more than three should be limited to issues raised in public interested in the use of pesticides minutes per speaker and no more than those documents. By allowing access on food. Since other entities also may be fifteen minutes total. Written comments and opportunity for comment on the interested, the Agency has not (at least 35 copies) received in the SAB preliminary risk assessments, EPA is attempted to describe all the specific Staff Office sufficiently prior to a seeking to strengthen stakeholder entities that may be affected by this meeting date (usually one week before involvement and help ensure our action. If you have any questions the meeting), may be mailed to the decisions under FQPA are transparent regarding the applicability of this action relevant SAB committee or and based on the best available to a particular entity, consult the person subcommittee; comments received too information. The tolerance reassessment listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER close to the meeting date will normally process will ensure that the United INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ be provided to the committee at its States continues to have the safest and meeting. most abundant food supply. The Agency B. How Can I Get Additional Additional information concerning cautions that these risk assessments are Information, Including Copies of this the Science Advisory Board, its preliminary assessments only and that Document and Other Related structure, function, and composition, further refinements of the risk Documents? may be found on the SAB Website assessments will be appropriate for 1. Electronically. You may obtain (http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in the FY some, if not all, of these electronic copies of this document, and 1999 Annual Report of the Staff Director organophosphate pesticides. These certain other related documents that which is available from the SAB documents reflect only the work and might be available electronically, from Publications Staff at (202) 564–4533 or analysis conducted as of the time they the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// via fax at (202) 501–0582. were produced and it is appropriate www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1868 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), 4. If you estimate potential burden or up the entry for this document under Information Resources and Services costs, explain how you arrived at the the ‘‘Federal Register—Environmental Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide estimate that you provide. Documents.’’ You can also go directly to Programs (OPP), Environmental 5. Provide specific examples to the Federal Register listings at http:// Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal illustrate your concerns. www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. In addition, Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 6. Offer alternative ways to improve copies of the preliminary risk Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from the notice. assessments for the two 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 7. Make sure to submit your organophosphate pesticides may also be Friday, excluding legal holidays. The comments by the deadline in this accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– document. pesticides/op. 5805. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control 2. In person. The Agency has 3. Electronically. You may submit established an official record for this number assigned to the your comments electronically by e-mail organophosphate pesticide of interest in action under docket control number to: ‘‘[email protected],’’ or you can OPP–34215 for mevinphos, and OPP– the subject line on the first page of your submit a computer disk as described response. You may also provide the 34216 for phosalone. The official record above. Do not submit any information consists of the documents specifically name, date, and Federal Register electronically that you consider to be citation. referenced in this action, and other CBI. Avoid the use of special characters information related to this action, and any form of encryption. Electronic II. Background including any information claimed as submissions will be accepted in EPA is making available preliminary Confidential Business Information (CBI). WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file risk assessments that have been This official record includes the format. All comments in electronic form developed as part of EPA’s process for documents that are physically located in must be identified by docket control making reregistration eligibility the docket, as well as the documents number OPP–34215 for mevinphos, and decisions for the organophosphate that are referenced in those documents. OPP–34216 for phosalone. Electronic pesticides and for tolerance The public version of the official record comments may also be filed online at reassessments consistent with the does not include any information many Federal Depository Libraries. FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA. The claimed as CBI. The public version of Agency’s preliminary risk assessments the official record, which includes D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency? for two organophosphate pesticides are printed, paper versions of any electronic available in the individual comments submitted during an Do not submit any information organophosphate pesticide dockets: applicable comment period is available electronically that you consider to be Mevinphos and phosalone. for inspection in the Public Information CBI. You may claim information that Included in the individual and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), you submit to EPA in response to this organophosphate pesticide dockets are Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson document as CBI by marking any part or the Agency’s preliminary risk Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 all of that information as CBI. assessments. As additional comments, a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, Information so marked will not be reviews, and risk assessment excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB disclosed except in accordance with modifications become available, these telephone number is (703) 305–5805. procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. will also be docketed for the two C. How and to Whom Do I Submit In addition to one complete version of organophosphate pesticides listed in Comments? the comment that includes any this notice. The Agency cautions that information claimed as CBI, a copy of these risk assessments are preliminary You may submit comments through the comment that does not contain the assessments only and that further the mail, in person, or electronically. To information claimed as CBI must be refinements of the risk assessments will ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is submitted for inclusion in the public be appropriate for the two imperative that you identify the docket version of the official record. organophosphate pesticides. These control number for the particular Information not marked confidential documents reflect only the work and organophosphate pesticide of interest in will be included in the public version analysis conducted as of the time they the subject line on the first page of your of the official record without prior were produced and it is appropriate response. Use the following table to notice. If you have any questions about that, as new information becomes determine the docket control number: CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, available and/or additional analyses are please consult the person listed under performed, the conclusions they contain Chemical OPP Docket no. ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION may change. CONTACT.’’ As the preliminary risk assessments Mevinphos OPP±34215 for the remaining organophosphate Phosalone OPP±34216 E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare pesticides are completed and registrants My Comments for EPA? are given a 30-day review period to 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: You may find the following identify possible computational or other Public Information and Records suggestions helpful for preparing your clear errors in the risk assessments, Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information comments: these risk assessments and registrant Resources and Services Division responses will be placed in the 1. Explain your views as clearly as (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs individual organophosphate pesticide possible. (OPP), Environmental Protection dockets. A notice of availability for Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 2. Describe any assumptions that you subsequent assessments will appear in Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, used. the Federal Register. DC 20460. 3. Provide copies of any technical The Agency is providing an 2. In person or by courier. Deliver information and/or data you used that opportunity, through this notice, for your comments to: Public Information support your views. interested parties to provide written

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.042 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1869 comments and input to the Agency on mitigation measures that have been business information (CBI). The official the preliminary risk assessments for the added to 1,3-D labels, the benefits of record includes documents that are pesticides specified in this notice. Such 1,3-D use and the risks and benefits of physically located in the docket, as well comments and input could address, for alternative soil fumigants, in particular as documents that are referred to in example, the availability of additional the phase-out of methyl bromide those documents. The public version of data to further refine the risk production and imports by 2005. In the official record does not include any assessments, such as percent crop December, 1998, EPA issued the information claimed as CBI. The public treated information or submission of Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) version of this record, including residue data from food processing document for 1,3-D and has determined printed, paper versions of any electronic studies, or could address the Agency’s that all uses of 1,3-D are eligible for comments, is available for inspection in risk assessment methodologies and reregistration. the Public Information and Records assumptions as applied to these specific DATES: Comments, data and information Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, chemicals. Comments should be limited relevant to the Agency’s proposed Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis to issues raised within the preliminary decision, identified by the docket Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. risk assessments and associated control number OPP–30000/51A, must to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, documents. EPA will provide other be received on or before March 13, 2000. excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB opportunities for public comment on ADDRESSES: Comments may be telephone number is 703–305–5805. other science issues associated with the submitted by mail, electronically or in 3. Electronically. You may obtain organophosphate pesticide tolerance person. Please follow the detailed electronic copies of this document and reassessment program. Failure to instructions for each method provided various support documents from the comment on any such issues as part of in the ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY EPA Home page at the Federal Register this opportunity will in no way INFORMATION’’ section. - Environmental Documents entry for prejudice or limit a commenter’s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil this document under ‘‘Laws and opportunity to participate fully in later Budig, Special Review and Regulations’’ (www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/). notice and comment processes. All Reregistration Division (7508C), Office C. How and to Whom do I Submit comments should be submitted by of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Comments? March 13, 2000 at the address given Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., You may submit comments through under Unit I. Comments will become Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (703) 308–8029. E-mail address: the mail, in person, or electronically: part of the Agency record for each 1. By mail. Submit comments to [email protected]. individual organophosphate pesticide to Public Information and Records SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION which they pertain. Integrity Branch, Information Resources List of Subjects I. General Information and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Environmental protection, Chemicals, A. Does this Action Apply to Me? Pesticides and pests. Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., You may be affected by this action if Washington, DC 20460. Dated: January 5, 2000. you are a pesticide registrant with 2. In person. Deliver comments to registered products which contain 1,3-D Public Information and Records Lois Rossi, as an active ingredient, or if you are an Integrity Branch in Rm. 119, Crystal Director, Special Review and Reregistration agricultural producer using products Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. containing 1,3-D as an active ingredient. Arlington, VA. 3. Electronically. Submit your B. How Can I Get Additional [FR Doc. 00–627 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] comments electronically by e-mail to: Information, Including Copies of BILLING CODE 6560±50±F [email protected], or you can submit Support Documents? a computer disk by mail as described 1. By mail. You may request copies of above in Unit I.C.1. Electronic ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION this document and supporting submission on disks will be accepted in AGENCY documents by writing to: Public Wordperfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file [OPP±30000/51A; FRL±6380±6] Information and Records Integrity format. Do not submit any information Branch, Information Resources and electronically that you consider to be 1,3-Dichloropropene; Proposed Services Division (7502C), Office of CBI. Avoid the use of special characters Determination to Terminate Special Pesticide Programs, Environmental and any form of encryption. All Review Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., comments in electronic form must be AGENCY: Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 or calling 703– identified by the docket control number Agency (EPA). 305–5805 between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., [OPP–30000/51A]. Electronic comments ACTION: Proposed Determination to Monday through Friday, excluding legal may also be filed online at many federal Terminate Special Review. holidays. Be sure to include the docket Depository Libraries. control number [OPP–30000/51A] in The record for the Special Review is SUMMARY: This Notice sets forth EPA’s your request. kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA proposal to terminate the Special 2. In person. The Agency has will transfer all comments received Review of 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D). established an official record for this electronically into printed paper form as This proposal is based on Dow action under docket control number they are received and will place the AgroSciences’ changes to their product [OPP–30000/51A]. The official records paper copies in the official record, labels and EPA’s determination that, consist of the documents specifically which will also include all comments with these label revisions, the benefits referred to in this action, any public submitted directly in writing. The of 1,3-D use outweigh the risks. In comments received during an applicable official record is the paper record making this determination, EPA comment period, and other information maintained at the address for the Public considered several factors, including the related to this action, including any Information and Records Integrity risk reduction provided by numerous information claimed as confidential Branch listed above.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1870 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

D. How Should I Handle Information inserted 12 to 18 inches beneath the soil and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. that I Believe is Confidential? surface. The volatile chemical then 301 et seq., as amended by the Food Do not submit any information diffuses through the air spaces in the Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, electronically that you consider to be soil inhabited by nematodes and other (Public Law 104–170), authorizes EPA CBI. You may claim information that soil-borne pests. The rate of diffusion is to establish such tolerances (21 U.S.C. you submit in response to this affected by the size of the soil particles, 346(a)). Without such a tolerance or an document as confidential by marking the amount of soil moisture present, the exemption from a tolerance, a food any part or all of that information as amount of organic material, and pH. 1,3- containing a pesticide residue is CBI. Information so marked will not be D can move up and into the atmosphere ‘‘adulterated’’ under section 402 of the disclosed except in accordance with or down to ground water under certain FFDCA and may not be legally moved procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. conditions. The half-life of 1,3-D in soil in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 342). In determining a pesticide’s safety for A copy of the comment that does not depends on several factors; in field establishing a tolerance or an exemption contain CBI must be submitted for studies the dissipation half-life ranged from 1 to 7 days and in laboratory from the requirement of a tolerance, the inclusion in the public version of the studies up to 54 days. For more FFDCA also requires that EPA examine official record. Information not marked information on 1,3-D use, see Unit VI of aggregate exposures from all sources of confidential will be included in the this document. pesticide residues, whether infants and public version of the official record 1,3-D is classified as a B2, or probable children have heightened susceptibility without prior notice. human, carcinogen by both the oral and to pesticide residues, and whether there E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare inhalation routes of exposure. Studies are cumulative effects of pesticides and my Comments for EPA? show that 1,3-D residues do not occur other compounds with a common You may find the following in foods planted to treated soils when mechanism of toxicity (21 U.S.C. 346a). Certain pesticides are classified as suggestions helpful for preparing your 1,3-D is used as a pre-plant soil non-food use when no residues are comments: fumigant. Oral exposures can occur • Explain your views as clearly as through consumption of contaminated expected to occur in crops from possible. ground water. Workers and residents in pesticide treatment. This class of • Describe any assumptions you used. the vicinity of treated fields can be pesticides includes several soil • Provide copies of technical exposed to 1,3-D vapors during fumigants which degrade in the soil to information or data that support your application and for approximately a 2– compounds of non-toxicological views. week period as some of the applied concern, and thus are not available for • If you estimate potential burden or material offgasses following application. uptake by plants. Non-food use costs, explain how you arrived at the 1,3-D is classified as Toxicity Category pesticides do not require a tolerance or estimate you provide. II (moderately toxic) for oral toxicity an exemption from a tolerance. • Provide specific examples to and primary eye irritation and Toxicity Under the registration requirements of illustrate your concerns. Category III (low toxicity) for dermal FIFRA, the burden of proving that a • Offer alternative ways to improve irritation. There are two degradates of pesticide satisfies the standard for the Agency’s proposed action. toxicological concern, 3-chloroallyl registration is on the proponent(s) of • Make sure to submit your comments alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid. registration and continues as long as the by the deadline in this notice. registration remains in effect. Under • To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be A. Legal Background FIFRA section 6, the Administrator may sure to identify the docket control In order to obtain a registration for a cancel the registration of a pesticide or number assigned to this action in the pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, require modification of the terms and subject line on the first page of your Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, conditions of a registration if the response. You may also provide the 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., as amended by the Administrator determines that the name, date, and Federal Register Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, pesticide product causes unreasonable citation. Public Law 104–170), an applicant must adverse effects to man or the demonstrate that the pesticide will not environment. EPA created the Special II. Introduction cause ‘‘unreasonable adverse affects on Review process to provide a public 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) is a soil the environment’’ when used according procedure to gather and evaluate fumigant used mainly to control plant- to label directions [FIFRA section information about the risks and benefits parasitic nematodes. A second 3(c)(5)]. The term unreasonable adverse of uses that exceed EPA’s risk criteria. formulation containing chloropicrin effects on the environment means (1) The Act also provides that all also controls soil fungi. The primary ‘‘any unreasonable risk to humans or the pesticides registered prior to November registrant of 1,3-D products is Dow environment, taking into account the 1, 1984 must be reregistered. Congress AgroSciences. Dow AgroSciences’ main economic, social and environmental amended FIFRA to include products are Telone II, which is used to costs and benefits of the use of any reregistration for older pesticides treat soils to be planted to any crop, pesticide’’ [FIFRA section 2(bb)] or (2) because of advances in scientific including vegetables, orchard trees, and ‘‘a human dietary risk from residues that knowledge and testing capabilities not ornamentals, and Telone C-17, which results from use of a pesticide in or on available when many pesticides were contains chloropicrin to enhance any food inconsistent with the standard first registered. fungicidal properties. Two other under section 408 of the Federal Food, The Special Review risk criteria are registrants also reformulate Telone II Drug and Cosmetic Act’’ (21 U.S.C. set out in the regulations at 40 CFR part into eight end-use products. Dow 346a). 154. When EPA believes that a pesticide AgroSciences also holds a Special Local Tolerances, or the establishment of has met such criteria, a notice Needs (FIFRA section 24(c)) registration maximum permissible levels of announcing the initiation of the Special for a pre-plant underground drip pesticides in foods, are required when a Review is published in the Federal product, Telone EC. pesticide or its identifiable degradates Register. After the Notice of Special 1,3-D is injected as a liquid into the or metabolites are expected to be Review is issued, registrants and other soil by shanks, or knives, that are present in food. The Federal Food, Drug interested persons are invited to review

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1871 the data and risk assessments upon studies required to fill data gaps and exposures, since EPA’s assessments which EPA’s determination is based and maintain the 1,3-D registration. Many of based on the incomplete data sets to submit data and information to rebut the data gaps involved residue yielded risk estimates for workers and EPA’s conclusions. In addition to chemistry and environmental fate, residents who live near treated fields submitting rebuttal evidence, which were needed to investigate the that exceeded those EPA generally commenters may submit relevant Special Review concerns for worker, considers to be acceptable. In order to information to support EPA’s initial dietary and ground water risks. Most maintain 1,3-D registrations, the conclusions or to aid in the studies in the 1986 Registration registrant agreed to set a strict timetable determination of whether the economic, Standard were scheduled for for completing data submissions, to social and environmental benefits of the completion within 2 years. develop new exposure data, and to add use of the pesticide outweigh the risks. In 1990, EPA notified Dow engineering controls and additional After reviewing the comments, EPA AgroSciences (then DowElanco) of its personal protective gear for workers to makes a preliminary decision of the concerns regarding the many delays in all 1,3-D labels [Ref. 2]. future status on the pesticide’s obtaining the studies required in the EPA also raised concerns about the registration. 1986 Registration Standard, namely for results of the retrospective ground water Typically, a Special Review is the residue chemistry and several of the studies. While results from North concluded in one of three ways. If retrospective ground water studies. Dow Carolina and California were acceptable, information is submitted which AgroSciences stated that the delays unexpectedly high levels from the successfully rebuts EPA’s risk case, the were due to difficulties in obtaining Nebraska site, and the lack of results Agency may propose no changes to the radiolabeled 1,3-D and the unexpected from Florida required attention. Since terms and conditions of a pesticide’s collapse of testing systems in one of the Dow AgroSciences had already registrations. Secondly, EPA may ground water studies. EPA established a approached Florida with plans to propose changes to the terms and new 2–year schedule for these data. expand use as a methyl bromide conditions of registration such that the Also in 1990, California suspended 1,3- alternative, EPA and Florida developed proposed measures reduce risk(s) to a D use permits because unexpectedly a joint schedule to oversee the study. point where the benefits of the high levels of the fumigant were found EPA believed that the high levels in pesticide’s use(s) outweigh the risk during air monitoring required under Nebraska were linked to cold concerns. Such changes might include California law. California regulates the temperatures, and required a additional protective clothing, lower use of certain pesticides by permits, prospective ground water study in application rates or engineering which are issued annually and which Wisconsin to determine whether 1,3-D controls. specify use conditions such as the can be safely used in cold climates. However, EPA may determine that no application rates, location and crops In 1995, Dow AgroSciences and EPA changes in the terms and conditions of [Ref. 1]. Since 1,3-D use patterns in met a second time to review the data a registration will adequately assure that California were unique to the state, EPA that had been collected, as well as use of the pesticide will not cause any initiated a review of use and exposure California’s decision to allow limited re- unreasonable adverse effects. If EPA scenarios throughout the United States. introduction of 1,3-D use [Ref. 3]. On makes such a determination, it may seek EPA issued a Data Call-In (DCI) in 1991 January 19, 1996, Dow AgroSciences cancellation, suspension, or change in for information on exposure, usage and requested changes to their Telone labels classification of the pesticide’s product performance by state and by to incorporate mitigation requirements registration. Any final decision on a crop. and also included a time table for pesticide’s registration through the In 1990, Title VI of the Clean Air Act submitting interim and final studies for Special Review process is set forth in a was amended to include regulation of ground water monitoring taking place in Notice of Final Determination issued in chemicals which deplete stratospheric Florida and Wisconsin [Ref. 4]. accordance with 40 CFR 154.33. ozone. Under the amendments, EPA’s In 1997 and 1998, the results of the Office of Air and Radiation originally ground water studies showed levels of B. Regulatory Background proposed to phase-out use of methyl 1,3-D in ground water which were high 1,3-D was placed into Special Review bromide by 2001 due to its potential to enough to warrant additional mitigation in 1986 (51 FR 36160, October 8, 1986) deplete stratospheric ozone (56 FR measures. On September 30, 1998, Dow based on carcinogenicity concerns. At 49548, September 30, 1991). Because AgroSciences requested a third that time, EPA focused on inhalation the 1,3-D Special Review considered modification of their Telone labels to exposure to workers who load and methyl bromide to be a major alternative include measures to mitigate potential apply 1,3-D, as well as to workers who to 1,3-D, EPA looked more closely at the exposures through contaminated ground enter fields shortly after 1,3-D risks and benefits of all the remaining water (see Table 1 below) (Ref. 5). This application. EPA also noted risk soil fumigants and contact nematicides. label modification was included as part concerns for potential dietary exposures Specifically, EPA looked at the potential of the reregistration eligibility through food crops and ground water increase in benefits and risks associated determination for 1,3-D. Dow contamination with 1,3-D or its with 1,3-D use in light of the scheduled AgroSciences also has agreed to conduct contaminant 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2- phase-out of methyl bromide. The phase additional studies on the alcohol and D). The focus of the Special Review was out was extended to 2005 under acid degradates of toxicological concern to gather data to better define 1,3-D’s legislation passed in 1999. For more and additional environmental fate toxicity, environmental fate and factors information on the methyl bromide studies. In addition, Dow AgroSciences which most influence exposures and to phase out, refer to http://www.epa.gov/ agreed to conduct a tap water seek ways to reduce those exposures. docs/ozone/mbr/mbrqa.html. monitoring study to assess 1,3-D and In 1986, EPA also issued the EPA contacted Dow AgroSciences in degradate levels in water used for Registration Standard for 1,3-D 1992 when the additional residue drinking. Should residues of 1,3-D and/ (Guidance for the Reregistration of chemistry and ground water studies or the alcohol or acid degradates be Pesticide Products Containing 1,3- were not submitted according to the detected at levels exceeding the Office Dichloropropene, USEPA, September revised schedule. EPA also sought of Water health advisory of 0.2 parts per 18, 1986). This standard outlined measures to reduce inhalation billion (ppb), Dow AgroSciences has

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1872 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices agreed to implement label use also be accessed from the Internet at period. There was no effect of exposure restrictions on further applications in http://www.epa.gov/REDs for case 0328. to 1,3-D on the survival of males or the vulnerable use areas before the next Please refer to the 1,3-D RED for a more females. Slight (approximately 5% in 60 use season commences. Label changes detailed discussion of the data ppm males and females, as well as 3% may include restrictions based on depth summarized in this Notice. in 20 ppm males) decreases in body to ground water or soil type weight gains were observed (statistically C. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action characteristics. Table 1 outlines all of significant, p<0.05) but generally only the requirements which now appear on EPA has determined that the benefits during the first year of the study. The the new 1,3-D labels (effective August 1, associated with the continued use of olfactory region of the nasal cavity 1999) as well as measures adopted 1,3-D under the recently revised terms appeared to be the target tissue as earlier. and conditions of 1,3-D’s registration determined by histopathological outweigh the risks. Thus, EPA is examination. Males and females having TABLE 1.Ð SUMMARY OF proposing to terminate the Special been exposed to 60 ppm (no evidence REQUIREMENTS ON 1,3-D LABELS Review of 1,3-D. reported at lower concentrations of 20 or 5 ppm) showed decreased thickness III. Summary of Hazard Assessment Regulatory and erosions of the epithelium as well Action (date A. Short and Intermediate Term as minimal submucosal fibrosis. For when Label Requirements chronic toxicity, the No-Observed measures Toxicity Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was 20 took effect) The acute toxicity values and ppm (0.091 mg/L) and the Lowest categories for 1,3-D are summarized in Registration Precautionary statements; Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) Table 2 below: Standard Cancer hazard warning; Clas- was 60 ppm (0.272 mg/L) based on (1986) (effec- sification change to ``Re- histopathological changes in nasal TABLE 2.Ð ACUTE TOXICITY STUDY tive 1987). stricted Use'' pesticide; Re- tissue as well as the suggestion of RESULTS FOR 1,3-D entry increased to 72 hours; decrease in body weight gain compared Clothing for applicators and with controls during the first year of the handlers (coveralls, chemical- Study Type Results Toxicity resistant gloves and boots, liq- Category study. uid-proof hat). B. Carcinogenicity 1992 Interim Ground water advisory; Low- Acute Oral ... LD50 = 300 mg/ II Risk Mitiga- ered maximum rates; Deletion kg (M), 224 EPA initiated the Special Review of tion (effective of selected use sites; Revised mg/kg (F) 1,3-D based on evidence that 1,3-D 1992/1993). respirator requirements; Acute Der- LD50 = 333 mg/ II induced cancer in rats and mice Closed loading requirements; mal - Rab- kg exposed to 1,3-D. The potential for Technology to minimize 1,3-D bit. human carcinogenicity is based on spillage during application. Acute Inhala- LC50 = 3.88 IV inhalation exposures for workers tion. mg/L (M), 4.1 Worker Pro- Coveralls over short-sleeved handling the fumigant and for area tection shirt and short pants; Chem- mg/L(F) Standard ical-resistant gloves and foot- Primary Eye Intermediate ir- II residents who may be exposed to air (August wear; Chemical-resistant Irritation. ritant borne levels of 1,3-D and oral exposures 1992, see 57 apron (for direct handlers). Primary Skin Slight irritant III to levels in contaminated ground water. FR 38102). Irritation. 1. Oral studies. In 1985, the National 1995 Risk A respirator requirement for all Dermal Sen- Sensitizer ...... Toxicology Program (NTP) tested the Mitigation 1,3-D handlers; Restricted sitization. chronic toxicity and carcinogenic (effective Au- entry increased to 5 days; Acute None required ...... potential of 1,3-D (Telone II - 89% 1,3- gust 1996). Prohibition of use within 300 Neurotoxi- D, 6% inert ingredients, 1% city. feet of occupied structures; epichlorohydrin) in F344 rats and Soil moisture and soil sealing B6C3F1 mice [Ref. 6]. requirements; Modified appli- EPA has placed 1,3-D in Toxicity a. Rat Feeding Study by Gavage. Male cation techniques; Lower max- Category II (moderately toxic, the and female F344 rats received oral imum use rates. second highest toxicity classification 1998 Risk 100' buffer between drinking administration by gavage (feeding tube) out of four levels). EPA has reviewed of 1,3-D in corn oil at 0, 25, or 50 mg/ Mitigation water wells and treated fields; the available toxicological data for 1,3- (effective Au- prohibition in areas overlying kg/day, 3 days per week, for 104 weeks. gust 1999). karst geology; prohibition of D and concluded that the data do not A total of 77 rats per sex were used for use in ND, SD, MN, NY, ME, indicate any evidence of significant oral each dose group, including those NH, VT, MA, UT, MT, WI or inhalation toxicity from a single sacrificed for examination during the where ground water is less exposure event that may occur with course of testing. Statistically significant than 50 feet from the surface labeled uses. increases in the incidence of the and soils are classified as hy- EPA has established an intermediate- drologic type ``A.'' following tumors were observed at the term endpoint based on results from a highest dose tested (HDT) by pairwise 2–year combined chronic/carcinogenic comparison with controls: Based on the submission of label inhalation study in rats. Fischer 344 rats i. Forestomach squamous cell changes and a completed data base (50/sex/group plus 10/sex/group to 6– papillomas in males and females. showing that 1,3-D can be used without and 12–month exposure groups) were ii. Combined forestomach squamous unreasonable adverse effects to humans exposed by whole-body inhalation to cell papillomas and carcinomas or the environment, EPA has found all Telone II (92.1% active ingredient (a.i.)) combined in males. uses of 1,3-D eligible for reregistration. at aerosol concentrations of 0, 5, 20 or iii. Liver neoplastic nodules in males The Reregistration Eligibility Decision 60 parts per million (ppm) (equivalent and combined neoplastic nodules and (RED) document is contained in the 1,3- to approximately 0, 0.023, 0.091 or hepatocellular carcinomas in males. D docket (the location is listed under 0.272 mg/L), 6 hours/day, 5 days/week The increased incidence of ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ in this Notice), or can for a total of 509 days over a 2–year forestomach tumors was accompanied

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1873 by a statistically significant positive were decreased for males and females at of the study). In male mice at the 2–year trend for forestomach basal cell the middle and high doses compared to sacrifice, a statistically significant hyperplasia in male and female rats of controls. There was an increase in liver increase in the incidence of both treated groups (25 and 50 mg/kg). masses/nodules in males only at the bronchioloalveolar adenoma (a benign There were also positive trends for other 12.5 and 25 mg/kg doses. The NOAEL lung tumor) was found at the highest tumors in rats (i.e. in females, mammary was 2.5 mg/kg. There was an increased dose tested (HTD) (60 ppm) by pairwise gland adenomas or fibromas and thyroid incidence of basal cell hyperplasia of comparison with controls (9/50, 6/50, gland follicular cell adenomas or the nonglandular mucosa of the stomach 13/50, and 22/50 for 0, 5, 20, and 60 carcinomas; in males, adrenal gland of both sexes at the 12 and 24 month ppm respectively). For controls (0 ppm) pheochromocytomas). The highest dose sacrifice at the middle and high doses. the historical incidence for tested in rats (50 mg/kg) appeared to be The incidence of primary hepatocellular bronchioloalveolar adenoma is in the 7- adequate for carcinogenicity testing. adenomas in male rats exceeded that in 32% range; this includes a 20% control b. Mouse Feeding Study by Gavage. In the control group at the middle and high incidence from another 2–year the mouse study, groups of 50 mice/sex doses tested. The incidence of inhalation study. Additionally, male were fed Telone II in corn oil (with 1% hepatocellular ademonas in female rats mice had a significant difference in epichlorohydrin as a stabilizer) through showed an increase over the control lacrimal gland cystadenomas in the a gavage feeding tube at 0, 50, or 100 only at the high dose. The highest dose pair-wise comparison of control and the mg/kg, 3 days per week for a total of 104 tested appeared adequate for 20 ppm dose group. No tumors were weeks. The results of the study were carcinogenicity testing [Ref. 7]. EPA seen in treated female mice. Although a confounded by an excessive mortality in used the test results of this study to hyperplastic response was seen in the control males (those not receiving 1,3-D) confirm the carcinogenicity finding of urinary bladders of both male and from myocarditis. The survival of the earlier study in rats. The results of female mice, no tumorigenic response female mice was lower in the high dose this study were also used to develop the was found [Ref. 10]. group than in the other dose level chronic non-cancer Reference Dose. 3. Dermal studies. EPA also has groups (46/50, 45/50, 36/50 for control, d. Mouse study by studies that tested the potential low dose and high dose respectively). microencapsulation. Male and female carcinogenicity of 1,3-D through short- Significantly elevated incidence of the B6C3F1 mice (50/sex/dose) were fed term dermal exposure. Van Duuren et following tumors were observed either microencapsulated 1,3-D at levels of 0, al., (1979) administered subcutaneous at the HDT or at both dose levels: 2.5, 25 or 50 mg/kg/day for 2 years, with injections of 1,3-D weekly to 30 female i. Forestomach squamous cell an examination of 10 mice/sex/dose HA:ICR mice at a dose of 3 mg/mouse. papillomas or papillomas and made after 1 year. As seen in the rat The author noted a positive finding of carcinomas combined in males and study, body weight gains were lower in fibrosarcomas in 6 of the 30 mice after females, and squamous cell carcinomas both sexes at the middle and high doses 538 days. No tumors developed in in females. compared to controls. In addition, untreated or vehicle-treated animals (i.e. ii. Urinary bladder transitional cell hepatocytes of the high dose males were treated with the serum minus the carcinomas in males and females. decreased in size at the 12 and 24 compound being tested). iii. Lung adenomas or adenomas and month sacrifice. While liver effects were The same study also investigated the carcinomas combined in males and seen, there was no treatment-related tumor-initiating potential of 1,3-D when females. incidence of tumors observed in mice applied to the skin of female HA:ICR Several deficiencies were noted in the ingesting microencapsulated 1,3-D [Ref. mice (30 animals). Mice received 1,3-D mouse study, including excessive 8]. EPA notes that the negative cancer in 0.2 mL acetone as the initiator at a mortality in control males and findings do not affect the Agency’s single dermal dose of 122 mg, followed inadequate randomization procedures at position on the carcinogenicity of 1,3-D by promotion with phorbal myristate the study initiation. The highest dose due to the results of the rat study. acetate (5 µg) in acetone 3 times/week tested appears to have been excessive 2. Inhalation studies. Because 1,3-D is for 440–594 days. No significant for testing. While this study was not a volatile compound which can move differences in tumor incidence were used for quantitatively estimating 1,3- up and into the atmosphere after found between the treated and control D’s carcinogenic potential, the Agency application, EPA also required studies animals. Additionally, when 1,3-D was has included the stomach, bladder and on the potential carcinogenicity of 1,3- tested for carcinogenic potential lung effects in its weight-of-the- D via the inhalation route of exposure. following repeated dermal evidence findings (see Unit III.D of this a. Rat study. In the rat study, 50/sex/ administration with 122 mg. 1,3-D in 0.2 document.). group were exposed to 0, 5, 20 or 60 mL in 0.2 acetone, 3 times/week for c. Rat study by microencapsulation. ppm 1,3-D for 6 hours/day, 5 days/ 440–594 days, only 1/30 treated animals In 1992, the registrant conducted a week, for approximately 2 years. had papilloma and carcinoma of the second feeding study using time- Ancillary groups of rats (10/sex/group) skin; the authors noted statistical released (microencapsulated) doses of were similarly exposed for 6 or 12 significance was not attained. None of 1,3-D in food since the stomach tumors months. Clinical signs of toxicity were the control animals developed any skin seen in the NTP study occurred in the not observed and no significant tumors [Ref. 11]. EPA did not consider area where the feeding tube was differences in survival were found in this study in its consideration of 1,3-D’s inserted. In addition, the NTP study any of the test groups. No significant carcinogenicity since the authors’ results may have been confounded by increase in treatment-related incidence conclusions and statistical tests used the presence of a stabilizer, of tumors in rats was observed [Ref. 9]. could not be confirmed. epichlorohydrin, which is a known b. Mouse study. The mouse study 4. Structure-Activity Relationships. carcinogen. followed the same study design as the 1,3-D bears a structural resemblance to Charles River Fischer 344 (‘‘Fischer rat study (50 mice/sex/group dosed at 0, several short chain halogenated 344’’) rats (60/sex/dose) were fed doses 5, 20, or 60 ppm, 6 hours/day, 5 days/ hydrocarbon compounds that are known of 0, 2.5, 12.5, and 25 mg/kg/day for 2 week for approximately 2 years; 2 human and/or animal carcinogens, years, with an examination of one group groups of mice to be sacrificed and namely vinyl chloride and made after 1 year. Body weight gains studied at the 6 month and 1 year mark epichlorohydrin. There is no

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1874 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices information, however, that establishes a was again sprayed with 1,3-D. The next test material. Epichlorohydrin by itself common mode of carcinogenicity year, fatigue became more severe and did not appear to induce as large a between these chemicals and 1,3-D. his gums began bleeding. Red and white mutagenic response as 1,3-D on an cell counts were diminished and the equimolar basis based on studies C. Mutagenicity patient was diagnosed with acute administering epichlorohydrin alone. A series of mutagenicity studies has myelomonocytic leukemia. The patient 2. 1,3-D, when administered by oral been performed which show that 1,3-D died within 5 weeks of admission. gavage to Fischer 344 rats, was has some mutagenic activity. This In another report of 1,3-D exposure associated with an increase in (i) activity would also provide support for [Ref. 14], a worker drank a clear fluid forestomach tumors in both sexes; (ii) a carcinogenicity concern. 1,3-D which he thought was water from a liver tumors in males; and (iii) positive produced gene mutations in bacterial container. The first signs of injury were trends for other tumor types in and mammalian test systems in vitro but acute gastrointestinal distress, sweating, mammary and thyroid glands. did not produce structural chromosomal tachycardia, tachypnoea and lividity in 3. 1,3-D, when administered by oral aberrations in mammalian test systems. the lower legs. His condition worsened gavage to B6C3F1 mice, was associated 1,3-D is also a germ cell mutagen in within 9 hours; blood abnormalities did with an increase in (i) forestomach Drosophila. The Drosophila result not respond to numerous treatments. tumors; (ii) urinary bladder tumors and suggests an interaction with germ cells The patient died 38 hours after cell changes; and (iii) lung adenomas in an eukaryotic organism. There are admission; the autopsy revealed (benign lung tumors) in both sexes at studies in the open literature that show multiple organ failure and extensive both dose levels and lung adenomas and the in vivo mouse liver conversion of damage to the respiratory tract and liver. carcinomas combined in males at both 1,3-D to mutagenic cis and trans While this case involves an acute dose levels. epoxides, the in vitro formation of four poisoning, rather than a chronic effect, 4. No compound-related increase in DNA adducts when 1,3-D epoxides are EPA has concluded that this report tumors was observed in inhalation reacted with 2′-deoxygenase and the in supports concern for 1,3-D toxicity to studies in Fischer 344 rats. However, vivo formation of DNA lesions in the the human hematologic system as was the dose levels used were not stomach, colon, liver, kidneys, bladder, seen in the other cases cited above. It considered to be high enough to fully lungs, brain and bone marrow. should be noted that these accidental For the 1,3-D reregistration and assess the carcinogenic potential of 1,3- exposures to 1,3-D are less likely under D. Special Review, Dow AgroSciences the current labels because of strict 5. 1,3-D, when administered by submitted information to support requirements for closed loading, check inhalation to B C F mice, was regulation of 1,3-D as a non-linear valves, and protective equipment. 6 3 1 carcinogen (i.e., that there is no risk While these reports alone do not associated with an increase in associated with exposure below a provide an adequate basis for making a bronchioloalveolar adenomas in males certain dose) because 1.3-D is not determination of human carcinogenicity at the highest dose tested. Cellular mutagenic. EPA has reviewed the (i.e. that 1,3-D is a Group A, human, changes in the urinary bladder, nasal information and determined that the carcinogen), they provide evidence to passages and non-glandular stomach weight-of-the-evidence shows 1,3-D is support EPA’s concerns regarding the were noted. Based on toxicity mutagenic. [Ref. 12]. target organs of 1,3-D’s effects in parameters, the data suggest that higher In addition, Dow AgroSciences is humans (hematopoietic system, lungs, dosing could have been utilized in this performing the Ames assay, mouse liver) and its potential to induce cancer. study. lymphoma and mouse mocronucleus 6. The CPRC concluded that the study on the alcohol and acid E. Weight-of-the-Evidence and benign lung tumors observed in mice degradates to test EPA’s assumption that Carcinogenicity Summary after inhalation were biologically the degradates exhibit the same The EPA Cancer Peer Review significant, because tumor induction mutagenicity as the parent. Committee (CPRC) met in 1989 to was dose-dependent, tumor incidence consider all the data relevant to was outside the range of historical D. Human Incidents Data developing a position on 1,3-D’s controls, and the tumor type was also The Agency is aware of several carcinogenicity. The Committee based seen in the mouse oral study. reports in the open literature describing its determination on the following: 7. EPA has concluded that, based on adverse effects related to accidental 1,3- 1. The CPRC looked at the original available evidence in bacterial, D exposure. In 1973, nine firemen were NTP oral carcinogenicity studies to Drosophila and mammalian cell exposed during a clean-up operation in determine whether the epichlorohydrin mutagenicity studies, 1,3-D has California after a 1,3-D transport tank stabilizer was the carcinogenic agent. mutagenic capability. overturned [Ref. 13]. Reports show two The CPRC concluded that the tumors 8. 1,3-D bears a structural of the nine men exposed were treated could not solely be attributed to resemblance to several short chain for neck pain, nausea and breathing epichlorohydrin because tumors were halogenated hydrocarbons that are difficulty following exposure. Follow- seen at sites other than the forestomach known carcinogens. up revealed that both men died from (i.e. liver, mammary gland and thyroid) 9. Confidence in the compound- hematological malignancies within 7 and the dose of epichlorohydrin was far related induction of tumors was years of exposure. In a separate case in below that associated with forestomach strengthened by the observation of site the same report, a farmer was repeatedly tumors in gavage and drinking water concordance for neoplastic and non- sprayed in the face with 1,3-D through carcinogenicity studies. A comparison neoplastic effects seen for the two routes a leaky hose. The man first went to the between the mutagenic activities of 1,3- (oral and dermal) of 1,3-D doctor in 1975, when he was found to D and epichlorohydrin showed that administration [Ref. 15]. have mucosal lesions in his ear and even if epichlorohydrin did contribute Based on the above data (evidence of pharynx, as well as symptoms of fatigue. some activity to the 1,3-D preparation, carcinogenicity in two rodent species He also required transfusions to correct its relative contribution would be very via two different routes of exposure), low red and white blood cell counts. He small because epichlorohydrin EPA has classified 1,3-D as a Group B2, returned to field work in 1976, where he constituted a small percent of the total or probable human, carcinogen.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1875

For the 1,3-D reregistration and the Office of Water (USEPA 1987). ORD could reach ground water since Special Review, Dow AgroSciences evaluated the limited available database monitoring had yielded detections of submitted information to support for 1,2-D and concluded that the liver 1,3-D and 1,2-D. EPA’s Office of Water regulation of 1,3-D as a non-linear was the principal target organ of (OW) has not established a Maximum carcinogen (i.e., that there is not risk toxicity. ORD also found effects from Contaminant Level (MCL) set for 1,3-D. associated with exposure below a acute exposures; the effects were seen in For carcinogens, OW typically sets a certain dose). The Office of Pesticide the lungs, liver, kidneys, central Maximum Contaminant Level Goal Programs has reviewed the information nervous system and eyes. A more (MCLG) at zero. In 1987, OW set the and determined that the evidence on detailed description is on EPA’s IRIS Health Advisory level of 0.2 ppb, which 1,3-D’s mutagenicity does not support data base at http://www.epa.gov/ is the daily level of consumption over Dow AgroScience’s claim that 1,3-D is a ordntrnt/ORD/dbases/iris/index.html. a lifetime associated with a 1 × 10-6 candidate for regulation as a non-linear 1,2-D has been classified as a Group cancer risk. Health Advisories are not carcinogen [Ref. 12]. Thus, EPA will B2, probable human carcinogen, with a enforceable standards, but rather are -2 -1 continue to regulate 1,3-D as a B2 Q1* of 3.69 × 10 (mg/kg/day) based on advisory in nature. carcinogen under a linear approach. the statistically significant increased The MCL for 1,2-D is 0.005 mg/L (5 µg/L or 5 ppb). For 1,2-D, EPA’s Office F. Dose-Response Assessment for 1,3-D incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in male and female of Water has a children’s 10-day Health By using data from carcinogenicity µ B6C3F1 mice. In addition, a dose-related Advisory of 0.09 mg/L (90 g/L or 90 studies, EPA quantifies the carcinogenic trend in mammary adenocarcinomas ppb). potential of chemicals based on a dose- was noted in female Fischer 344 rats. 1,3-D is considered highly mobile and response relationship. This measure is This is considered significant because is more persistent when 1,3-D enters known as the carcinogenic potency Fischer 344 rats have a relatively low ground water in colder climates. 1,3-D 1 factor, or the Q *. For 1,3-D, EPA has background incidence of these tumors has been detected and its presence calculated two carcinogenic potency (56 FR 3540, January 30, 1991). In confirmed in ground water in New factors: one for the oral route and the addition, 1,2-D was mutagenic in the York, Florida, Nebraska, Washington other for inhalation. The Q1* for the oral Salmonella and in Aspergillus nidulans. state and the Netherlands under normal route was presented in the 1986 Notice 1,2-D also induced sister chromatid field use. In 1991, the General of Special Review as 1.75 × 10-1 (mg/kg/ Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report -1 exchange and chromosome aberrations day) , based on the combined tumors in Chinese hamster ovary cells. which listed detections of 1,3-D in (either (i) adrenal and thyroid, (ii) The Agency has not cumulated 1,3-D seven states. This list also included forestomach or (iii) liver tumors) in the risks with the impurity 1,2-D or other detections of the impurity 1,2-D [Ref. oral gavage rat study using the chemicals since no determination has 18]. Multistage model. In 1994, Office of been made that these chemicals share a The 1986 Registration Standard required that retrospective ground water Pesticide Programs revised the Q1* for common mechanism of toxicity. the oral route to 1.22 × 10-1 based on a monitoring studies be conducted at five scaling factor of 3/4 instead of 2/3 to IV. Summary of Exposure sites. From the study results, no 1,3-D was found at the California, North extrapolate data from humans to A. Dietary Exposure animals. The Q1* for the inhalation Carolina or Washington state sites. route using the 3/4 scaling factor is 5.33 1. Food sources. The 1986 Retrospective ground water monitoring × 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1, based on the lung Registration Standard concluded that studies require sampling in known use bronchioalveolar tumor rates in male the characteristics of 1,3-D were not areas for a pesticide, but do not require mice [Ref. 16]. well enough understood to ascertain extensive information on past use, well whether residues might be expected in integrity or other historical information G. Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of 1,2- raw agricultural commodities, and to help characterize any detections. A Dichloropropane therefore metabolism data were required sinkhole collapsed and interfered with The 1986 Notice initiating the Special for reregistration. obtaining results at the Florida site. 1,3- Review for 1,3-D mentioned concerns In 1992, Dow AgroSciences submitted D residues were found at the Nebraska for the contaminant 1,2- metabolism studies demonstrating that site, leading EPA to suspect that the dichloropropane (1,2-D). In the mid 1,3-D is extensively metabolized and increased persistence of 1,3-D under 1980’s, 1,2-D was registered as an active incorporated into natural components colder conditions had contributed to ingredient and was present in 1,3-D such as sugars, amino acids and fatty 1,3-D’s presence in ground water there. formulations at levels up to 5%. All 1,2- acids. EPA determined that residues of In 1995 and 1996, Dow AgroSciences D pesticide registrations were canceled 1,3-D and its degradates of toxicological initiated prospective ground water as of 1987 and 1,2-D levels in the Telone concern are not expected in foods from studies in Wisconsin and Florida. II formulation (which is also used by pre-plant fumigant uses of 1,3-D. Thus, Prospective studies are conducted under reformulators) have been reduced to less EPA has determined that the pre-plant predetermined conditions in areas of no than 0.1% for products sold after fumigation uses of 1,3-D are non-food known prior use, thereby reducing the August 1, 1999. Nonetheless, EPA has uses and no tolerances or exemptions chance that prior use or changes in use been tracking 1,2-D levels in ground from the requirement for a tolerance are practices could interfere with study water studies and reviews due to 1,2-D’s required. [Ref. 17]. results. The Wisconsin site was chosen persistence. 2. Drinking water sources. Although to better define 1,3-D’s fate in a cold EPA has not conducted a formal EPA believes there are no residues of climate. Dow AgroSciences initiated the evaluation of the toxicology database for 1,3-D in foods grown on 1,3-D treated Florida study to determine if 1,3-D 1,2-D at this time because 1,2-D is no soils, studies show that 1,3-D can products could be used without adverse longer registered as a pesticide. contaminate ground water, including effects to ground water. However, 1,2-D has been evaluated by that which is used for drinking water. At the Wisconsin study site, 1,3-D, its the Office of Research and Development While 1,3-D was not specifically placed degradates and 1,2-D were found in both (ORD) to support development of the into Special Review because of ground on-site wells and in one off-site Drinking Water Criteria Document by water concerns, EPA noted that 1,3-D monitoring well at concentrations well

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices above levels considered acceptable. chronic risks, while peak levels are used in widespread aquifer contamination. These levels were detected for more to describe exposures to pesticides For more details on the NAWQA than a year after the 1,3-D application which pose acute risks). TWA program and 1,3-D and 1,2-D sampling, occurred (see Unit V.B.1.c. for more concentrations of 1,3-D plus degradates please refer to http://water.usgs.gov/ information on concentrations measured in wells located 100 feet lookup/get?nawqa/. associated with unacceptable risks). down-gradient from the treated field Cancer risks associated with prolonged were 0.074 ppb. Levels of 1,3-D plus its EPA used the results of the exposures to the detected levels were degradates did not persist beyond a year prospective ground water studies to unacceptably high for all age groups, as after application [Ref. 20]. assess exposure to 1,3-D and its were chronic non-cancer risks for EPA also reviewed the U.S. Geological degradates in drinking water because of infants and children. In the Wisconsin Survey’s (USGS) National Water Quality the Agency’s confidence in the high study, on-site wells yielded Assessment (NAWQA) reports. The quality of the data. EPA has estimated concentrations of 1,3-D as high as 579 assessment, which is on-going, monitors dietary exposure to 1,3-D via drinking ppb. Concentrations of 1,3-D in off-site both surface and ground water for water using these study results and a wells were as high as 84 ppb [Ref. 19]. pesticides, nitrates and other daily water consumption value of 2 L/ In the Florida study, 1,3-D, its contaminants in the United States. day for adult males and females with degradates and 1,2-D were also found, Some USGS-monitored sites were bodyweights of 70 kg and 60 kg, though at lower levels than those seen located in counties that have reported respectively, and 1 L/day consumption in the Wisconsin study. In Florida, the highest use rates of 1,3-D, although for infants and children with a 10 kg residents tap both surficial aquifers and there was no information in the reports bodyweight. The following equation deeper ground water for drinking water to directly link 1,3-D treatments with used to estimate exposure to 1,3-D and thus the study was designed to look sampled wells. Moreover, the through drinking water for adult males at levels 10 feet and 70 feet below the assessment did not test for 1,3-D’s is provided as an example of how EPA surface. There were also a limited alcohol and acid degradates. None of the calculated exposure to 1,3-D and its number of off-site wells to look at NAWQA reports released to date have degradates in drinking water: downgradient concentrations from a shown detections of 1,3-D in ground or Exposure (mg/kg/day)(Adult male) = single application. Time-weighted surface water. 1,2-D detections were (conc’n, µg/L)(2 L/day)(0.001 mg/µg) ÷ 70 kg average (TWA) concentrations of 1,3-D widespread and thought to be related to adult body weight plus its degradates in the on-site wells past use of 1,2-D as a soil fumigant. were 1.15 ppb in 10 feet wells and 0.17 Although no information in the reports ppb in the 70 feet wells (note that time- directly links 1,3-D use to the monitored The following table 3 presents the weighted averages are used to describe wells, the absence of detections suggests exposure estimates for 1,3-D, its the exposures to pesticides which pose that 1,3-D use probably does not result degradates and 1,2-D.

TABLE 3.Ð CHRONIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR 1,3-D, 1,3-D+ DEGRADATES, AND 1,2-D (Based on Time-Weighted Average (TWA) concentrations from the Florida and Wisconsin Prospective Ground Water Studies)

Florida Prospective Study (365 days) Wisconsin Prospective Study (after 337 days, 10-ft wells, 100 ft on-site wells) off-site Populations Compound 10-ft wells 70-ft wells shallow aquifer (15-22 ft) Expo- TWA sure1 µ TWA Exposure (mg/ TWA Exposure (mg/ TWA Exposure (mg/ g/L (mg/kg/ µg/L kg/day) µg/L kg/day) µg/L kg/day) day)

Adult males ...... 1,3-D 0.30 8.6 × 10-6 0.04 1.1 × 10-6 0.026 134 3.8 × 10-3 Adult females ...... 1 × 10 -5 1.3 × 10-6 4.5 × 10-3 Infants & Children ..... 3 × 10-5 4 × 10-6 1.3 × 10-2

Adult males ...... 1,3-D + 1.15 3.3 × 10-5 0.17 4.9 × 10-6 0.074 357 1 × 10-2 Degradates Adult females ...... 3.8 × 10-5 5.6 × 10-6 1.2 × 10-2 Infants & children ..... 1.2 × 10-4 1.7 × 10-5 3.6 × 10-2

Adult males ...... 1,2-D 0.22 6.3 × 10-6 0.06 1.7 × 10-6 NA 1.69 4.9 × 10-5 Adult females ...... 7.3 × 10-6 2 × 10-6 5.6 × 10-5 Infants & children ..... 2.2 × 10-5 6 × 10-6 1.7 × 10-4 1 Note these wells were not used for risk assessment purposes, therefore, TWA concentration values are only presented to compare to levels found in other wells.

In summary, the prospective studies conditions most likely to result in 1,3- permeability. 1,3-D labels have a ground show that 1,3-D can move to ground D treatment-related ground water water under use conditions allowed on contamination are shallow water tables, 1,3-D labels. EPA believes that the cold temperatures and high soil

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1877 water advisory and, as of August 1, to assess the potential effectiveness of Application was by the broadcast 1999, will require a 100 feet setback risk reduction measures, the discussions method. This type of application is from drinking water wells. The labels focused on the environmental factors crucial to root crops because the will also prohibit use in ND, SD, MN, and work practices which would likely economically important part of the plant NY, ME, NH, VT, MA, UT, MT, WI lead to the highest exposures and how is entirely underground and is where ground water is less than 50 feet best to control exposures. The registrant susceptible to direct nematode damage. from the surface and soils are classified agreed to take certain steps, including For residential air monitoring, there as hydrologic type ‘‘A,’’ and in areas reducing maximum application rates, were 20 monitoring locations overlying karst geology. reducing high exposures to loaders surrounding the 20-acre treatment test during fumigant transfers, using closed site. B. Non-Dietary Exposure and Mitigation systems and discontinuing the practice Buckeye, Arizona. This study was Dow AgroSciences conducted several of continuously pumping 1,3-D when conducted in March of 1993. 1,3-D studies to assess both worker and the application rig was lifted out of the (Telone II) was applied by the row residential exposures to air borne ground at row turns. These exposure method at a rate of 12 gallons per acre. concentrations of 1,3-D. The Agency reduction measures were placed on 1,3- In the row method less material is used, and Dow AgroSciences designed special D labels in 1992 and 1993. since the fumigant is being applied to studies not only to measure air levels In addition to label changes, the discrete rows of soil, generally for following fumigation, but also to meetings defined exposure study vegetable crops, cotton and tobacco. The determine which measures are best designs which would take into account soil was sandy loam, and bulk loading suited to mitigate exposures. This the different use conditions in the was used both with and without dry section describes those studies, their United States and the effectiveness of disconnects. A second study performed limitations, and how EPA reached mitigation measures (e.g., enclosed cabs, in Buckeye, AZ was similar to the first, regulatory decisions based on the study respirators, loading from 1,000 gallon except that drum loading was used. For results [Ref. 21]. bulk containers instead of 55 gallon residential air monitoring, there were 28 1. Worker and area resident exposure drums). The 1,000 gallon bulk locations surrounding the 20–acre plot. studies— a. Exposure studies in the containers, also called mini-bulk or Hookerton, North Carolina. This Notice of Special Review. In the 1986 traveler systems, reduce exposures study was conducted in December of Notice of Special Review, the non- because the frequency of loading events 1992. Telone C-17 was used at a rate of dietary worker exposure assessment was is reduced. AgroSciences conducted air 20 gallons per acre to a field that was based on nine studies conducted in monitoring studies in three locations to sandy loam. Drum loading was used and California and Florida. The excess measure exposures to fumigant loaders, applied by the broadcast method. For lifetime cancer risk estimates based on applicators, re-entry workers and area residential air monitoring, there were 20 these exposure studies ranged from 10-5 residents. monitoring locations surrounding the (one excess cancer death in 10,000 For the three study sites, two types of 12–acre test plot. exposed workers over a lifetime) to 10-2 sampling for worker tasks took place: 4 (one excess cancer death in 100 exposed hour sampling to estimate full-day Ainger, North Carolina. In April of workers over a lifetime). In the 1986 exposure and short term sampling. The 1995, after the 1992 negotiations and Registration Standard, EPA noted the three representative sites chosen each data call-in, Dow AgroSciences variability in the data and risk had different soil types, moisture conducted an additional worker estimates, but ascribed this to 1,3-D’s conditions, organic soil content and exposure monitoring study using a new high volatility and variations in crop cropping patterns. mini-bulk packaging and delivery practices. During the reregistration For residential exposure estimates, system for 1,3-D (the ‘‘traveler’’ study). process, the registrant submitted data were pooled to account for random 1,3-D was applied using the row method environmental fate studies which shifts in prevailing wind direction. For at a rate of 10 gallons/acre to a tobacco showed that in controlled laboratory residents, EPA also assumed 16 hours/ field. The soil type was not specified. studies, 1,3-D behaves differently day spent in and around the house. EPA Lifetime exposures were estimated by according to soil type, temperature, the also assumed 1,3-D air concentrations to using information Dow AgroSciences amount of organic matter in the soil and be the same indoors and outdoors since collected on use and usage of 1,3-D. In other variables [Ref. 22]. There were, 1,3-D is a small, highly volatile 1991, Dow AgroSciences surveyed the however, only limited data describing chemical and since there are no data 17 states where 1,3-D was used (the how 1,3-D moves in the field under demonstrating any indoor/outdoor survey did not include California) to actual use conditions. EPA determined difference. Exposure estimates for obtain information on use patterns that, in order to make regulatory residents are presented in Table 5 in around the country. Information determinations for the Special Review, Unit IV of this document, at fixed included the crops planted on 1,3-D study designs would have to take into distances from a treated field. treated soil, the amount of 1,3-D (and its account some of the environmental Moses Lake, Washington. This study alternatives) handled, and the amount of conditions that appeared to influence was conducted in October and time spent handling 1,3-D. air borne concentrations under actual November of 1992. 1,3-D was applied at Exposure estimates for workers are field conditions. 25 gallons per acre in loamy sand soil. presented in Table 4, while estimates for b. Exposure studies for the PD2. When The delivery system used was bulk exposure to residents around treated EPA and Dow AgroSciences met in 1992 loading with dry disconnects. fields are presented in Table 5.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 4.Ð1,3-D AIR CONCENTRATION MONITORING DATA FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Air Concentration (µg/ Total m3) Activity Sample Duration Study sites reps. Range Mean

Loading a ...... 4 hr WA, AZ 10 177-5932 1,631 Loading a ...... task only WA, AZ 10 526-32490 10,833 Loading a ...... task only NC 12 52-1180 464 Application b ...... 4 hr & task WA, AZ, NC 28 43-6581 1,359 a With use of dry disconnects b With use of end-row spill control

TABLE 5.Ð OFFSITE AIR MONITORING B. The Risk Assessment up by drinking water. For 1,3-D, DATA USING AVERAGE CONCENTRA- 1. Dietary risk assessment. The groundwater is considered to be the TIONS FROM THREE STUDY SITES dietary risk assessment for 1,3-D is only source for chronic drinking water (AZ, NC, WA) based solely on drinking water exposure to 1,3-D, and exposure exposures through contaminated ground includes the acid and alcohol Mean Mean water. Studies show that 1,3-D and its degradates. The following calculation was used: Distance from treated Conc. 7 conc. 15 degradates of toxicological concern do field (m) day (µg/ day (µg/ % RfD = (Drinking Water Exposure, mg/kg/ m3) m3) not appear in foods grown on treated day) ÷ RfD of 0.025 mg/kg/day × 100% soils as long as 1,3-D is applied as a pre- 1600 (AZ) ...... 3 2 plant soil fumigant. The assessment Drinking water exposures for the U.S. 1,200 (AZ) ...... 6 4 does not include any exposure through population were developed using 800 ...... 11 7 surface water. While models used to concentrations from the Florida 500 ...... 19 10 estimate movement of pesticides to prospective ground water monitoring 125 Edge of buffer surface water show the potential for 1,3- study. For all population sub-groups zone1 ...... 92 56 D movement to surface water, these (adult males, adult females, infants/ 25 ...... 196 63 models are not designed to track children), the % RfD was less than 1, 5 ...... 185 67 volatile, soil applied pesticides. EPA and therefore is considered acceptable onsite ...... 181 171 will review the results of a run-off study [Ref. 23]. Dow AgroSciences is conducting in 1 Edge of buffer zone - EPA uses this dis- c. Cancer risk estimates - drinking tance to approximate risks at 300 feet buffer. order to assess whether run-off to water. For 1,3-D, EPA looked at surface water is a significant source of aggregate risks from multiple routes of V. Worker and Area Resident Risk dietary exposure. exposures (i.e., food, water, air, dermal). Assessment The dietary (drinking water) risk In order to aggregate exposures from assessment consists of exposures to 1,3- multiple routes of exposure, EPA Cancer risk is the product of exposure D and its two degradates of toxicological developed Drinking Water Levels of and cancer potency. EPA used the concern, 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3- Comparison (DWLOC’s). A DWLOC, results of the air monitoring studies to chloroacrylic acid. EPA does not have which is not an enforceable standard, is assess inhalation exposure. EPA used toxicity data on the degradates, and thus the concentration of a pesticide in the air levels at the 125 meter distance, assumed that the degradates are of equal drinking water that would be acceptable which is used to represent the 300 foot toxicity and carcinogenicity to 1,3-D. A as an upper limit in light of total buffer, to approximate an upper-bound separate assessment is presented based aggregate exposure to that pesticide worst case scenario for inhalation risk. on 1,2-D levels found in the prospective from all other exposure routes. The EPA used the levels detected in the 10- studies. DWLOC for 1,3-D is based on ground foot wells from the Florida prospective a. Acute- and intermediate-term water levels as EPA did not have ground water monitoring study as an drinking water risks. No acute or information to determine whether upper-bound worst case scenario for intermediate endpoints were identified surface water should also be a drinking water risk. Because the new for 1,3-D exposure, and thus no acute or component of the DWLOC. 1,3-D labels will prohibit 1,3-D use in intermediate risk assessment was For 1,3-D, EPA has calculated two areas similar to the Wisconsin site, conducted. DWLOC’s. For residents who live near those levels were not used to develop b. Chronic drinking water risk. For treated fields, as defined at the 300 feet risk estimates for the general chronic non-cancer risks, EPA buffer, the DWLOC for cancer is zero population. determined that an oral Reference Dose because the inhalation risk estimates (RfD) should be 0.025 mg/kg/day based were calculated to be greater than 1 × A. The Cancer Potency Estimate on a NOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg/day from a 2- 10-6 for this population. While the year chronic/carcinogenicity study in cancer risk estimates at distances EPA calculates lifetime cancer risks as rats and an uncertainty factor of 100. between 300 feet up to 800 meters are the product of exposure and the cancer The RfD is a level at or below which presented as greater than 1 × 10-6, EPA potency estimate (Q1*). EPA has daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime believes these risks are overstated classified 1,3-D as a Group B2 (probable is not expected to pose appreciable non- because the value of all mitigation human) carcinogen based on tumor cancer chronic risk to human health; measures has not been factored into the induction in rats and mice by the oral EPA generally considers exposures assessment. Thus, EPA believes the and inhalation routes of exposure. The which occupy less than 100% of the RfD DWLOC of zero is overly conservative. -2 inhalation Q1* is 5.33 × 10 (mg/kg/ to be acceptable. For the general population, defined as day)-1. For oral (water) exposures, the The chronic drinking water risk is residents who live at distances greater -1 -1 Q1* is 1.22 × 10 (mg/kg/day) . calculated as a percent of the RfD taken than 300 feet from 1,3-D treated fields,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1879 the DWLOC for cancer has been been added to 1,3-D labels to minimize from the 2-year combined chronic/ calculated to be 0.3 ppb, which is the leaks. 1,3-D products do not require carcinogenicity inhalation study in rats. level of daily consumption of a mixing and are loaded into tanks which For intermediate-term residential/ pesticide over a lifetime associated with are attached to tractors or application bystander exposure, a time-weighted a 10-6 risk. The DWLOC for cancer rigs directly from a bulk or mini-bulk average (TWA) air concentration was differs from OW’s Health Advisory (HA) container through closed loading calculated for the first 8 days of of 0.2 ppb, in part because of differing systems. Bulk loading from tanker assumptions on exposure, but also trucks is the predominant practice exposure only (day of application and because the DWLOC is based on more where custom applicators are the the first 7 days of a 14-day study). These reliable cancer data developed after the primary 1,3-D users (e.g., the Pacific are the mean 7–day air concentrations 1987 HA had been established. Northwest). Mini-bulk systems are in Table 5 in Unit IV of this document, EPA compared the ground water portable 1,000-gallon ‘‘traveler’’ which were used to calculate levels of 1,3-D found in the Wisconsin cylinders with dry disconnects to intermediate term MOE’s, also using the and Florida study sites to the DWLOC prevent 1,3-D leaks. NOAEL of 0.091 mg/L. for cancer of 0.3 ppb. In the Wisconsin Variations in use patterns and For lifetime worker and residential/ study, time-weighted average levels application methods can affect bystander exposure, the TWA air were 357 ppb, far greater than the 0.3 exposures. The rate and amount of 1,3- concentration was calculated for the ppb level considered to be acceptable. D volatilization is affected by entire sampling period for each In the Florida study, time-weighted application method, soil sealing monitoring station. This time-weighted average levels from on-site wells were method, soil composition (e.g., amount 1.15 ppb, which is associated with of clay and organic matter), soil average was the arithmetic mean of the lifetime cancer risks of 4 × 10-6 [Ref. 24]. moisture, and a variety of other local mean daily air concentrations. For all As of August 1, 1999, 1,3-D labels will environmental factors. Meteorological but the on-site samples, this calculation require applicators to leave a 100 foot conditions, such as temperature, included the air concentrations set-back from any drinking water well. precipitation, wind, and atmospheric measured during the application Therefore the levels from on-site wells stability vary greatly from day to day process. This value was normalized over in the studies would overestimate risks and also have an effect on exposure. a 24 hour period, and incorporated into at an application site. EPA did not have Studies showed that average exposures an overall 15 day TWA (the day of accurate information to develop risk are inversely related to distance from application plus the 14 days following). estimates with the 100 foot buffer the treated field; 1,3-D air The exposure period of 15 days is used because the registrant requested the concentrations measured 125 meters based on study results showing almost setback from drinking water wells after from treated fields were 45 to 72 percent complete volatilization during the 2– ground water studies were well lower than air concentrations measured week period following application. underway. Although the information 5 meters from treated fields [Ref. 25]. For each distance from a treated field, from the off-site wells is limited, EPA b. Exposure estimates used for risk the mean TWA over all four directions views these levels (27 ppb in WI, 0.074 assessment. EPA based its risk ppb in FL) as indicative of an expected assessment on 1,3-D air concentrations (N, S, E, W) was calculated for the entire decline in residues with the well measured from the monitoring sites in monitoring period. Data for all three setback from a one-time application. Washington, Arizona and the two sites sites were then pooled, and an overall Although EPA is not performing a in North Carolina (one using drum average for each distance was calculated cumulative risk assessment for 1,3-D loading for residential exposure and for the entire data set. These values and 1,2-D, EPA developed a DWLOC for another using mini-bulk for worker appear in Table 5 under the heading of 1,2-D to compare with the levels found exposure). Only inhalation exposure ‘‘Mean conc. 15 day’’ air concentrations. in the ground water studies. The oral was estimated; dermal exposure is Exposures to agricultural handlers Q1* for 1,2-D was used to calculate a expected to be negligible because of 1,3- entering treated fields after the 5 day Re- DWLOC for cancer effects, which is 1 D’s volatility and the protective entry Interval (REI) were calculated ppb. This 1,2-D DWLOC of 1 ppb measures required on 1,3-D product using the on-site air monitoring data compares to 0.22 ppb found in 10’ labels. from the residential/bystander studies. Florida wells, 0.06 ppb found in 70’ Because the number of monitored Florida wells and 1.7 ppb found in the replicates at each site was small (5 to For each of the three monitored sites, WI study. It should be noted that the 13), EPA pooled the results from the TWA 1,3-D air concentration was new labels prohibit use of 1,3-D different sites to obtain the largest calculated for the period consisting of products in areas with conditions possible sample sizes for each exposure days 6-14 post-application and was similar to Wisconsin. The inhalation scenario. adjusted by 0.10 for a respirator. exposure studies did not monitor for For intermediate-term worker Chronic, lifetime exposures to levels of 1,2-D in air. Therefore, the exposure, 4–hour samples were used workers and area residents were DWLOC only estimates oral exposures. over the first 7–day period to calculate expressed as lifetime average daily dose 2. Inhalation risk assessment— a. the mean air concentrations over all (LADD). The LADD of 1,3-D was Factors that influence exposures. pooled replicates. All worker air calculated according to the following Occupational and residential/bystander concentration estimates were adjusted formula: inhalation exposure occurs as a result of using a protection factor of 0.10 for LADD (mg/kg/day) = [(air concentration, 1,3-D volatilization. 1,3-D is a volatile respirators. For intermediate term risks, µg/m3)(mg/1,000 µg)(ventilation rate, m3/ chemical which is applied at least 12 EPA calculates a Margin of Exposure, or hr)(hr/day) (days/yr)(1 yr/365 days)(yrs inches below the soil surface. The liquid MOE. The MOE is a quotient of the exposed/70 yrs)] ÷ 70 kg body wt 1,3-D then diffuses through the soil NOAEL divided by estimated human spaces and as much as 25% can exposures. EPA generally regards MOE’s volatilize into the atmosphere. of less than 100 to be unacceptable. For using the following values for workers Volatilization can also occur during 1,3-D, the Agency chose an intermediate and residents/bystanders: product loading; several measures have term NOAEL of 0.091 mg/L, derived

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 6.ÐASSUMPTIONS USED IN AS- LADDs for commercial ‘‘for-hire’’ engaged in loading. Therefore, the 4– SESSING WORKER AND RESIDENTIAL/ handlers were calculated by first hour samples were used in the BYSTANDER RISK estimating average daily doses (ADDs) calculation of the portion of the in mg/kg/day, from the air exposure resulting from application, concentrations. Information on days per Workers Residents/ and the task-specific samples were used Bystanders year and hours per day were obtained to calculate the exposure incurred while for each crop, state by state, from Dow loading (because four-hour samples Ventilation 1.74 m3/h 0.81 m3/h AgroSciences’ Use, and Usage Summary rate. (light were not collected for the mini-bulk Report (1991). However, for loaders, the study, the Agency made the assumption work) report lists only the total hours per day Lifetime Ex- 30 years, 30 years that, for the use of mini-bulk cylinders, posure. grower, spent actively engaged in loading (0.5 to the task-specific loader air 20 years, 1.25 hour/day), not total hours spent on concentrations are experienced for the site. To estimate ADDs, the Agency commer- duration of a work cycle). The loading therefore assumed loaders to be on site cial and application exposures were then Average 70 years 70 years for the same number of hours per day Lifetime. as the applicators (5 to 10 hours/day, added to estimate the total exposure for Exposure crop spe- 16 h/day depending on state and crop). these individuals. For growers, the Duration. cific LADDs for growers assumed that the Agency assumed that the same person Exposure crop spe- 15 days/event, 1 majority of the work day is spent conducts both loading and application Fre- cific event/yr of 1,3-D. Tables 7 through 9 present quency. applying 1,3-D, and only as much time as is required to load the tank is spent worker and residential/bystander risk.

TABLE 7.Ð 1,3-D CUSTOM HANDLER INTERMEDIATE-TERM NON-CANCER RISKS AND CANCER RISKS

Conc. µ 3 Int.- Delivery Example Crop Task g/m hr/d day/yr LADD Cancer Risk Term Method from a Table 4 MOE

Bulk Cotton, AZ Loader 1,631 10 36 1.1 × 10-3 6.1 × 10-5 560 Applicator 1,359 10 20 5.3 × 10-4 2.8 x 10-5 670 Bulk Potatoes, WA Loader 1,631 8 24 6.1 × 10-4 3.2 × 10-5 560 Applicator 1,359 8 24 5.1 × 10-4 2.7 × 10-5 670 Mini-bulk Tobacco, NC Loader 464 5 10 4.5 × 10-5 2.4 × 10-6 1960 Applicator 1,359 5 10 1.3 × 10-4 7.0 × 10-6 670 a Adjusted for wearing of respirator or use of enclosed tractor cab (PF = 0.1). MOEs greater than 100 are generally considered to be accept- able.

TABLE 8.Ð 1,3-D GROWER INTERMEDIATE-TERM NON-CANCER RISKS AND CANCER RISKS

Application: Loading Conc. Int.- Delivery µ 3 Method Example Crop Conc. hr/d g/m LADD Cancer Risk Term µg/m3 from hr/d d/yr MOEa Table 4

Bulk Cucurbits, TX 10833 0.25 1,359 6 15 6.3 × 10-4 3.4 × 10-5 670 Bulk Pineapples, HI 1,0833 1.25 1,359 6 11 9.3 × 10-4 5.0 × 10-5 670 Mini-bulk Tobacco, NC 464 0.5 1,359 5 3.5 9.6 × 10-5 5.1 × 10-6 670 Mini-bulk Peanuts, GA 464 1 1,359 3 5 8.8 × 10-5 4.7 × 10-6 670 a Adjusted for wearing of respirator or use of enclosed tractor cab (PF = 0.1)

TABLE 9.ÐRESIDENTIAL/BYSTANDER EXPOSURE

Distance Doses (mg/kg/day) from Int.- treated Study Site(s) Cancer Risk Term field(m) ADD LADD MOE

1,600 AZ 7.6 × 10-7 3.3 × 10-7 1.7 × 10-8 2,800 1,200 AZ 2.9 × 10-5 1.2 × 10-5 6.6 × 10-7 1,600 800 overall 5.7 × 10-5 2.4 × 10-5 1.3 × 10-6 8,500 500 overall 7.7 × 10-5 3.3 × 10-5 1.8 × 10-6 6,100 1125 overall 2.6 × 10-4 1.1 × 10-4 5.9 × 10-6 1,700 25 overall 4.8 × 10-4 2.1 × 10-4 1.1 × 10-5 920 5 overall 5.1 × 10-4 2.2 × 10-4 1.2 × 10-5 870 Onsite overall 8.3 × 10-4 3.6 × 10-4 1.9 × 10-5 500 1Labels require buffer zone of 300 ft (approximately 125 meters) from an occupied structure.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1881

C. Aggregate and Cumulative Risk animals. Further, the lung tumors used not likely to spend 16 hours a day at a Aggregate risk, which considers the for quantitative risk assessment were fixed distance from a treatment site for various routes of exposure for a seen in both the mouse oral and the 2–week period following fumigation pesticide, and cumulative risk, which inhalation studies. Positive results in over 30 years. looks at the risks posed from all bacterial, Drosophila and mammalian Drinking water risks were based on pesticides with a common mechanism mutagenicity studies also contribute to levels found in on-site wells. Because of action are factors that EPA must the weight-of-the-evidence for the new labels will require a 100 foot consider when it evaluates risks from a carcinogenicity. EPA acknowledges that setback, these levels are likely pesticide chemical residue under the there are uncertainties in extrapolating overestimates, and thus add to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, from rodent studies to possible human uncertainty in the risk estimates as amended by the Food Quality effects. While there are human incidents presented in this document. suggesting a link between 1,3-D Protection Act. These requirements Most importantly, the protective value apply specifically to tolerance actions. exposure and hematological malignancies, they are too few to of only some of the mitigation measures As mentioned in the Introduction, EPA required on 1,3-D labels can be classifies 1,3-D as a non-food use support a change to the cancer classification. quantified. Given that many of the chemical. Thus, tolerances are not measures have not been factored into required. Therefore, EPA regulates 1,3- The main difficulty in assessing exposure is trying to measure air the assessment, risks are likely to be D under FIFRA’s risk/benefit standard. lower than those presented. However, these risk assessment factors concentrations of a volatile chemical reflect advances in risk assessment under highly variable conditions. E. Comments on Risk from the Notice of methodology which EPA believes are Although there is an extensive exposure Special Review and EPA’s Response appropriate when assessing 1,3-D’s risk, monitoring data base for 1,3-D, many even though no tolerance action is factors influence exposure. Many of Several comments on the health involved. these factors are specific to the concerns were submitted in response to EPA has aggregated inhalation and application method and local EPA’s 1986 decision to initiate a Special oral exposures to 1,3-D. The aggregate environmental conditions. Soil Review. Many of these comments are no risk estimate is calculated as follows: conditions (moisture, organic content, longer applicable as changes have been cancer risk inhalation + cancer risk water = temperature), soil sealing methods, made to the formulation of 1,3-D aggregate lifetime cancer risk injection depth and meteorological products, use patterns and 1,3-D labels. conditions all affect 1,3-D air For completeness of the record, EPA In calculating aggregate risk, EPA has concentrations to various degrees. Since will present and respond to these determined that a reasonable worst-case these factors are uncontrollable under comments. exposure scenario would be comprised field conditions, additional studies are Comment. The Natural Resources of the inhalation risk at the 300 foot not likely to yield information which Defense Council (NRDC) submitted buffer, derived from the average of three would substantially improve the extensive comments on 1,3-D. First, air monitoring studies, and water accuracy of the current risk assessment. NRDC criticized the exposure exposure risk from the on-site In addition, based on available data, assessment for not taking into account concentrations from the Florida study. EPA extrapolated to estimate levels of dermal exposure. Secondly, they EPA did not use the Wisconsin study use on crops and in states for which mentioned that bioaccumulation in values because, as of August 1, 1999, there was no actual data. The aquatic animals should be addressed. In use in areas similar to this site is assessment also assumes that treatment addition, NRDC asserted that tolerances prohibited. Thus, the aggregate risk is patterns are the same every year; or an exemption from a tolerance should estimated as follows: however, the 1992 Use, Usage and be established to cover residues of 1,3- × -6 × -6 × -5 6 10 inhalation + 4 10 water = 1 10 Product Performance DCI noted that D in commodities grown in treated soil. treatment typically varies from year to EPA’s Response. At the time of the This aggregate cancer risk estimate, year, depending on anticipated pest Notice of Special Review, EPA’s however, is based on assessments which pressures, crop rotations, weather position was that, due to 1,3-D’s contain numerous uncertainties from conditions, and economic factors. volatility, the dermal contribution to both the inhalation and water routes of There is also no information available risk was minimal compared to the exposure. Those uncertainties are to assess whether there are current 1,3- inhalation risk. Because of closed detailed in Unit V.D. below. D handlers whose exposure would loading and other personal protective For cumulative risk, EPA has made a increase due to the methyl bromide equipment requirements, dermal determination not to cumulate the risks phase out. A cursory review of usage exposure to workers should be minor, if posed by exposures to 1,3-D and any over the past five years shows that there any. Dermal exposure to bystanders and other chemical. This determination has been an overall increase in 1,3-D those living 300 feet from treated fields could change in the future based on use. EPA believes this increase is due, is not expected. policy changes or new mechanistic data in part, to growers making the transition on 1,3-D or other chemicals. away from methyl bromide. EPA As to bioaccumulation in aquatic believes that the phase out will increase animals, the Registration Standard D. Strengths, Weaknesses and the numbers of people exposed, but not noted that laboratory studies show the Uncertainties of the Risk Assessment any one 1,3-D user’s exposure, because parent compound, 1,3-D, is low to The evidence for the inhalation growers typically use either 1,3-D or moderately toxic to waterfowl and carcinogenicity endpoint is strong. methyl bromide. upland game birds, moderately toxic to Carcinogenicity was confirmed at EPA believes residential risks may be fish and highly toxic to freshwater multiple sites in two species of test overstated because most individuals are invertebrates. In water, 1,3-D rapidly

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1882 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices dissolves by photolysis and hydrolysis, 1,3-D is moderately toxic to coldwater 28]. The 1994 review estimated reducing the potential for exposure to fish, moderately toxic to warm water economic impacts if 1,3-D were non-target organisms and thus the fish and highly toxic to freshwater restricted or canceled. The 1997 review potential for bioaccumulation [Ref. 26]. invertebrates. EPA believes that, since was not as comprehensive as the DCI Regarding tolerances, EPA has 1,3-D is injected into the soil and and 1994 analysis, and thus the more determined that residues of concern are dissipates relatively soon thereafter, recent analysis may not have captured not likely to appear in foods from pre- there should be low exposure to wildlife the full extent of use between 1994 and plant fumigant uses of 1,3-D and has through plants or insects. While 1997. classified such 1,3-D uses as non-food ecological effects were not included in The basic economic approach used uses which do not require tolerances. the Notice of Special Review, EPA has was a partial budgeting method and Comment. NRDC asserted that ground reviewed data applicable to wildlife simple supply-demand analysis using water should have been included as a effects for reregistration and found that possible cost changes and yield effects. trigger for the Special Review, and that 1,3-D is not likely to pose unreasonable If 1,3-D use were canceled for a given 1,2-D and 3-chloroallyl-alcohol should risks to wildlife. Because use of 1,3-D is site, EPA made projections on the have been examined in greater detail. expected to expand to coastal areas, alternatives that growers would use to EPA’s Response. At the time EPA Dow AgroSciences is conducting control the target pests on acreage issued the Notice of Special Review, a estuarine ecotoxicity and environmental currently treated with 1,3-D. The main force driving the ground water fate data on 1,3-D and the alcohol and assessment does not project economic concern was the higher percentage of acid degradates. EPA will take impacts if both 1,3-D and methyl 1,2-dichloropropane in Telone products. appropriate regulatory action if the bromide are unavailable. Since that time, the amount of 1,2-D has study results show that the increased California 1,3-D usage was not been reduced, although EPA is still 1,3-D use poses unreasonable risks. included in the benefits assessment tracking how 1,2-D moves in the VI. Benefits Assessment because of California’s suspension of environment. use permits between 1990 and 1994 and EPA agrees with NRDC’s comment 1,3-D is a pre-plant soil fumigant the limited re-introduction of 1,3-D that the acid and alcohol degradates labeled for the control of all plant- since then. should be included in the 1,3-D risk parasitic nematodes and some plant assessment. In the dietary assessments, diseases, insects and weeds. Nematodes B. Impacts if 1,3-D were not Available EPA required that Dow AgroSciences are the principle target pests for most Based on the 1994 review, short-term track the residue chemistry of the use sites. 1,3-D, methyl bromide, grower economic impacts for all sites alcohol and acid degradates. There were metam-sodium and chloropicrin are are estimated to range from $37 million no residues of either 1,3-D or its broad-spectrum soil fumigants to $89 million annually. EPA considers degradates in crops planted to 1,3-D registered for use on all food and non- these impacts to be substantial. These treated soils. For water monitoring and food sites. Dazomet is a nematicide impacts are the result of increased costs subsequent risk assessments, EPA registered for selected sites. Non- for alternative treatments and reduced included the degradate levels and fumigant alternatives are aldicarb, yields with the use of alternatives and assigned the same toxicity and ethoprop, fenamiphos, oxamyl and are presented in Table 11. EPA carcinogenicity as the parent. Dow terbufos. Non-chemical alternatives estimates project that growers would AgroSciences is conducting several (e.g., fallowing, non-host crop rotations, shift an average of 50% of their use to toxicity and environmental fate studies resistant varieties, soil solarization, the fumigant alternatives and 44% of to test this assumption. EPA did not deep plowing of crop residue) are often the use to non-fumigant alternatives. include ecological risk as a trigger for classified as supplemental control The remaining 6% represents a shift to the Special Review; the 1998 measures because they are used in non-chemical and unknown reregistration review of ecological data conjunction with the pesticide alternatives. Metam-sodium is the supports that 1,3-D use does not pose alternatives. The amount of 1,3-D used fumigant alternative with the largest unacceptable ecological risks. is variable from year to year. EPA Comment. The state of Massachusetts estimates that 20 to 40 million pounds quantity of additional acres treated, commented that residues of 1,3-D had of the active ingredient 1,3-D are followed by methyl bromide and never been detected in ground water applied yearly to approximately 400,000 chloropicrin. Aldicarb is the non- there, but that an on-going monitoring to 500,000 acres. fumigant alternative with the largest system was in place. shift in additional acres treated, EPA’s Response. EPA is aware that A. Scope and Methodology followed by ethoprop and fenamiphos. 1,3-D has not been detected to date in Individual site analyses were Crops with the greatest total value of Massachusetts. However EPA’s review completed for 1,3-D use on 15 sites. impacts if 1,3-D were canceled would be of 1,3-D monitoring is on-going and the Most of the usage data in the benefits Irish potatoes, tobacco, sugar beets, Agency would like to receive any analyses were obtained from the 1991 cucurbits (e.g., cucumbers, pumpkins, available information about 1,2-D and Use, Usage and Product Performance squashes), onions, strawberries and 1,3-D monitoring (including degradates) DCI; other information was gathered peppers. Geographically, the regions from the states. from USDA published statistics, state most affected would be the Pacific Comment. The U.S. Department of the extension officials and crop specialists, Northwest (Washington, Oregon and Interior commented that the Notice of literature searches and comments on the Idaho) and the southeastern states Special Review did not take into Notice of Special Review. The 15 sites (Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Virginia and account the effects of 1,3-D on wildlife. comprised about 95% of the 1,3-D usage North and South Carolina). Impacts on Response. In the Registration between 1988 and 1990. users growing fruit and nut trees and Standard, EPA noted that there were no EPA has conducted three reviews of grapevines, crucifers, pineapples and known effects on wildlife or endangered benefits information: (1) the 1986 strawberries would occur when methyl species. Studies submitted for Initiation of Special Review; (2) a 1994 bromide is no longer available as an reregistration show that 1,3-D is analysis based mainly on information alternative. The following table 10 moderately toxic to waterfowl and from the 1991 DCI [Ref. 27]; and (3) a presents estimated usage of 1,3-D and upland game birds. In ecotoxicity tests, 1997 update of the 1994 analysis [Ref. reflects a recent update.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:34 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1883

TABLE 10.Ð MAJOR 1,3-D USAGE SITES - 1997 REVIEW1

Acres % Crop lbs a.i. Treated Treated applied Crop (000) (000) States where most usage occurs weighted weighted weighted average average average

Crucifers ...... 10 4 2000 AZ,TX,GA, SC, NC,CA Peppers ...... 5 4 400 NM,NC,CA Cucurbits ...... 13 2 600 TX,AZ,SC, NC,GA,CA Sugar Beets ...... 45 3 4000 NE,WY,CO, ID Cotton ...... 85 1 2000 AZ,NC,GA, FL,CA Tobacco ...... 80 11 7200 NC,SC,GA Irish Potato ...... 80 6 13,500 WA,ID,OR, CO,ND,MI Sweet Potato ...... N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 NC, GA, SC Peanut ...... 12 1 700 AL,GA,TX Fruit/Nut Trees and Grape Vines ...... 27 6 2400 CA,SC,NC, AZ,GA,NJ Onions ...... 5 5 1000 OR,WA,ID Tomato ...... 2 0 200 GA,FL,AL Carrots ...... 2 2 150 CA,WA,TX Pineapple ...... 5 14 1300 HI Strawberries ...... 1 1 80 CA,FL,NJ

Total ...... 382 35530 1 Usage data covers 1990-1995 for most sites and as early as 1987 for other sites, primarily using data from the 1991 Use, Usage and Prod- uct Performance DCI. California data is only available for 1994 and 1995, due to the 1991-1993 use permit suspension and limited re-entry pro- gram. ``Weighted average'' weights the more recent years' estimates because they tend to be more reliable estimates than for possibly outdated earlier estimates. 2N/A - not available for sweet potatoes during the 1997 review. The following table 11 presents the 1994 summary of short term (annual) economic assessment.

TABLE 11.Ð SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM, ANNUAL IMPACTS IF 1,3-D WERE CANCELED (1991 ESTIMATES)

Average Total Short term Annual Impact from Use of Next-Best Alter- Pounds Average Average native(s)(in $000) Crop a.i. ap- acres Percent plied treated crop- (000) (000) treated Increase in Treatment Costs Yield Losses Cost

Carrots ...... 450 4 1 500±1,000 400 Cotton ...... 1550 31 8 insignificant 300±3,300 Crucifers ...... 950 26 4 unknown1 unknown1 Cucurbits ...... 1500 19 5 6,000±6,500 unknown Fruit/Nut Trees & Grapevines ...... 2,500 9 2 0±500 none in short run2 Onions ...... 1,750 10 2 1,500±8,000 unknown Peanuts ...... 750 12 3 insignificant insignificant Peppers ...... 3,650 18 4 5,600±6,700 none in short run2 Pineapples ...... 1,950 6 2 400±500 (2,100±2,700) Potatoes (Irish) ...... 16,500 95 24 4,000 9,000±22,000 Strawberries ...... 75 <1 <1 100 none in short run2 Sugar Beets ...... 4,500 51 13 insignificant 1,000±13,000 Sweet Potatoes ...... 1,900 29 7 insignificant unknown Tobacco ...... 8,150 91 23 2,000±3,000 8,000±13,000 Tomatoes ...... 300 2 1 insignificant none in short run2

Total ...... 46,475 403 20,000±40,000 317,000±49,000 1 The information from the 1991 DCI did not provide enough comparative information for alternatives and thus no estimates could be derived. 2 Methyl bromide is the main alternative; absent development of a suitable alternative, losses would occur without 1,3-D after the 2005 phase- out. 3 With next best alternative (methyl bromide), yield increases would be expected.

C. Strengths and Limitations in the comprehensive. The results of the Use, treated and use of alternatives for many Benefits Assessment Usage and Product Performance DCI use sites. EPA was able to quantify The data used to conduct the benefits allowed EPA to identify specific use potential economic impacts where yield assessment for 1,3-D are relatively states, amount of 1,3-D used, acreage

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:55 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1884 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices data for 1,3-D and its alternatives was The 1,3-D benefits assessment was conducted by the Alliance of the available. provides valuable information defining Methyl Bromide Industry in June 1993 However, there are weaknesses use and usage patterns. The benefits to measure worker exposure only; there associated with this assessment, as the analyses present biological and was no monitoring to assess residential information is now as much as 10 years economic information on the use and exposure [Ref. 31]. No mitigation is old. Changes in the regulatory status of usage of 1,3-D. Biological assessments factored into the assessment, even alternatives, agricultural markets and provided information on pests though a self-contained breathing the laws governing agriculture are likely controlled and their damage, use rates, apparatus (SCBA) is required when to have influenced some 1,3-D users’ methods of application and the methyl bromide levels exceed the practices. Although the 1997 review comparative performance of Threshold Limit Value of 5 ppm. The shows a decrease in use from the 1994 alternatives. Economic analyses NOAEL is 20 ppm based on a rabbit analysis, a cursory review of 1,3-D estimated the total usage, the cost of study. MOEs for workers range from 5 trends indicates that 1,3-D use has been market shifts to alternatives and the to 7,600. The workers most at risk are increasing, and likely will continue to relative impacts on users and the those who remove the tarps several days do so. This is mainly due to increased industry. after application. MOEs for this group of usage in California as the state’s handlers range from 5 to 19. VII. Risks Associated with 1,3-D Ground water testing for methyl permitting program has increased the Alternatives amount of 1,3-D used there. In addition, bromide has been conducted in 1,3-D use has increased (mainly in In developing a regulatory proposal, California, Florida and Hawaii. Of Florida and California) as growers seek EPA considered whether canceling 1,3- 20,429 wells tested, 2 wells in California alternatives to methyl bromide. Overall, D use could actually increase risk based contained methyl bromide residues at the figures presented in Tables 10 and on shifts to the next best alternative. 2.5 and 6.4 ppb. There is no Maximum 11 likely understate to some degree the The main limitation in developing a Contaminant Level (MCL) established benefits associated with current 1,3-D comparative risk assessment is that the for methyl bromide. use. EPA is interested in obtaining main alternatives pose acute rather than As mentioned in Unit II.B. of this comments (preferably data) from areas chronic risks, making these different document, methyl bromide production or for crops which have experienced endpoints difficult to compare. As such, and importation is scheduled for phase- substantial fluctuations in 1,3-D use this Unit provides only a summary of out in 2005 because of its potential to over the past 5 to 7 years. the risks of alternative nematicides. deplete stratospheric ozone. For the two fumigant alternatives, There are also limitations in how the methyl bromide and metam sodium, B. Metam Sodium assessment was conducted. Some of the short-term animal studies were used to Metam sodium is also a liquid soil data EPA collected on product determine at what level of exposure fumigant typically applied by injection performance came from crop specialists’ adverse effects are observed. The or chemigation methods. Chemigation opinions where studies were not NOAEL is the lowest tested level where application is preferred because water is available. Also, usage data for a few no observable adverse effects are seen. required for transporting the chemical vegetable crops were aggregated under A quotient of the NOAEL over human through the soil. The type of irrigation different groupings for some states. For exposures is used to calculate an MOE. system used depends on the crop grown example, one state listed tomatoes as an EPA generally regards MOEs of less than and farm size. Metam sodium rapidly individual crop, while another listed 100 to be unacceptable. breaks down to methyl isothiocyanate tomatoes under the grouping (MITC) and carbon disulfide (CS2), ‘‘vegetables.’’ A. Methyl Bromide which are both developmental toxicants For crops where methyl bromide is Like 1,3-D, methyl bromide is a liquid based on animal studies. California now the fumigant of choice, EPA attempted soil fumigant that is injected into the requires buffer zones for fields near to predict whether 1,3-D would be used soil. Since methyl bromide is more residential areas based on the odor when methyl bromide is no longer volatile than 1,3-D, tarping generally nuisance associated with CS2. available, and the resulting increase in follows application in order to improve The MOEs, based on MITC and CS2, 1,3-D usage. Crop specialists and methyl bromide retention in the treated for mixer/loaders and applicators for growers are not sure what major pest(s) volume of soil. several types of application systems are currently being controlled by methyl Inhalation of 1,600 ppm for 10–20 range from 23 (shank injection similar to bromide since it is a broad spectrum hours, or 7,900 ppm for 1.5 hours is 1,3-D applications) to 261 (center pivot biocide. Accordingly, it is not clear to lethal to humans [Ref. 29]. The lowest irrigation). MOEs for residents are what extent 1,3-D would serve as a inhalation level found to cause toxicity estimated to be 135 at the 500 meter suitable alternative for all of the methyl in humans is 35 ppm in air. At lower buffer. The Agency does not have bromide uses. In addition, the pending levels, there can be neurological effects information on ground water monitoring phase-out of methyl bromide has and low-level chronic exposures are for metam sodium or MITC [Ref. 32]. spurred a great deal of research on associated with dizziness, vision and alternative nematode controls; hearing disturbances, and personality C. Aldicarb development of less costly or more changes. Most human exposures are Aldicarb is a granular carbamate effective alternatives could also have an through inhalation. OSHA has pesticide. Aldicarb controls insects, effect on future use of 1,3-D. Because of established a Permissible Exposure mites and nematodes and is used on the uncertainties related to the methyl Level of 20 ppm time-weighted average certain crops where 1,3-D is also used: bromide phase-out, EPA decided to over an 8–hour period [Ref. 30]. cotton, citrus, peanuts, sugar beets, present its benefits assessment on a For methyl bromide, EPA did not sweet potatoes and tobacco. Use on Irish short-term, annual basis. Despite the have a complete data base on usage. potatoes is restricted to the Pacific uncertainties associated with the Therefore, the risk assessment was Northwest, Florida and certain counties pending phase-out, EPA believes the conducted on the crop where the total in Utah and Nevada. EPA has classified information accurately depicts the high amount of methyl bromide used is aldicarb in ‘‘Toxicity Class I,’’ meaning benefits associated with 1,3-D use. highest - strawberries. The study used it is highly toxic by the oral, dermal and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1885 inhalation routes of exposure. In 1993, the adult health advisory of 2 ppb. High related to this proposal, EPA believes EPA identified aldicarb as one of the levels of the two major degradates of the FQPA considerations are five most acutely toxic pesticides to toxicological concern have also been appropriate to include in the 1,3-D risk handlers and field workers. Since then, found in ground water in Florida. assessment. Although there are no both EPA and Rhone-Poulenc, the main Unlike 1,3-D and methyl bromide, residues in crops grown in treated soils, producer of aldicarb, have pursued risk fenamiphos does not volatilize rapidly. there is dietary risk since 1,3-D can mitigation proposals to reduce the risk Bird and fish kills have been associated migrate to ground water that is used for to handlers and applicators of aldicarb. with fenamiphos use, and label drinking water. Residues of aldicarb have been restrictions (setbacks from waterways) Both the 1,3-D risk and benefits detected in foods, and in some cases, have been placed on fenamiphos labels. assessments are weakened by numerous the higher levels exceeded levels of EPA is also looking into ecological uncertainties, despite efforts by both concern for acute toxicity. EPA has concerns for terrestrial, fresh water and EPA and Dow AgroSciences to develop taken steps to reduce the possibility of marine/estuarine animals. specialized and comprehensive data on high residues in foods, especially In conjunction with the overall review exposures, carcinogenicity and use and potatoes. of organophosphates, EPA is posting usage information. EPA also considered Aldicarb has been detected in ground risk and use information for fenamiphos whether additional data could be and drinking water supplies. EPA is in on the internet. The most current risk developed to assign a mitigation value the process of establishing an MCL for assessment for fenamiphos is available to the measures that have been aldicarb and for the sulfoxide and on www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/ incorporated into 1,3-D registrations or sulfone degradates. status.htm. to overcome other weaknesses in the Since the detection of aldicarb data base. Given that many of the factors residues in wells on Long Island, New E. Summary of the Risks Associated that have a substantial influence over York in 1979, an extensive amount of with Alternatives to 1,3-D 1,3-D exposures are uncontrollable in ground water monitoring has been EPA reviewed the risks associated normal field settings, the potential for conducted by the registrants and state with the alternatives to 1,3-D to improving the current risk assessment and local authorities. Aldicarb residues determine whether cancellation of 1,3-D with additional data is minimal. have been detected in ground water in registrations would actually reduce risks Instead, EPA evaluated both the nature 26 states. EPA has identified a positive or shift risks due to exposure to of the uncertainties and the current data correlation between aldicarb detections alternatives. The Agency found that base to weigh the risks and benefits of in ground water and vulnerable soils considerable risks are associated with 1,3-D use. (i.e., soil conditions that are more likely the most likely alternative nematicides. to lead to ground water contamination), B. Summary of Mitigation Measures on Like 1,3-D, the four major alternatives 1,3-D Labels and Risk usage, and climatic data. Geologic and pose risks to workers. Aldicarb and hydrologic factors, such as the lateral fenamiphos residues also present In 1992 and in 1995, Dow movement of water along an dietary concerns. There are ground AgroSciences requested label changes to impermeable layer, are viewed as water contamination concerns reduce levels of 1,3-D which volatilize significant in controlling the movement associated with the use of fenamiphos into the atmosphere during fumigant transfers, application and the post- of aldicarb to ground water. Other and aldicarb. Fenamiphos also is a fumigation time period. Measures added controls, such as well set-backs, have surface water contaminant and has to 1,3-D labels were shut-off valves to not been completely effective in caused fish kills. While there is no way prevent 1,3-D from spilling at row turns, preventing ground water contamination. to compare chronic and acute risks closed loading systems, soil sealing, a Because of this, EPA has been looking directly, EPA believes the potential 300–foot no-treatment buffer from at a variety of controls to augment set- acute risks of 1,3-D’s alternatives raise occupied structures, improved product backs such as regulating based on local concerns about the desirability of stewardship, a phase-out of drum soil and water conditions, and lower shifting use from 1,3-D to the next-best delivery, and reduced application rates. rates to control the potential for ground alternatives. water contamination [Ref. 33]. These measures reduced exposures not VIII. Risk/Benefit Analysis only for workers, but for anyone in the D. Fenamiphos vicinity of treated fields. Fenamiphos is an organophosphate, A. Introduction to the 1,3-D Risk/Benefit On September 30, 1998, Dow contact nematicide which is sold as Analysis AgroSciences requested additional either a granular or an emulsifiable FIFRA directs EPA to consider both modifications to the terms and concentrate. Fenamiphos is used the risks and benefits of a pesticide’s conditions of 1,3-D registrations to primarily on tobacco, orchard crops, use when developing and choosing include a use prohibition in certain cotton, peanuts, citrus, grapevines, and among regulatory options. In looking at northern tier states (ND, SD, MN, NY, pineapples as an alternative to 1,3-D or the benefits, EPA considers the ME, NH, VT, MA, UT, MT, WI) where as a supplemental nematicide once crop availability and effectiveness of ground water is less than 50 feet from growth is underway. Fenamiphos has a alternative treatments and the risks the surface and soils are Hydrogeologic low soil/water partition coefficient, posed by the alternatives. In addition, Type A, a 100–foot no-treatment buffer resistance to hydrolysis, and low Health EPA takes into account uncertainties in around drinking water wells, Advisory level (2 ppb). The risk both the risk and benefits assessments. prohibition of use in areas overlying concerns with fenamiphos and its In 1996, FQPA amended the karst geologies and additional degradates are high acute toxicity requirements for what EPA must monitoring to confirm that use of 1,3-D (Classified in EPA’s Toxicity Category I), consider in taking any action on does not pose unreasonable risks. residues in food, ground water pesticide tolerances, including aggregate EPA has determined that 1,3-D is a contamination and surface water and cumulative risks, and whether probable human carcinogen. The contamination. The parent compound, infants and children have heightened quantified portion of the risk assessment fenamiphos, has been detected in susceptibility to a pesticide’s effects. for 1,3-D shows that inhalation cancer ground water in Florida at over 10 times Although there are no tolerance actions risk estimates for workers are estimated

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1886 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices to be in the 10-5 to 10-6 range. Residents Nematode infestations typically lead risks, taking into account mitigation who live near treated fields are also to lowered yields and, in the case of root measures on the labels, lack of safe, exposed to 1,3-D as it volatilizes from crops, may also lead to smaller and effective alternatives and benefits treated fields. Not taking into account disfigured roots. Other types of pests associated with 1,3-D’s use. Therefore, any of the mitigation provided for on also controlled by 1,3-D, such as certain EPA is proposing to terminate the 1,3- 1,3-D labels, studies show that risks for soilborne diseases, generally cause D Special Review. area residents who live within 300 feet similar types of yield impacts. Because Nothing in today’s proposal affects of treated fields can be as high as 6 × residues in crops and rotational crops EPA’s ability to seek additional data or 10-5. EPA views this as an overestimate are not an issue, growers have an option changes to the terms and conditions of of exposures under typical use patterns in selecting which crops to plant after 1,3-D registrations should the need and believes that the label measures soils have been treated with 1,3-D. arise. On-going reviews of studies being such as soil sealing, lowered rates, soil Although methyl bromide is conducted for reregistration, such as the moisture, and deeper injection, reduce considered an effective alternative, its tap water monitoring program, present exposures to an acceptable level. EPA production and importation are opportunities to review the status of 1,3- has determined that 1,3-D and its scheduled to be completely phased out D registrations in the future. Should degradates can migrate to ground water by the year 2005. It is anticipated that those data, or any other information, under normal use conditions. Using the 1,3-D will be used to replace an show that 1,3-D use poses unreasonable results of the on-site wells in the Florida unknown amount of the current methyl risks to the environment, EPA could prospective ground water study, lifetime bromide soil fumigation usage when the seek additional mitigation, and if cancer risk estimates are 4 × 10-6 from phase-out occurs. Additionally, all the appropriate, initiate regulatory action drinking water. Because the new labels fumigant and non-fumigant alternatives involving 1,3-D. pose acute risks, including potentially will require a 100 foot setback from IX. References drinking water wells, EPA believes this unacceptable dietary risks. drinking water risk is an overestimate. EPA has estimated that if 1,3-D were 1. California Environmental Protection From these estimates, EPA calculated not available, annual losses to growers Agency, Press Release, April 16, 1990. resulting from yield losses and/or 2. Smith, Leonard L. Jr., Letter to Anne the aggregate risk (oral plus inhalation) Lindsey, October 7, 1992. to be 1 × 10-5. increased treatment costs would range from $37–89 million (or higher 3. California Environmental Protection EPA also recognizes aspects of the depending on the availability of Agency, Memo to County Agricultural assessments that may understate risk. Commissioners, ‘‘Stewardship Program and alternatives). Significant impacts would An increase in 1,3-D use since the 1991 Suggested Permit Conditions for the be incurred by growers of Irish potatoes, assessment could result in higher risk if Statewide Use of Telone II (1,3- tobacco, sugar beets, curcubits, onions, a worker’s exposure duration is Dichloropropene), February 15, 1996. strawberries and peppers. The regions 4. Gibson, James E., Ph.D., Letter to Steve increased based on handling more most affected would be the Pacific Johnson, January 19, 1996. product. Although the 1,3-D studies Northwest and south-eastern states. 5. Roby, D.M., Letter to Jim Jones were designed to mimic higher-end The main weaknesses in the benefits Requesting Modifications to Dow exposure scenarios, they never case are that the information used is AgroSciences’ Telone Labels, September 30, measured exposure from application at several years old and there are 1998. more than one site at a time. Thus, EPA 6. National Toxicology Program, uncertainties associated with the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of was not able to assess the impact on air anticipated phase-out of methyl and water levels in areas experiencing Telone II in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice, bromide use and the regulatory status of U.S. Health and Human Services NTP TR multiple 1,3-D treatments. Dow the remaining nematicides. Restrictions 269, NIH Publ. No.85–2525. 1985. start AgroSciences is conducting air on the alternatives are likely to 7. Levy, Alan, Telone II (1,3- monitoring in California where multiple substantially increase the benefits Dichloropropene) - A Review of a Chemical fields undergo simultaneous treatment. related to 1,3-D use. Carcinogenicity Rat Study Submitted Under EPA has arranged to obtain this Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA, January 17, 1996. information to assess the impact on air D. Summary of Risk/Benefit 8. Levy, Alan, Telone II (1,3- levels. Determination Dichloropropene) - A Review of a Chemical Carcinogenicity Mouse Study Submitted Although the final risk estimates were In assessing the risk/benefit balance Under Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA, November 6, derived from an assessment that does for 1,3-D, EPA evaluated the mitigation 1996. not consider the reduction offered by provided by all of the mitigation 9. Lomax L.W. et. al., The Chronic Toxicity several mitigation measures, EPA measures included on 1,3-D labels. The and Oncogenicity of Inhaled Technical Grade believes that cumulatively all of the Agency has sought a wide variety of 1,3-dichloropropene in Rats and Mice, measures on the 1,3-D labels adequately measures, including those which can be Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. reduce exposures. both qualitatively and quantitatively 12:418–431, 1989. assessed, to reduce risks to the greatest 10. Levy, Alan, Review of Telone II Soil C. Summary of Benefits Fumigant: 2–Year Inhalation Chronic extent possible. EPA has determined Toxicity-Oncogenicity Study in Mice, 1,3-D is registered for use on all that the exposure reduction derived February 5, 1988. vegetable, field, fruit and nut and from quantitative and qualitative risk 11. Van Duuren et alia, Carcinogenicity of nursery crops. As a fumigant, it is mitigation measures, taken together, Halogenated Olefinic and Aliphatic considered more effective than other provide acceptable exposure reduction Hydrocarbons in Mice, Journal of the fumigant and non-fumigant alternatives, for those who handle 1,3-D products, as National Cancer Institute. 63: 1433–1439, except for methyl bromide, and certain well as for those who live near treated 1979. uses of aldicarb and metam sodium. As fields. EPA used this determination in 12. McCarroll, Nancy, Review of a pre-plant fumigant, 1,3-D treatments Mutagenicity, Mechanism and Metabolism 1998 to support the Agency’s decision Studies with Telone II (1,3-Dichloropropene), are only applied once per crop planting; that all uses of 1,3-D are eligible for July 15, 1999. whereas the non-fumigant alternatives reregistration. 13. Markovitz, A. and Crosby, W., may require multiple applications, Accordingly, EPA has determined that ‘‘Chemical Carcinogenesis: A Soil Fumigant including to growing crops. the benefits of 1,3-D use outweigh the 1,3-Dichloropropene as Possible Cause of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1887

Hematologic Malignancies,’’ Archives of Dated: December 17, 1999. whether or not this action might apply Internal Medicine. Vol 144, pp. 1409–1411, Susan H. Wayland, to certain entities. If you have questions July 1984. regarding the applicability of this action 14. Hernandez, A. F. et. al., ‘‘Clinical and Deputy Assistant Administrator for to a particular entity, consult the person Pathological Findings in Fatal 1,3- Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. listed in the ‘‘FOR FURTHER Dichloropropene Intoxication,’’ Human and [FR Doc. 00–188 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Experimental Toxicology (MacMillan Press INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ Ltd, 1994) pp. 303–306. BILLING CODE 6560±50±F B. How Can I Get Additional 15. Dearfield, K., Second Peer Review of Information, Including Copies of this Telone II, December 8, 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Document and Other Related 16. Fisher, B., 1994, Telone II - Revised Documents? Q1*, (3/4 Interspecies Scaling Factor), Mouse AGENCY (B6C3F1) Inhalation Study, December 19, 1. Electronically. You may obtain [OPP±30471A; FRL±6399±9] 1994. electronic copies of this document, and 17. Abbotts, John, EPA Memo to Christina Pesticide Products; Registration certain other related documents that Scheltema, April 29, 1997. Approvals might be available electronically, from 18. USEPA, Pesticides in GW Database - A the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971– AGENCY: Environmental Protection www.epa.gov/. To access this 1991, EPA 731–12–92–001, OPPTS, Agency (EPA). September 1992. document, on the Home Page select 19. Carleton, J., Review of Sixth and ACTION: Notice. ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look Seventh Progress Reports for Small Scale up the entry for this document under Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Study SUMMARY: This notice announces the ‘‘Federal Register--Environmental in Wisconsin, April, 14, 1999. Agency approval of applications to Documents.’’ You can also go directly to 20. Waldman, E., Air, Surface Water and register the pesticide products the Federal Register listings at http:// Ground Water Field Study of 1,3-D in a Trifloxystrobin Technical, Flint, www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. South Florida Vegetable Production System - Stratego, and Compass containing an To access a fact sheet which provides first year report, March 1997. active ingredient not included in any more detail on this registration, go to the 21.Scheltema, C., Revised Occupational previously registered products pursuant Home Page for the Office of Pesticide and Residential Assessments for Telone, June to the provisions of section 3(c)(5) of the Programs at http://www.epa.gov/ 14, 1996. 22. Poff, K., Review of Column Leaching of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and pesticides/, and select ‘‘fact sheet.’’ Aged Residues and Two Field Volatility Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. 2. In person. The Agency has Studies, September 20, 1993. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By established an official record for this 23. Scheltema, C., Revised Drinking Water mail: Cynthia Giles-Parker Registration action under docket control number Risk Estimates, 1998. Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide OPP–30471A. The official record 24. USEPA, Reregistration Eligibility Programs, Environmental Protection consists of the documents specifically Decision (RED) for 1,3-Dichloropropene, Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, referenced in this action, any public December 1998. DC 20460; telephone number: (703) comments received during an applicable 25. Carleton J., Revised Worker and comment period, and other information Residential Exposure and Risk Assessments 305–7740; and e-mail address: giles- [email protected]. related to this action, including any based on Data Submitted in Response to the information claimed as confidential Worker and Biomonitoring DCI (March 1993) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for the Special Review Chemical 1,3- business information (CBI). This official Dichloropropene, May 31, 1995. I. General Information record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well 26. EFED Chapter for the 1,3-D A. Does this Action Apply to Me? Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) as the documents that are referenced in Document, July 15, 1997. You may be affected by this action if those documents. The public version of 27. Zavolta S. and Michell, R., Preliminary you are an agricultural producer, food the official record does not include any Benefits Analysis of 1,3-Dichloropropene manufacturer, or pesticide information claimed as CBI. The public Use, April 1994. manufacturer. Potentially affected version of the official record, which 28. Zavolta, S., Memo Updating 1994 PBA, categories and entities may include, but includes printed, paper versions of any May 8, 1997. are not limited to: 29. USEPA, Chemical Fact Sheet for electronic comments submitted during Methyl Bromide, Fact Sheet No. 98, August an applicable comment period, is 22, 1986. available for inspection in the Public 30. National Institute for Occupational Information and Records Integrity Safety and Health, 1978, Occupational Health Cat- NAICS Examples of poten- Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall Guidelines for Methyl Bromide. egories codes tially affected entities #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 31. Mehta, A., Worker Exposure Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Assessment During Methyl Bromide Soil Industry 111 Crop production 112 Animal production Monday through Friday, excluding legal Fumigation, EPA Memo to Flora Chow, holidays. The PIRIB telephone number March 15, 1994. 311 Food manufacturing 32. Mehta, Worker and Residential/ 32532 Pesticide manufac- is (703) 305–5805. Bystander Risk Assessment of Metam turing In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of Sodium During Soil Applications, EPA FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the memo to Jay Ellenberger and Jack Housenger, This listing is not intended to be list of data references, the data and other June 22, 1994. exhaustive, but rather provides a guide scientific information used to support 33. EPA Questions and Answers, for readers regarding entities likely to be registration, except for material Reinstating the Use of Aldicarb on Potatoes, affected by this action. Other types of specifically protected by section 10 of September 22, 1995. entities not listed in the table could also FIFRA, are also available for public List of Subjects be affected. The North American inspection. Requests for data must be Industrial Classification System made in accordance with the provisions Environmental protection, pesticides (NAICS) codes have been provided to of the Freedom of Information Act and and pest. assist you and others in determining must be addressed to the Freedom of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.002 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Information Office (A-101), 401 M St., subject line on the first page of your C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare SW., Washington, DC 20460. The response. My Comments for EPA? request should: Identify the product 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: You may find the following name and registration number and Public Information and Records suggestions helpful for preparing your specify the data or information desired. comments: A paper copy of the fact sheet, which Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information 1. Explain your views as clearly as provides more detail on this Resources and Services Division possible. registration, may be obtained from the (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs 2. Describe any assumptions that you National Technical Information Service (OPP), Environmental Protection used. (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 3. Provide copies of any technical Springfield, VA 22161. DC 20460. information and/or data you used that II. Did EPA Approve the Application? 2. In person or by courier. Deliver support your views. your comments to: Public Information 4. If you estimate potential burden or The Agency approved the application and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), after considering all required data on costs, explain how you arrived at the Information Resources and Services estimate that you provide. risks associated with the proposed use Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide of Trifloxystrobin, and information on 5. Provide specific examples to Programs (OPP), Environmental social, economic, and environmental illustrate your concerns. Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal benefits to be derived from use. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve Specifically, the Agency has considered Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, the registration activity. the nature of the chemical and its Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 7. Make sure to submit your pattern of use, application methods and 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through comments by the deadline in this rates, and level and extent of potential Friday, excluding legal holidays. The notice. exposure. Based on these reviews, the PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 8.To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be Agency was able to make basic health 5805. sure to identify the docket control and safety determinations which show 3. Electronically. You may submit number assigned to this action in the that use of Trifloxystrobin when used in your comments electronically by e-mail subject line on the first page of your accordance with widespread and to: ‘‘[email protected],’’ or you can response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register commonly recognized practice, will not submit a computer disk as described citation. generally cause unreasonable adverse above. Do not submit any information These applications were approved on effects to the environment. electronically that you consider to be September 20, 1999, for one technical CBI. Avoid the use of special characters III. Approved Application and three end-use products listed and any form of encryption. Electronic EPA issued a notice, published in the below: submissions will be accepted in Federal Register of April 8, 1999 (64 FR 1. Trifloxystrobin Technical, Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file 17170) (FRL–6064–4), which announced (formerly CGA-279202 WG), a fungicide that Novartis Crop Protection, P.O. Box format. All comments in electronic form for formulation use (EPA Registration 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419–8300, had must be identified by docket control Number 100–918). submitted applications to register the number OPP–30471A. Electronic 2. Flint, (formerly CGA-279202 WG) pesticide products, CGA-279202 WG, comments may also be filed online at for control of certain diseases in pome CGA-279202 Technical, and CGA- many Federal Depository Libraries. fruits, grapes, and cucurbit vegetables 279202 WG Turf, fungicides (EPA files B. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want (EPA Registration Number 100–919). symbols 100–ORO, 100–ORI, and 100– to Submit to the Agency? 3. Compass, (formerly CGA-279202 OEN) respectively, containing the new WG Turf), for control of certain foliar, active ingredient trifloxystrobin at 50% Do not submit any information stem and root diseases of turfgrass 98%, and 50% resepectively, an active electronically that you consider to be including golf courses, institutional, ingredient not included in any CBI. You may claim information that commercial and residential lawns, sod previously registered product. you submit to EPA in response to this farms, ornamentals grown in EPA subsequently received an document as CBI by marking any part or interiorscapes, field nursery plantings, application from Novartis to register the all of that information as CBI. forest nurseries, residential and product Stratego (EPA File Symbol 100– Information so marked will not be commercial landscapes, greenhouses, OUI), also containing the active disclosed except in accordance with lath and shade houses, containers, and ingredient trifloxystrobin. However, procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. other enclosed structures (EPA since the notice of receipt of this In addition to one complete version of Registration Number 100–920). application to register the product as the comment that includes any 4. Stratego for control of certain required by section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA, as information claimed as CBI, a copy of diseases in peanuts (EPA Registration amended did not publish in the Federal Number 100–948). the comment that does not contain the Register, interested parties may submit information claimed as CBI must be comments within 30 days from the date List of Subjects submitted for inclusion in the public of publication of this notice for the Environmental protection, Pesticides product ‘‘Stratego’’ only. version of the official record. Information not marked confidential and pests. A. How and to Whom Do I Submit will be included in the public version Dated: December 16, 1999. Comments? of the official record without prior James Jones, You may submit comments through notice. If you have any questions about the mail, in person, or electronically. To CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is please consult the person identified in imperative that you identify docket the ‘‘FOR FURTHER INFORMATION [FR Doc. 00–364 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] control number OPP–30471A in the CONTACT.’’ BILLING CODE 6560±50±F

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1889

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: period, and other information related to AGENCY this action, including any information I. General Information [OPP±66274; FRL 6398±1] claimed as confidential business A. Does this apply to me? information (CBI). This official record Notice of Receipt of Requests to This action is directed to the public includes the documents that are Voluntary Cancel Certain Pesticide in general. Although this action may be physically located in the docket, as well Registrations of particular interest to persons who as the documents that are referenced in produce or use pesticides, the Agency those documents. The public version of AGENCY: Environmental Protection has not attempted to describe all the the official record does not include any Agency (EPA). specific entities that may be affected by information claimed as CBI. The public ACTION: Notice. this action. If you have any questions version of the official record, which SUMMARY: In accordance with section regarding the information in this notice, includes printed, paper versions of any 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, consult the person listed under ‘‘FOR electronic comments submitted during Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT an applicable comment period, is as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of section.’’ available for inspection in the Public receipt of requests by registrants to B. How can I get additional information Information and Records Integrity voluntarily cancel certain pesticide or copies of support documents? Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall registrations. #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, DATES: Unless a request is withdrawn, 1. Electronically. You may obtain Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 the Agency will approve these use electronic copies of this document and p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding deletions and the deletions will become various support documents are available legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone effective on July 10, 2000. from the EPA Home Page at the Federal number is (703) 305–5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By Register-Environmental Documents mail: James A. Hollins, Office of entry for this document under ‘‘Laws II. What Action is the Agency Taking? Pesticide Programs (7502C), and Regulations’’ (http://www.epa.gov/ This notice announces receipt by the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 fedrgstr/). Agency of applications from registrants M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person. The Agency has Office location for commercial courier established an official record for this to cancel some 32 pesticide products delivery, telephone number and e-mail action under docket control number registered under section 3 or 24(c) of address: Rm. 224, Crystal Mall No. 2, OPP–66274. The official record consists FIFRA. These registrations are listed in 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, of the documents specifically referenced sequence by registration number (or Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305–5761; e- in this action, any public comments company number and 24 number) in the mail: [email protected]. received during an applicable comment following Table 1.

TABLE 1. Ð REGISTRATIONS WITH PENDING REQUESTS FOR CANCELLATION

Registration No. Product Name Chemical Name

000239±±02514 Get-A-Bug Snail, Slug & Insect Killer 2,4,6,8-Tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 000264±±00292 Ethrel Plant Regulator for Flue Cured Tobacco (2-Chloroethyl)phosphonic acid 000264±±00376 Cerone±2 Plant Regulator (2-Chloroethyl)phosphonic acid 000538±±00114 Proturf 101V Broad Spectrum Fungicide Tetrachloroisophthalonitrile 000538±±00141 Proturf 18±5±5 Fertilizer Plus 101 Broad Spectrum Tetrachloroisophthalonitrile Fungicide 000869±±00176 Green Light Ant Killer Bendiocarb (2,2-dimethyl-1,3-benzoldioxol-4-yl methylcarbamate) 000869±±00228 Green Light Lawn Insect Granules 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 001270±±00252 ZEP Tox III Wasp and Hornet Killer (Butylcarbityl)(6-propylpiperonyl) ether 80% and related com- pounds 20% (1-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximido)methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2- methylpropenyl)cycloprop Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-di- methyl-, 001386±±00633 Smith-Douglass 10% Sevin Dust 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 005481±±00280 2% Methomyl Insecticide Dust S-Methyl N-((methylcarbamoyl)oxy)thioacetimidate 006175±±00034 Indoor Flea & Tick Spray with Dursban O,O-Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl)phosphorothioate 007401±±00051 Ferti-Lome containing Sevin for Control of Soil In- 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate sects 007401±±00208 Hi-Yield Sevin and Molasses 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 008660±±00136 Greenup Ant, Roach and Insect Powder Bendiocarb (2,2-dimethyl-1,3-benzoldioxol-4-yl methylcarbamate) 009198±±00072 Custom Mix 20±4±10 with Betasan S-(O,O-Diisopropyl phosphorodithioate) ester of N-(2- mercaptoethyl)benzenesulfonamide

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:42 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1890 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 1. Ð REGISTRATIONS WITH PENDING REQUESTS FOR CANCELLATIONÐContinued

Registration No. Product Name Chemical Name

009198±±00073 Custom Mix 25±6±10 with Betasan S-(O,O-Diisopropyl phosphorodithioate) ester of N-(2- mercaptoethyl)benzenesulfonamide 009198±±00139 The Andersons Pest Arrest Lawn Insecticide I 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00141 The Andersons Pest Arrest Fire Ant Killer 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00142 The Andersons Pest Arrest Flea & Tick Killer 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00143 The Andersons Pest Arrest Lawn Insecticide II 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00144 The Andersons Fertilizer with 4.55% Sevin 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00145 The Andersons 6.3% Granular Sevin 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00147 The Andersons Pest Arrest 5% Dust 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 009198±±00148 The Andersons Pest Arrest 10% Dust 1-Naphthyl-N-methylcarbamate 011684±±00002 Jirdon Lawn Fertilizer containing Dacthal Herbicide Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate 12- 028293±±00165 Unicorn Household Fogger (1-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximido)methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2- methylpropenyl)cycloprop 4-Chloro-alpha-(1-methylethyl)benzeneacetic acid, cyano(3- phenoxyphenyl)methyl 028293±±00188 Unicorn Fogger #6 (1-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximido)methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2- methylpropenyl)cycloprop (S-(R*,R*))-4-Chloro-alpha-(1-methylethyl)benzeneacetic acid, 028293±±00194 Unicorn Fire Ant Injector Aerosol (1-Cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximido)methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2- methylpropenyl)cycloprop (S-(R*,R*))-4-Chloro-alpha-(1-methylethyl)benzeneacetic acid, 030950±±00007 Diazinon 25% Emulsifiable Concentrate O,O-Diethyl O-(2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) phosphorothioate 041875±±00001 Super Tropical Antifouling P±18 Cuprous oxide 046515±±00028 Super K-Gro Fire Ant Mound Drench O,O-Diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate 051036 ID±±95±±0015 Endosulfan 3 EC 6,7,8,9,10-Hexachloro-1,5,5α,6,9,9α-hexahydro-6,9-methano- 2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide

Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 180 days (30 days when requested by registrant) of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant during this comment period. The following Table 2 includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1, in sequence by EPA company number:

TABLE 2. Ð REGISTRANTS REQUESTING VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION

EPA Com- Company Name and Address pany No.

000239 The Scotts Co., D/B/A The Ortho Group, Box 1749, Columbus, OH 43216. 000264 Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 000538 The Scotts Co., 14111 Scottslawn Rd, Marysville, OH 43041. 000869 Green Light Co., Box 17985, San Antonio, TX 78217. 001270 ZEP Mfg. Co., Box 2015, Atlanta, GA 30301. 001386 Universal Cooperatives Inc., 1300 Cooperatives, Inc., Eagan, MN 55121. 005481 AMVAC Chemical Corp., Attn: Jon C. Wood, 2110 Davie Ave., Commerce, CA 90040. 006175 Schering-Plough Veterinary Operations, Inc., 1095 Morris Ave., Union, NJ 07083. 007401 Brazos Associates, Inc., c/o Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., Box 460, Bonham, TX 75418. 008660 Pursell Industries, Inc., Box 540, Sylacauga, AL 35150. 009198 The Andersons Lawn Fertilizer Division, DBA/ Free Flow Fertilizer, Box 119, Maumee, OH 43537. 011684 Jirdon Agri Chemicals Inc., Box 516, Morrill, NE 69358. 028293 Unicorn Laboratories, 12385 Automobile Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33762. 030950 Maldonado & Co Inc., Box 363231, San Juan, PR 00936. 041875 All Purpose Marine Paints Inc., 58 Van Dyke St, Brooklyn, NY 11231.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:42 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1891

TABLE 2. Ð REGISTRANTS REQUESTING VOLUNTARY CANCELLATIONÐContinued

EPA Com- Company Name and Address pany No.

046515 Celex, Division of United Industries Corp., Box 15842, St Louis, MO 63114. 051036 Micro-Flo Co, Box 772099, Memphis, TN 38117.

III. What is the Agency’s Authority for released for shipment prior to the EPA has decided to extend the comment Taking this Action? effective date of the cancellation action. period from January 14, 2000, to Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA, provides that Unless the provisions of an earlier order February 14, 2000. apply, existing stocks already in the a registrant of a pesticide product may DATES: hands of dealers or users can be Comments, identified by docket at any time request that any of its control number OPP–00633, must be pesticide registrations be amended to distributed, sold or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such received by EPA on or before February delete one or more uses. The Act further 14, 2000. provides that, before acting on the further sale and use comply with the request, EPA must publish a notice of EPA-approved label and labeling of the ADDRESSES: Comments may be receipt of any such request in the affected product(s). Exceptions to these submitted by mail, electronically, or in Federal Register. Thereafter, the general rules will be made in specific person. Please follow the detailed Administrator may approve such a cases when more stringent restrictions instructions for each method as request. on sale, distribution, or use of the provided in Unit III. of the products or their ingredients have ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’ IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of already been imposed, as in Special To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is Request Review actions, or where the Agency imperative that you identify docket Registrants who choose to withdraw a has identified significant potential risk control number OPP–00633 in the request for cancellation must submit concerns associated with a particular subject line on the first page of your such withdrawal in writing to James A. chemical. response. Hollins, at the address given above, List of Subjects FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For postmarked before July 10, 2000. This Environmental protection, Pesticides general information contact: written withdrawal of the request for and pests, Product registrations. Communications Services Branch cancellation will apply only to the (7506C), Field and External Affairs applicable 6(f)(1) request listed in this Dated: December 15, 1999. Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, notice. If the product(s) have been Richard D. Schmitt, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 subject to a previous cancellation Acting Director, Information Resources action, the effective date of cancellation M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; Services Division, Office of Pesticide telephone number: (703) 305–5017; fax and all other provisions of any earlier Programs. cancellation action are controlling. The number: (703) 305–5558. withdrawal request must also include a [FR Doc. 00–363 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] For technical information contact: commitment to pay any reregistration BILLING CODE 6560±50±F Robyn Rose, Office of Pesticide fees due, and to fulfill any applicable Programs, Biopesticides and Pollution unsatisfied data requirements. Prevention Division (7511C), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental Protection Agency, 401 AGENCY V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; Stocks [OPP±00633A; FRL±6486±3] telephone number: (703) 308–9581; e- The effective date of cancellation will mail address: [email protected]. be the date of the cancellation order. Proposed Test Guidelines; Extension SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The orders effecting these requested of Comment Period cancellations will generally permit a AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Does this Action Apply to Me? registrant to sell or distribute existing Agency (EPA). This action is directed to the public stocks for 1 year after the date the ACTION: Notice; Extension of Comment in general. Although this action may be cancellation request was received by the Period. Agency. This policy is in accordance of particular interest to those persons with the Agency’s statement of policy as SUMMARY: On December 15, 1999, EPA who are or may be required to conduct prescribed in Federal Register (56 FR issued a notice announcing the testing of chemical substances under the 29362) June 26, 1991; [FRL 3846–4]. availability of proposed tests for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Exception to this general rule will be Series 810–Product Performance Testing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic made if a product poses a risk concern, Guidelines titled ‘‘OPPTS 810.3700 Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, or is in noncompliance with Insect Repellents For Human Skin and Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act reregistration requirements, or is subject Outdoor Premises’’ and a Pesticide (FIFRA), the Agency has not attempted to a data call-in. In all cases, product- Registration (PR) Notice titled ‘‘Insect to describe all the specific entities that specific disposition dates will be given Repellents: Labeling, Data Citations, and may be affected by this action. If you in the cancellation orders. Testing Criteria’’ explaining specific have any questions regarding the Existing stocks are those stocks of areas of the guideline and recommended applicability of this action to a registered pesticide products which are label language. Due to the complexity of particular entity, consult the technical currently in the United States and the proposed test guideline and the person listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER which have been packaged, labeled, and potential health concerns to humans, INFORMATION CONTACT.’’

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:38 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1892 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

II. How Can I Get Additional imperative that you identify docket identified under ‘‘FOR FURTHER Information, Including Copies of this control number OPP–00633 in the INFORMATION CONTACT.’’ Document or Other Related Documents? subject line on the first page of your IV. What Action is EPA Taking? A. Electronically. You may obtain response. electronic copies of this document, and 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: EPA is extending the comment period certain other related documents that Public Information and Records from January 14, 2000, to February 14, might be available electronically, from Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information 2000, on the proposed test guideline for the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// Resources and Services Division the Series 810 guidelines titled ‘‘OPPTS www.epa.gov/. To access this (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs 810.3700 Insect Repellents For Human document, on the Home Page select (OPP), Environmental Protection Skin and Outdoor Premises Product ‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, Performance Testing Guidelines’’ and a up the entry for this document under DC 20460. PR notice titled ‘‘Insect Repellents: the ‘‘Federal Register—Environmental 2. In person or by courier. Deliver Labeling, Data Citations, and Testing Documents.’’ You can also go directly to your comments to: Public Information Criteria’’ explaining specific areas of the the Federal Register listings at http:// and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), guideline and recommended label www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Information Resources and Services language. The background on the You may also obtain copies of test Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide proposed test guideline can be found in guidelines from the EPA Internet Home Programs (OPP), Environmental the previous Federal Register notice of Page by selecting ‘‘Researchers and Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal availability published on December 15, Scientists/Test Methods and Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, 1999 (64 FR 70023) (FRL–6395–8). Guidelines/OPPTS Harmonized Test Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from Guidelines’’ at http://www.epa.gov/ 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through List of Subjects epahome/research.htm. Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Environmental protection, B. Fax on demand. You may request PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– Administrative practice and procedure, a faxed copy of the PR Notice titled 5805. Agricultural commodities, Chemical ‘‘Insect Repellents: Labeling, Data 3. Electronically. Submit your Citations, and Testing Criteria’’ by using testing, Pesticides and pests, Test comments electronically by e-mail to: guideline. a faxphone to call (202) 401–0527 and ‘‘[email protected],’’ or mail your selecting item 6122. You may also computer disk to the address identified Dated: January 3, 2000. follow the automated menu. above. Do not submit any information Marcia E. Mulkey, C. In person. The Agency has electronically that you consider to be Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. established an official record for this CBI. Electronic comments must be [FR Doc. 00–626 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] proposed guideline under docket submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the BILLING CODE 6560±50±F control number OPP–00633. The official use of special characters and any form record consists of the documents of encryption. Comments and data will specifically referenced in this action, also be accepted on standard computer any public comments received during disks in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION an applicable comment period, and file format. All comments in electronic other information related to this action, form must be identified by the docket including any information claimed as Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit control number OPP–00633. Electronic Administration Board; Regular Meeting Confidential Business Information (CBI). comments may also be filed online at This official record includes the many Federal Depository Libraries. documents that are physically located in AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. B. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want the docket, as well as the documents SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, to Submit to the Agency? that are referenced in those documents. pursuant to the Government in the The public version of the official record Do not submit any information Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that does not include any information electronically that you consider to be the January 13, 2000 regular meeting of claimed as CBI. The public version of CBI. You may claim information that the Farm Credit Administration Board the official record, which includes you submit to EPA in response to this (Board) has been canceled. The Board printed, paper versions of any electronic document as CBI by marking any part or will hold a special meeting at 9:00 a.m. comments submitted during an all of that information as CBI. on Thursday, January 27, 2000. The applicable comment period, is available Information so marked will not be agenda will remain the same. for inspection in the Public Information disclosed except in accordance with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Vivian L. Portis, Secretary to the Farm Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson In addition to one complete version of Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from the comment that includes any 4025, TDD (703) 883–4444. 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through information claimed as CBI, a copy of Friday, excluding legal holidays. The the comment that does not contain the ADDRESS: Farm Credit Administration, PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– information claimed as CBI must be 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 5805. submitted for inclusion in the public Virginia 22102–5090. version of the official record. III. How Can I Respond to this Action? Dated: January 10, 2000. Information not marked confidential A. How and to Whom Do I Submit will be included in the public version Jeanette Brinkley, Comments? of the official record without prior Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration You may submit comments through notice. If you have any questions about Board. the mail, in person, or electronically. To CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, [FR Doc. 00–890 Filed 1–10–00; 3:40 pm] ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is please consult the technical person BILLING CODE 6705±01±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1893

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM including through the use of automated Annual reporting hours: Interagency collection techniques or other forms of Notice of Change in Control—4,800 Agency Information Collection information technology. hours; Interagency Notice of Change in Activities: Proposed Collection; DATES: Comments must be submitted on Director or Senior Executive Officer— Comment Request or before March 13, 2000. 150 hours; Interagency Biographical and Financial Report—5,100 hours; Total— AGENCY: Board of Governors of the ADDRESSES: Comments, which should 10,050 hours. Federal Reserve System. refer to the OMB control number or Estimated average hours per response: SUMMARY: agency form number, should be addressed to Jennifer J. Johnson, Interagency Notice of Change in Background Secretary, Board of Governors of the Control—30 hours; Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior On June 15, 1984, the Office of Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Executive Officer—2 hours; Interagency Management and Budget (OMB) Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551, or Biographical and Financial Report—4 delegated to the Board of Governors of delivered to the Board’s mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., and to hours. the Federal Reserve System (Board) its Number of respondents: Interagency approval authority under the Paperwork the security control room outside of those hours. Both the mail room and the Notice of Change in Control—160; Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to Interagency Notice of Change in Director approve of and assign OMB control security control room are accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th or Senior Executive Officer—75; numbers to collection of information Interagency Biographical and Financial requests and requirements conducted or Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments received may Report—1,275. sponsored by the Board under Small businesses are affected. be inspected in room M–P–500 between conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 General description of report: This 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., except as provided Appendix A.1. Board-approved information collection is mandatory (12 in section 261.14 of the Board’s Rules collections of information are U.S.C. 1817(j) and 12 U.S.C. 1831(i)) Regarding Availability of Information, incorporated into the official OMB and is not given confidential treatment. inventory of currently approved 12 CFR 261.14(a). Abstract: In 1996 a Federal Financial collections of information. Copies of the A copy of the comments may also be Institutions Examination Council task OMB 83–Is and supporting statements submitted to the OMB desk officer for force adapted, reformatted, and retitled and approved collection of information the Board: Alexander T. Hunt, Office of the three reports, pursuant to the Riegle instruments are placed into OMB’s Information and Regulatory Affairs, Community Development and public docket files. The Federal Reserve Office of Management and Budget, New Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. may not conduct or sponsor, and the Executive Office Building, Room 3208, The Federal Reserve uses the respondent is not required to respond Washington, DC 20503. biographical portions of the collections to, an information collection that has FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A to evaluate the competence, experience, been extended, revised, or implemented copy of the proposed form and character, and integrity of persons on or after October 1, 1995, unless it instructions, the Paperwork Reduction proposed as organizers, senior executive displays a currently valid OMB control Act Submission (OMB 83–I), supporting officers, directors, or principal number. statement, and other documents that shareholders. The financial portion is will be placed into OMB’s public docket Request for Comment on Information used to evaluate the financial ability of files once approved may be requested Collection Proposals persons proposed as organizers, senior from the agency clearance officer, whose executive officers, directors, or principal The following information name appears below. shareholders. The reports are also used collections, which are being handled Mary M. West, Chief, Financial to allow or disapprove proposed under this delegated authority, have Reports Section (202–452–3829), acquisitions. The reporting forms allow received initial Board approval and are Division of Research and Statistics, applicants greater efficiency in the hereby published for comment. At the Board of Governors of the Federal interagency application process end of the comment period, the Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. including eliminating duplicative proposed information collections, along Telecommunications Device for the Deaf filings. with an analysis of comments and (TDD) users may contact Diane Jenkins recommendations received, will be (202–452–3544), Board of Governors of Proposals To Approve Under OMB submitted to the Board for final the Federal Reserve System, Delegated Authority the Extension for approval under OMB delegated Washington, DC 20551. Three Years, With Revisions, of the authority. Comments are invited on the Following Reports following: Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for 1. Report title: The Weekly Report of a. Whether the proposed collection of Eurodollar Liabilities Held by Selected information is necessary for the proper Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Report U.S. Addressees at Foreign Offices of performance of the Federal Reserve’s U.S. Banks. functions; including whether the 1. Report title: Interagency Notice of Agency form number: FR 2050. information has practical utility; Change in Control, Interagency Notice of OMB control number: 7100–0068. b. The accuracy of the Federal Change in Director or Senior Executive Frequency: Weekly. Reserve’s estimate of the burden of the Officer, and Interagency Biographical Reporters: Foreign branches and proposed information collection, and Financial Report. banking subsidiaries of U.S. depository including the validity of the Agency form numbers: FR 2081a, FR institutions. methodology and assumptions used; 2081b, and FR 2081c. Annual reporting hours: 2,236 burden c. Ways to enhance the quality, OMB control number: 7100–0134. hours. utility, and clarity of the information to Frequency: On occasion. Estimated average hours per response: be collected; and Reporters: Financial institutions and 1.0 hour. d. Ways to minimize the burden of certain of their officers and Number of respondents: 43. information collection on respondents, shareholders. Small businesses are not affected.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.048 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

General description of report: This Frequency: One-time. monthly Bulletin from a sample of information collection is voluntary (12 Reporters: Domestic finance subscribers. The staff is focusing on the U.S.C. 248(a)(2), 353 et seq., 461, 602, companies. Bulletin because the Board devotes and 625). Individual respondents data Annual reporting hours: substantial resources to this publication are confidential under section (b)(4) of Questionnaire, 750 hours; Survey, 840 and would use the information from this the Freedom of Information Act (5 hours. survey to determine whether the Board U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Estimated average hours per response: should continue to publish the Bulletin Abstract: The report collects data on Questionnaire, 0.25 hours; Survey, 1.4 in its current form. The Customer Eurodollar deposits payable to nonbank hours. Satisfaction Survey of Publication U.S. addressees from foreign branches Number of respondents: Subscribers (FR 1372) would solicit and subsidiaries of U.S. commercial Questionnaire, 3000; Survey, 600. comments on the quality of the banks and Edge and agreement Small businesses are affected. customer service provided by the corporations. The data are used for the General description of report: This Board’s Publications Services construction of the Eurodollar information collection is voluntary (12 Department. The information would be component of the monetary aggregates U.S.C. 225a, 263, and 353–359) and is used to assess whether the needs of the and for analysis of banks’ liability given confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. Board’s subscribers are being met in a management practices. 552(b)(4)). courteous and expeditious manner and Current Actions: The Federal Reserve Abstract: Since 1995 the Federal whether changes should be made to the proposes that the reporting cutoff be Reserve has conducted surveys of ordering and payment policies and raised from a weekly average of $350 domestic finance companies every five processes in order to increase efficiency million to $500 million in Eurodollar years on consumer and business credit and customer satisfaction. liabilities. and on major assets and liabilities of Discontinuation of the Following 2. Report title: The Quarterly Report finance companies. The first stage is a Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large simple questionnaire (FR 3033p) which Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks. is sent to all domestic finance 1. Report title: Report of Medium Agency form number: FR 2502q. companies. The questionnaire asks for Term Note Issuance. OMB control number: 7100–0079. information on each company’s total Agency form number: FR 2600. Frequency: Quarterly. receivables, areas of specialization, and OMB control number: 7100–0245. Reporters: Large foreign branches and other characteristics. From the universe Effective Date: Friday, March 31, banking subsidiaries of U.S. depository of FR 3033p respondents, the Federal 2000. institutions. Reserve will draw a stratified random Frequency: Monthly, quarterly, or Annual reporting hours: 13,132 hours. sample for the survey itself (FR 3033s). semi-annually. Estimated average hours per response: The survey will request detailed Reporters: U.S. firms filing SEC shelf 3.5 hours. information, as of June 30, 2000, from registration statements for medium term Number of respondents: 938. both sides of the respondents’ balance notes. Small businesses are not affected. sheet. Annual reporting hours: 94 burden General description of report: This Proposal To Approve Under OMB hours. information collection is required (12 Delegated Authority To Conduct the Estimated average hours per response: U.S.C.248(a)(2), 353 et seq., 461, 602, Following Surveys 0.083 hours. and 625) and is given confidential Number of respondents: 424. 1. Report title: Customer Satisfaction treatment (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Small businesses are affected. Survey of Federal Reserve Bulletin Abstract: The report collects gross General description of report: This assets and liability positions from Subscribers, and Customer Satisfaction Survey of Publication Subscribers. information collection is voluntary (15 foreign branches and subsidiaries of U.S.C. 225a and 353 et seq.). U.S. commercial banks and Edge and Agency form numbers: FR 1371; and FR 1372. Respondent data are not regarded as agreement corporations vis-a-vis confidential. individual countries. A separate OMB control number: 7100–0291. Frequency: One-time. Abstract: The FR 2600 collects schedule collects information on information on the monthly volume of Reporters: Federal Reserve Bulletin Eurodollar liabilities payable to certain medium-term notes issued by subscribers; and Federal Reserve U.S. addressees. corporations. publications subscribers. Current Actions: The Federal Reserve Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to add the European Central Annual reporting hours: FR 1371, 100; and FR 1372, 100. proposes to discontinue the FR 2600. Bank to the country list. In addition, the The report has become unnecessary Estimated average hours per response: instructions would be clarified to say because data are now obtained from the 0.25 hours per survey. that U.S. banks report only for Depository Trust Corporation, a national Number of respondents: 400 per subsidiaries that have a banking charter clearing house that collects data on survey. and are engaged in banking business. medium-term notes issued in the course Small businesses are affected. Proposal To Approve Under OMB of its business of clearing and settling General description of report: This Delegated Authority To Conduct, securities and acting as trustee for information collection is voluntary (12 Without Revision, of the Following holders of securities. U.S.C 248i). The individual date is not Report considered confidential. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 1. Report title: The Quinquennial Abstract: The Customer Satisfaction System, January 6, 2000. Finance Company Questionnaire and Survey of Federal Reserve Bulletin Jennifer J. Johnson, Survey. Subscribers (FR 1371) would solicit Secretary of the Board. Agency form number: FR 3033p/s. comments on the content and [FR Doc. 00–673 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] OMB control number: 7100–0277. usefulness of the Federal Reserve’s BILLING CODE 6210±01±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1895

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) and is given Chief, Financial Reports Section—Mary confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. M. West—Division of Research and Agency Information Collection 552(b)(4) and (8)). Statistics, Board of Governors of the Activities: Announcement of Board Abstract: The Survey of Terms of Federal Reserve System, Washington, Approval Under Delegated Authority Bank Lending provides unique DC 20551 (202–452–3829) and Submission to OMB information concerning the price and OMB Desk Officer—Alexander T. SUMMARY: certain nonprice terms of loans made to Hunt—Office of Information and businesses and farmers by commercial Regulatory Affairs, Office of Background banks. The reports are completed for the Management and Budget, New Notice is hereby given of the final first full business week of the mid- Executive Office Building, Room approval of proposed information month of each quarter (February, May, 3208, Washington, DC 20503 (202– collections by the Board of Governors of August, and November). The FR 2028A 395–7860) the Federal Reserve System (Board) and B collect detailed data on Final Approval Under OMB Delegated under OMB delegated authority, as per individual loans made during the Authority of the Extension for Three 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on survey week. The FR 2028S collects the Years, With Minor Revisions of the Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the prime interest rate for each day of the Following Report Public). Board-approved collections of survey week. From these sample STBL information are incorporated into the data, estimates of the terms of business 1. Report title: Suspicious Activity official OMB inventory of currently and farm loans extended during the Report. approved collections of information. reporting week at all insured U.S. Agency form number: FR 2230. Copies of the OMB 83–Is and supporting commercial banks are constructed. The OMB Control number: 7100–0212. statements and approved collection of estimates for business loans are Frequency: On occasion. information instrument(s) are placed published in the quarterly E.2 release, Reporters: State member banks, Edge into OMB’s public docket files. The ‘‘Survey of Terms of Bank Lending,’’ and agreement corporations, branches, Federal Reserve may not conduct or and estimates for farm loans are agencies, and representative offices of sponsor, and the respondent is not published in the quarterly E.15 release, foreign banks, and entities subject to the required to respond to, an information ‘‘Agricultural Finance Databook.’’ Bank Holding Company Act. Annual reporting hours: 7,000. collection that has been extended, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve revised, or implemented on or after Estimated average hours per response: System, January 6, 2000. 30 minutes . October 1, 1995, unless it displays a Jennifer J. Johnson, currently valid OMB control number. Number of respondents: 10,000. Secretary of the Board. Small businesses are affected. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 00–674 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] General description of report: This Chief, Financial Reports Section—Mary BILLING CODE 6210±01±P information collection is mandatory: 12 M. West—Division of Research and CFR 208.20, state member banks; 12 Statistics, Board of Governors of the CFR 211.8, Edge and agreement Federal Reserve System, Washington, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM corporations; 12 CFR 211.24(f), DC 20551 (202–452–3829) branches, agencies, and representative OMB Desk Officer—Alexander T. Agency Information Collection offices of foreign banks; and 12 CFR Hunt—Office of Information and Activities: Announcement of Board 225.4(f), entities subject to the Bank Regulatory Affairs, Office of Approval Under Delegated Authority Holding Company Act. The information Management and Budget, New and Submission to OMB collected on the Suspicious Activity Executive Office Building, Room Report (SAR) is confidential pursuant to SUMMARY: 3208, Washington, DC 20503 (202– exemption seven of the Freedom of 395–7860) Background Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Notice is hereby given of the final exemption two of the Privacy Act (5 Authority of the Extension for Three approval of proposed information U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)). Years, Without Revision, of the collection by the Board of Governors of Abstract: In 1985, the federal financial Following Report the Federal Reserve System (Board) supervisory agencies and the Report title: Survey of Terms of Bank under OMB delegated authority, as per Department of Treasury issued Lending. 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on procedures to be used by banks, thrifts, Agency form number: FR 2028A, FR Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the credit unions, their holding companies 2028B, and FR 2028S. Public). Board-approved collections of and certain other financial institutions OMB control number: 7100–0061. information are incorporated into the operating in the United States to report Frequency: Quarterly. official OMB inventory of currently known or suspected criminal activities Reporters: commercial banks (all three approved collections of information. to the appropriate law enforcement reports) and U.S. branches and agencies Copies of the OMB 83–Is and supporting agencies and the agencies. Beginning in of foreign banks. (FR 2028A and FR statements and approved collection of 1994, the agencies completely 2028S) information instrument(s) are placed redesigned the reporting process Annual reporting hours: 8,100 burden into OMB’s public docket files. The resulting in the existing Suspicious hours. Federal Reserve may not conduct or Activity Report, which became effective Estimated average hours per response: 1 sponsor, and the respondent is not in April 1996. FR 2028A: 4.0. FR 2028B: 1.5. FR 2028S: required to respond to, an information 0.1. 1 The report is authorized by the following rules: Number of respondents: FR 2028A: collection that has been extended, 31 CFR 103.21 (FinCEN); 12 CFR 21.11 (OCC); 12 398. FR 2028B: 250. FR 2028S: 580. revised, or implemented on or after CFR 563.180 (OTS); 12 CFR 208.20 (Board); 12 CFR Small businesses are affected. October 1, 1995, unless it displays a 353.3 (FDIC); 12 CFR 748.1 (NCUA). The rules were currently valid OMB control number. issued under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 5318(g) General description of report: This (FinCEN); 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1818, 1881–84, 3401–22, information collection is voluntary (12 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Continued

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.044 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Comments Received: On September 43) asking for the address of the law any SAR that were incorrectly 28, 1999, the agencies published a enforcement agency contacted was completed to the filing institution so notice requesting public comment on deleted and replaced by questions (new that the SAR can be corrected and re- the proposed revisions to the Suspicious items 41–44) asking for the name and submitted. Activity Report (64 FR 52363). The telephone number of the person The agencies agree with the agencies received 17 generally favorable contacted in the law enforcement commenter’s concerns and believe that comments regarding the proposal; five agency. accurate and complete SAR filings are trade associations, three national banks, The agencies clarified several items important to an effective program. The three credit unions, two foreign banks, on the form. Question 1 was streamlined SAR data base manager is in the two OCC employees, one state bank and by eliminating the check-boxes for processing of developing an error one brokerage house and bank holding ‘‘Initial Report’’ and ‘‘Supplemental resolution process for the system. company. The following is a review of Report.’’ If the report is an initial report However, the primary responsibility for the comments received and the or a supplemental report, the filer accurately completing and reviewing a agencies’ action taken in response to should leave question 1 blank. However, SAR lies with the management and staff those comments. if the submission is correcting an error of the institution. If an institution It should be noted that, the Federal previously reported, the respondent determines that it has filed an Reserve has worked with the other should mark the box indicating inaccurate or incomplete SAR, it should federal financial supervisory agencies ‘‘Amends Prior Report’’ and should fill file an amended report in a timely and FinCEN to review this information out only the information as directed. manner. collection and the comments received. Question 31 was clarified by adding a (2) Electronic Filing. Two commenters The other agencies will publish a box that asks, initially, whether the indicated that it would be beneficial to separate joint Federal Register notice, relationship is an insider relationship. A allow for institutions to file the SAR and the Federal Reserve will process its check-box was added to the heading of electronically. extension under its Paperwork Part II ‘‘Suspect Information’’ for use if The agencies agree that the ability to Reduction Act delegated authority. suspect information is unavailable. In file electronically would be beneficial Current Actions: The agencies revised Part III, ‘‘Suspicious Activity and are working towards that goal, the SAR but did not make substantial Information,’’ the question asking keeping in mind the security and additions to the content of the whether a law enforcement agency has confidentiality issues associated with information collected. The revisions been contacted was reformatted to such filings. address a number of data collection, provide a list of law enforcement entry, and analysis problems agencies (new item 40) with check- II. SAR Changes encountered by filers and the end users boxes to indicating the specific law The 17 commenters made several of the information. In general, the enforcement agency contacted instead of suggestions regarding revisions to the revisions conform all date items to a requiring the respondent to writing the SAR itself. Those suggestions and the four-digit year (Year 2000 change), make name of the agency (current item 42). agencies’ responses to those suggestions a number of other ministerial changes The instruction regarding the type of follow. such as renumber items, clarify the instrument involved (current Part VII, form, improve its usefulness to law (1) Initial/supplemental/amended instruction k) was clarified by adding Reports. The SAR should explain the enforcement and the agencies, and examples of the types of instruments adopt various commenters’ suggestions. box for supplemental reports. (new Part V). In order to streamline the form, the The agencies expanded the Zip Code Current question 37 was revised to agencies are removing the check-boxes blocks to provide room for a nine-digit include a new box for ‘‘Computer for ‘‘Initial Report’’ and ‘‘Supplemental Zip Code and dollar amount blocks to Intrusion’’ and numbered question 35 Report.’’ Instead, a box for amended provide room for larger dollar values on the new form. Previously, reports is added for use only if the filer (and lines are added to these items to respondents reported computer is correcting a prior report. separate digits). intrusions by either checking the (2) Primary Regulator. Current item 3, A number of items on the current ‘‘Other’’ box and specifying the type of ‘‘Primary Federal Regulator’’ should be form were deleted or replaced. activity in the space provided or by modified to include the SEC. Questions regarding the asset size of the providing the information on the financial institution (item 10 on the summary page. Additionally, the The agencies believe that it is current form) and questions in the instructions were expanded to provide unnecessary to add the SEC to this field ‘‘Witness Information’’ (Part IV of the guidance regarding the circumstances because the form is designed for use by current form) and ‘‘Preparer constituting computer intrusion. the agencies and by the financial Information’’ sections (Part V of the Comments Received and Agency institutions that the agencies supervise. current form) were deleted. The Action Taken. The commenters raised (3) Location of Branch Where Activity information provided in the ‘‘Contact various issues, some of which will need Occurred. Question 9 of the current SAR Information’’ section (Part VI of the further agency monitoring and should be clarified to indicate which current form) is all that will be required consideration, and others which can be branch or subsidiary of a foreign bank by the institutions and the contact resolved by fine-tuning the SAR. The should file the SAR and which primary person named in this section (new comments, sorted by subject, and the regulator should be identified. items) will be expected to provide agencies’ responses follow. The agencies believe that the branch witness and preparer information to the where the suspicious activity occurred agencies and law enforcement I. Further Agency Monitoring and should be the branch that is identified investigators. The question (current item Consideration in Part I, ‘‘Reporting Financial Commenters suggested five areas of Institution Information.’’ In addition, 31 U.S.C. 5318 (OCC); 12 U.S.C. 1463 and 1464 change that will require further agency the SAR should identify as the Primary (OTS); 12 U.S.C. 324, 334, 611a, 1844(b) and (c), Federal Regulator the agency that 3015(c)(2) and 3106(a) (Board); 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1818, monitoring and consideration. 1881–84, 3401–22 (FDIC); 12 U.S.C. 1766(a), (1) Incorrect SARs. One commenter supervises the branch or subsidiary 1789(a) (NCUA). suggested that FinCEN should return where the suspicious activity occurred.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.045 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1897

(4) Multiple Branches. Question 9 of information and thus confusing as to potentially invasive of the individual’s the SAR should be corrected with regard whether it applies only to insiders. privacy. to the instructions for listing multiple The agencies wish to collect The agencies agree and have deleted branches because there are no such information concerning a confession current Part IV altogether. The agencies, instructions given. In addition, the form with regard to all suspects. however, expect that the ‘‘Institution should provide for an entry which Consequently, to clarify this, the Contact,’’ named in Part VI of the indicates, when appropriate, that no agencies will physically move this item current form, will maintain or have branch was involved. (new item 28) on the form so that it is access to all pertinent documentation The agencies agree with the first of separate from the insider relationship and witness information for the agencies these two comments and are striking the information. and law enforcement. phrase ‘‘(see instructions)’’ in item 9 of (10) Range of Dates. The form should (15) Preparer Information. The the proposed form. The agencies will provide for the ability of the filer to put agencies should retain current Part V, place the directions for listing multiple down a range of dates over which the ‘‘Preparer Information’’ section so that branches on the form. With regard to the suspicious activity occurred rather than the ‘‘Institution Contact’’ can readily second comment, the agencies note that just one date. determine who prepared the form and if no branch is involved, the filer can The proposed, in item 33, ‘‘Date or where to locate the necessary leave that part of the form blank. date range of suspicious activity’’ underlying information. (5) Multiple Suspects. There should provides for the filer to be able to The agencies believe that the be a way for an institution to enter submit a range of dates. ‘‘Institution Contact’’ should be able to (11) Computer Intrusion. The agencies multiple suspects without preparing a maintain this information without the should more clearly define ‘‘computer duplicate page 1 which asks for assistance of the form. In addition, as intrusion’’ and should include specific institution-related information as well noted above, the agencies wish to examples in new item 35 of what would as suspect-related information. eliminate as many entries on the form and would not be covered. The institution, in filling out multiple as possible. The agencies believe that the current pages for additional suspect definition is appropriate. (16) Instructions on the Narrative information, can simply leave the bank- (12) Identity Theft. There should be Explanation. The agencies should related information on the multiple an additional box under current item 37, highlight the instructions in current Part pages blank since it was already ‘‘Summary characterization of VII, ‘‘Suspicious Activity Information provided on page 1. suspicious activity,’’ to include Explanation/Description’’ pertaining to (6) Forms of Identification. In item 28 ‘‘identity theft’’ as a specific category. the narrative explanation, by moving the ‘‘Forms of Identification for Suspect’’ of The agencies agree that identity theft instruction ‘‘If necessary, continue the the proposed form, 28(e) ‘‘number’’ and is an important category of criminal narrative on a duplicate of this page,’’ to (f) ‘‘issuing authority’’ should be deleted activity. However, identity theft is the bottom of the page and putting it in and the information requested should be frequently linked with other crimes that bold type. incorporated within 28(a)–(d). are specifically enumerated on the SAR, In order to highlight this instruction, The agencies agree with this such as check fraud and credit card the agencies will put it in bold type, but suggestion and are modifying this item fraud. In addition, there are already 18 will leave it at the top of the page. so that the identifying number and specific boxes under this category and (17) Instructions on the Narrative issuing authority is listed next to each institutions can use the ‘‘Other’’ box to Explanation. The agencies should delete form of identification listed in new report identity theft. Therefore, the many of the instructions in current Part 29(a)–(d). agencies have decided, at this time, not VII because they do not pertain strictly (7) Types of Suspects. The agencies to revise the SAR to include ‘‘identity to the requirement for a narrative should add ‘‘Monetary Instrument theft’’ as a new category and expect that explanation. Purchaser’’ and ‘‘Account Applicant’’ to institutions will continue to use the The agencies believe that it is the list of types of suspects and their ‘‘Other’’ box, or use other appropriate appropriate to retain all the existing relationship to the institution in item 31 boxes. The agencies will continue to instructions from part VII of the current of the form currently in use. monitor this area and will reconsider form. The agencies believe that an this decision if warranted. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve institution can indicate ‘‘Customer’’ in (13) Contacting Law Enforcement. System, January 6, 2000. these situations—even though in some New item 40 should contain a ‘‘Yes/No’’ Jennifer J. Johnson, instances the individual may be turned check-box allowing respondents to Secretary of the Board. away as an actual customer—or the indicate whether or not the respondent [FR Doc. 00–675 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] bank can use the ‘‘Other’’ category. has contacted a law enforcement (8) No Relationship to Institution. agency. BILLING CODE 6210±01±P There should be a box within current The agencies believe that such a item 31 ‘‘Relationship to Financial change is unnecessary since answering FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Institution’’ for the filer to indicate that this item or leaving it blank will the suspect has no relationship with the indicate whether or not the respondent Change in Bank Control Notices; institution. has contacted a law enforcement Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or The agencies believe that this is agency. Further, the agencies wish to Bank Holding Companies unnecessary since the filer can either eliminate as many entries on the form leave this section blank or can use the as possible. The notificants listed below have ‘‘Other’’ line to indicate the nature of (14) Witness Information. The applied under the Change in Bank the suspect. agencies should either delete Part IV Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and (9) Confession. Item 34 of the form ‘‘Witness Information’’, or they should § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 currently in use and item 32 of the delete the requirement for a social CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank proposed form should be moved so that security number of the witness. This holding company. The factors that are it is not juxtaposed to insider related requirement is unnecessary and considered in acting on the notices are

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1898 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 one percent of the estimated Place: Room 705A, Hubert H. Humphrey U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). construction cost of new or substantially Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, The notices are available for renovated Federal building and U.S. Washington, DC 20201. immediate inspection at the Federal courthouse is allocated for Status: Open. Reserve Bank indicated. The notices Purpose: The Subcommittee on commissioning works of art. Populations is holding this meeting to assess also will be available for inspection at DATES: Submit comments on or before the feasibility of recording, evaluating, and the offices of the Board of Governors. March 13, 2000. analyzing measures of functional status on Interested persons may express their ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this health records, such as enrollment in health views in writing to the Reserve Bank notice should be submitted to: Susan plans, records of medical encounters, and indicated for that notice or to the offices standardized attachments to such records. Harrison, Public Buildings Service Panelists will explore issues related to the of the Board of Governors. Comments Historic Buildings and Arts, Room 2308, must be received not later than January collection of information on functional status 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC for administrative records and data collection 26, 2000. 20405. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago systems, and will discuss data collection and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: measurement efforts necessary to address the (Philip Jackson, Applications Officer) issues effectively. This is the first of several 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Susan Harrison, Public Buildings Service, Historic Buildings and Arts, public meetings being planned by the Illinois 60690–1413: Subcommittee to discuss this topic. 1. Judkins Enterprises, L.P., Susan Room 2308, 1800 F Street NW., Notice: In the interest of security, the Jane McCabe (individually and as voting Washington DC 20405. Department has instituted stringent partner), Paxton, Illinois; to acquire SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: procedures for entrance to the Hubert H. Humphrey building by non-government additional voting shares of FM Bancorp, A. Purpose Inc., Paxton, Illinois, and thereby employees. Thus, persons without a The Art in Architecture Program government identification card will need to acquire additional voting shares of have the guard call for an escort to the Farmers-Merchants National Bank of actively seeks to commission works from the full spectrum of American meeting. Paxton, Paxton, Illinois. Contact Person for More Information: artists, and strives to promote new Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Substantive program information as well as System, January 6, 2000. media and inventive solutions for summaries of meetings and a roster of public art. The GSA Form 7437, Art In Robert deV. Frierson, committee members may be obtained from Architecture Program National Artist Carolyn Rimes, Lead Staff Person for the Associate Secretary of the Board. Registry will be used to collect NCVHS Subcommittee on Populations, Office [FR Doc. 00–672 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] information from artists across the of Research and Demonstrations, Health Care BILLING CODE 6210±01±P country to participate and to be Financing Administration, MS–C4–13–01, considered for commissions. 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850, telephone (410)–786– GENERAL SERVICES B. Annual Reporting Burden 6620; or Marjorie S. Greenberg, Executive ADMINISTRATION Secretary, NCVHS, NCHS, CDC, Room 1100, Respondents: 360; annual responses; Presidential Building, 6525 Belcrest Road, 360; average hours per response: .15; Proposed Collection; Submission for Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) burden hours: 90. 458–4245. Information also is available on OMB Review; Comment Request Copy of Proposal: the NCVHS home page of the HHS website: Entitled: Art In Architecture Program, http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/, where an agenda National Artist Registry A copy of this proposal may be for the meeting will be posted when available. AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, GSA. obtained from the GSA Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4011, GSA Dated: January 6, 2000. ACTION: Notice of request for approval of Building, 1800 F Street, NW., a new information collection entitled James Scanlon, Washington, DC 20405. Art In Architecture Program, National Director, Division of Data Policy, Office of Artist Registry. Dated: January 6, 2000. the Assistant Secretary for Planning and J. Les Davison, Evaluation. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, for [FR Doc. 00–724 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Acquisition Policy. BILLING CODE 4151±04±M U.S.C. Chapter 35), GSA has submitted [FR Doc. 00–696 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] to the Office of Management and Budget BILLING CODE 6820±61±M (OMB) a request to review and approve DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND a new information collection concerning HUMAN SERVICES Art In Architecture Program, National DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Artist Registry. Agency for Toxic Substances and The Art in Architecture Program is HUMAN SERVICES Disease Registry the result of a policy decision made in National Committee on Vital and Health Studying Environmental Exposures January 1963 by GSA Administrator, Statistics; Meeting Bernard L. Boudin, who had served on Among Children With Cancer; Current Technologies, Methodological the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Challenges, and Community Concerns: Office Space in 1061–62. Committee Act, the Department of Meeting The program has been modified over Health and Human Services announces the years, most recently in 1996 when the following advisory committee The Agency for Toxic Substances and a renewed focus on commissioning meeting: Disease Registry (ATSDR), Division of works of art that are an integral part of Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Studies (DHS), Exposure and the building’s architecture and adjacent Health Statistics (NCVHS), Subcommittee on Disease Registry Branch (EDRB) landscape was instituted. The program Populations. announces the following meeting: continues to commission works of art Time and Date: 10 a.m.–5 p.m., January 24, Name: Studying Environmental Exposures from living American artists. One half of 2000; 9 a.m.–5 p.m., January 25, 2000. Among Children with Cancer: Current

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.043 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1899

Technologies, Methodological Challenges, prevention services across the United between an academic institution and a and Community Concerns. States. The PTCs will function as a state or local public health department. Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., January national training network which, in The PTCs are intended to be dynamic 25, 2000; 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., January 26, 2000; collaboration with CDC and public and and flexible and to work with one 8:30 a.m.–12 noon, January 27, 2000. Place: Sheraton Colony Square Hotel, 188 private partners, will design, deliver, another and with CDC to be responsive 14th Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30361 telephone and evaluate training that is responsive to changes in STD/HIV morbidity, 404–892–6000 or 800–325–3535, fax 404– to national, regional, and local needs for advances in STD/HIV prevention, 872–9192. STD/HIV training. Such training targets detection and treatment, and changes in Status: Open to the public, limited only by health care providers and prevention Areas of Special Emphasis. space available. Please visit the ATSDR web specialists who serve individuals most Specific information about each site at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov to obtain an in need of STD/HIV services, including training Part is provided below. application form. ethnic and racial minorities, women, Purpose: This is a working group meeting Part I: STD Medical and Laboratory to explore the feasibility of, and methods for, youth, incarcerated individuals, Services Training assessing the relationship between children?s homeless individuals, and substance users. Special efforts must be made to Health care professionals must cancers and exposures to hazardous possess the requisite skills to effectively substances. This meeting is in compliance recruit and train providers from settings with ATSDR’s Congressional mandate under that serve large numbers of individuals detect, treat, and manage individuals the Superfund legislation. at risk for STD/HIV, such as STD and with STDs, and to provide effective Agenda Items: The agenda will be posted HIV clinics, HIV counseling and testing STD/HIV prevention messages to their on the ATSDR web site at http:// sites, family planning clinics, antenatal patients. Part I PTCs will provide state- www.atsdr.cdc.gov. clinics, adolescent health clinics, of-the-art STD medical and laboratory Contact Persons for More Information: services clinical training to practicing Chanelle Harris, telephone 404–880–0006 or community and migrant health centers, substance abuse clinics, correction and health care providers in a geographic Terica Boyer, 404–639–2909 or write to region that corresponds to a designated ATSDR/DHS/EDRB; 1600 Clifton Road, NE, detention centers, health care for the M/S E–31; Atlanta, Georgia 30333. homeless programs, and managed care HHS region. To help ensure regional The Director, Office of Management plans. coverage, each Part I PTC will provide Analysis and Services has been delegated The PTCs will provide training in at least 200 hours of clinical training authority to sign Federal Register notices support of the Essential Functions and each year, 50 percent of which must pertaining to announcements of meetings and Areas of Special Emphasis (discussed in consist of experiential training in at other committee management activities for the Addendum to this announcement) least two model STD clinics located in both the Centers for Disease Control and through three distinct, but related parts: geographically dispersed locations Prevention and the Agency for Toxic • Part I: Up to 10 centers to provide within the HHS region, preferably in Substances and Disease Registry. training that enhances essential STD separate states. Because private Dated: January 5, 2000. medical and laboratory services. practitioners diagnose and treat the vast Carolyn J. Russell, • Part II: Up to four centers to provide majority of individuals with STDs, they Director, Management Analysis and Services training on behavioral and social are a primary audience for Part I clinical Office, Centers for Disease Control and interventions that have shown evidence training, as are practitioners who serve Prevention. of effectiveness in reducing risky individuals at high risk for STDs. [FR Doc. 00–681 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] behaviors associated with transmission Practitioners in managed care plans are BILLING CODE 4163±70±P of STD/HIV infection. a specific target audience for Part I PTC • Part III: Up to four centers to training. Health professions students provide training on STD/HIV partner and medical residents receive STD/HIV DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND services in accordance with the HIV training as part of their professional HUMAN SERVICES PCRS Guidance and the ‘‘STD Program training program, and, therefore, are a Operations Guidelines (POG)’’, and secondary rather than a primary Centers for Disease Control and support services defined as program audience for PTC training. Students and Prevention management, surveillance and data residents should not account for more [Program Announcement 00031] management, outbreak response than 20 percent of the total number of planning, and evaluation. trainees in any given year. To ensure Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Human Although the three Parts have high-quality training, Part I PTCs must Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention different training objectives, they are demonstrate close collaboration with Training Centers; Notice of Availability expected to function synergistically to health professions training programs in of Funds realize the goal of maintaining a the region (e.g., schools of medicine, national training network in support of nursing, physician assistant programs), A. Purpose STD/HIV Essential Functions and Areas utilizing expert STD faculty from such The Centers for Disease Control and of Special Emphasis. To facilitate this programs as PTC consultants or trainers. Prevention (CDC) announces the goal, the geographic model depicted in availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 the Addendum section of the Part II: Behavioral and Social funds for a cooperative agreement announcement will be employed. Please Interventions Training program for the Sexually Transmitted review this section. Prevention of STDs, including HIV, Diseases/Human Immunodeficiency Under this announcement, high- typically requires individuals to change Virus (STD/HIV) Prevention Training quality STD/HIV training for health care behaviors that place them at risk for Centers (PTCs). This program addresses providers and prevention specialists is STD/HIV infection. In recent years, the ‘‘DRAFT Healthy People 2010’’ that which translates cutting edge behavioral and social intervention priority areas of Sexually Transmitted research findings into training courses research has documented effective Diseases and HIV Infection. The with specific application to STD/HIV individual, group, and community-level purpose of this cooperative agreement is prevention programs. To achieve this interventions that help promote and to provide innovative, high-quality high-quality training, each PTC must be maintain such behavior change. training that enhances STD and HIV structured and function as a partnership Behavioral interventions aim to change

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.067 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1900 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices individuals’ behaviors and tend to Part III: Partner Services and Support and will be able to design their partner emphasize individual and small group Services Training services and support services training approaches, such as counseling and Identifying and appropriately programs to address other identified small group discussion with skills intervening with partners of individuals needs. The required training hours will demonstration. Social interventions aim with STD/HIV infection is a critical be divided between partner services to change social norms that influence activity for breaking the cycle of training and support services training in individuals’ behaviors and may use infection and is an essential component collaboration with CDC to meet training small group or community-level of a national, comprehensive STD/HIV needs in the quadrants and nationally. approaches, such as engaging key prevention system. Partner services The primary coverage area is the opinion leaders as educators and training will focus on STD/HIV partner quadrant within which the Part III PTC community mobilization. Part II PTC elicitation, notification, and referral, is located; however, Part III PTCs are training must be focused on and on STD counseling, and case expected to collaborate with each other interventions that have been developed management for federal, state, and local and with CDC to develop a national and tested through empirical research. STD/HIV personnel and others who plan that may require Part III PTCs to Collaboration with the individuals work with STD/HIV infected train outside of their quadrants. associated with the original research is individuals and their partners. B. Eligible Applicants encouraged, whenever possible. At a Additionally, Part III PTCs will Assistance for Part I, Part II, and Part minimum, Part II PTCs must provide training that strengthens STD/ III awards will be provided only to demonstrate that individuals with HIV prevention programs in state and public or private colleges or recognized expertise in the field of local health departments. This training universities, or health departments of behavioral or social interventions will will be composed of support services states or their bona fide agents, that are serve the PTC in a consulting or training training that is defined in this program located in the continental United States, capacity. Because a number of effective announcement as program management, including the District of Columbia. behavioral and social intervention surveillance and data management, Applications from a college or curricula currently exist, curriculum outbreak response planning, and university must document substantial development should not be a major evaluation. This is a new area of collaboration with a state or local health activity of the Part II PTCs. However, if emphasis for Part III PTCs; examples of department; applications from state or existing curricula focus solely on HIV, these courses include, but are not local health departments must they will need modification so as to limited to: document substantive collaboration include emphasis on other STDs for 1. STD Program Management: courses with a college or university. training under this announcement. on creating tailored materials to support Competition is limited to the Each Part II PTC is expected to the development of effective prevention partnership described above because provide at least 120 hours of training interventions (e.g., social marketing; college or university faculty members each year, with at least 1⁄3 of each health communication; media can bring cutting edge research findings training course being an experiential advocacy). to PTC training courses, and health learning opportunity for trainees in 2. Surveillance and Data Management: department staff members can translate model clinic- or community-based courses that support the timely and those findings in ways that enhance behavioral or social intervention accurate collection of STD information; STD/HIV prevention programs. programs or classroom settings, as data analysis for purposes of program Competition is geographically limited as appropriate. CDC, through the planning. described above to accomplish cost- Behavioral and Social Science 3. Outbreak Response: courses on efficient training. Because PTCs are Volunteer (BSSV) Project, enlists developing and implementing a plan to required to provide training in large volunteer social scientists to provide efficiently respond to increases in STD geographic areas, PTCs located long technical assistance to state and local incidence. HIV prevention projects; Part II PTCs 4. Program Evaluation: courses that distances from their coverage area and must collaborate with BSSV and other develop skills to design and implement with limited air transportation would HIV technical assistance personnel to effective evaluation strategies as integral incur excessive program or trainee ensure follow-up support for their components of STD prevention travel costs. A single applicant may apply for all behavioral and social science programs. of these training awards in a single intervention training (see definition of Part III PTCs must provide at least 500 application with a separate section and BSSV Project in appendix 2 in the hours of training each year, with at least budget for each Part. application package). The recipients of 1⁄4 of the hours devoted to experiential part II training are public health care skills-building sessions. Because much Note: Public Law 104–65 states that an professionals, health educators, of the Part III training is intended to organization described in section 501(c)(4) of counselors, prevention program support CDC-funded STD and HIV the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible managers, and others responsible for prevention programs, and the need for to receive Federal funds constituting an designing or implementing STD and training will vary by program, the PTCs award, grant, cooperative agreement, HIV prevention interventions, especially will work closely with CDC to ensure contract, loan, or any other form. with high-risk populations. The primary that cost-effective, appropriate training coverage area is the quadrant within is delivered in areas of greatest need. C. Availability of Funds which the Part II PTC is located (see For example, the southern quadrant of 1. Approximately $4 million is appendix 3 for a description of HHS the United States, with high syphilis available in FY 2000 to fund regions, quadrants, map and morbidity, will need increased partner approximately ten Part I awards. It is accompanying text); however, Part II services and support services training to expected that the average base-level PTCs are expected to collaborate with advance the national syphilis award will be $400,000, ranging from each other and with CDC to develop a elimination initiative. The western $300,000 to $450,000. national plan that may require Part II quadrant, with low syphilis morbidity, 2. Approximately $1 million is PTCs to train outside of their quadrants. will not have this same degree of need available in FY 2000 to fund

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1901 approximately four Part II awards. It is PTC, but they may help defray the cost of one representative and one alternate expected that the average base-level of training materials, training facility each from Part I, Part II, and Part III. award will be $250,000, ranging from expenses, audiovisual equipment rental, (5) Participate in NNPTC, quadrant- $200,000 to $275,000. or speakers’ fees. Registration fees specific, and Part-specific (e.g., Part I, 3. Approximately $1.45 million is should be established at the most Part II, Part III) conferences, meetings, available in FY 2000 to fund reasonable rate to encourage the greatest and conference calls. approximately four Part III awards. It is participation. Program income may b. STD/HIV Program-related Issues: expected that the average base-level support the costs of designing and (1) Maintain liaisons with national, award will be $362,500, ranging from delivering additional training courses regional, state, or local STD/HIV $300,000 to $425,000. directly related to PTC objectives and as prevention programs (e.g., state and Awards for each Part will be made determined by the assessment of local health departments, HIV independently. It is expected that the training needs. Community Planning Groups, national awards will begin on or about April 1, STD/HIV organizations or associations) 2000, and will be made for a 12-month Funding Preference to help determine emerging training budget period within a project period of Geographic preference for funding needs and to help design and deliver up to 5 years. Funding estimates may will be given to applications in each training programs that avoid overlap change. Part to achieve the goal of establishing and provide training that is most Over the project period, it is a comprehensive, national STD/HIV relevant to the greatest needs of STD/ anticipated that supplemental funds for training network based on the concept HIV prevention programs. highly focused, time-limited projects of broad geographic quadrants as (2) Based on need in the coverage within the scope of this announcement described in the addendum. area, provide training that addresses the may become available to develop, Areas of Special Emphasis as stated in implement, and evaluate training D. Program Requirements the addendum. related to national STD/HIV priorities. In conducting activities to achieve the (3) Serve as a resource for STD Continuation awards within an purpose of this program, the recipient information to health care providers or approved project period will be made will be responsible for the activities prevention specialists in public and on the basis of satisfactory progress as listed under 1. (Recipient Activities), private settings, especially those in demonstrated by required reports and and CDC will be responsible for the managed care organizations, health the availability of funds. activities listed under 2. (CDC departments, and community-based Activities). Unless otherwise stated, organizations (CBOs) and non- Use of Funds recipient activities and CDC activities governmental organizations (NGOs). Cooperative agreement funds may be pertain to each of the three parts. Collaborate with existing HIV used to support personnel, equipment, information and technical assistance 1. Recipient Activities and supplies necessary for professional resources such as the National training, including distance learning a. Administration: Prevention Information Network activities. Funds may not be used to (1) Applicants that receive funding for (NPIN)and other CDC-funded programs lease space; maintain central registries; more than one Part should designate that support HIV prevention. provide diagnostic and treatment one coordinator to serve as a single c. Collaborations: facilities or services; provide behavior point of contact and to be responsible (1) Collaborate with experts in the intervention programs or services; for the administrative duties related to community and in graduate schools, as develop literature for the general public; all training activities funded under this necessary, to design or write training provide disease intervention services or announcement; needs assessments, educational HIV counseling and testing; or to pay (2) Organize and maintain a PTC objectives, curriculum content, other expenses normally supported by Advisory Committee to provide instructional design, state-of-the-art the applicant. Unless specifically feedback about training needs of target delivery methods, and course approved, funds may not be used for populations, the appropriateness of evaluations. renovation of facilities. Federal funds educational content, and to ensure that (2) Establish innovative arrangements may supplement but not supplant PTC staff members are qualified and with universities for student academic existing training support. work together without duplicating involvement in PTC activities (e.g., Any materials developed in whole or administrative expense. If funded for graduate assistantships or internships). in part with CDC funds shall be subject more than one part, the PTC may (3) Collaborate with other STD/HIV to a nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty- maintain one Advisory Committee, with training programs (e.g., AETCs, RTCs)to free license to the government to a membership whose collective share training curricula and resources reproduce, translate, publish, or expertise qualifies them to advise on all for needs assessments, program otherwise use and authorize others to parts. planning, and joint training use for government purposes. (3) Develop and implement a protocol presentations. Include funding for two persons per for collaboration with the other PTCs d. Model Clinic-and Community- part to attend (1) a three-day, post- within the geographic quadrant for the based Services: award meeting in Atlanta, and (2) a purpose of on-going needs assessments, (1) Training provided by all Parts three-day meeting in a city to be sharing resources, co-sponsorship of must include experiential components determined later. training courses, and other activities designed to build trainees’ skills in that ensure that STD/HIV prevention specific areas. Depending on the Recipient Financial Participation training provided by each part is objectives and design of a specific Program income in the form of available and well-coordinated in each training course, the experiential training participant registration fees may be HHS region within a quadrant. may take place in model STD clinics or collected to offset the costs of (4) Collaborate with CDC in community-based prevention or conducting training as specified in this developing and maintaining a National intervention programs, or the classroom. announcement. Registration fees are not Network of Prevention Training Centers Additionally, it is expected that the intended to produce income for the (NNPTC) Steering Committee composed PTCs will collaborate with CDC and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices other NNPTC members to provide evaluation is consistent with desired training, and analyzing and publishing regional or national training programs training outcomes; to be a source of up- cumulative data on NNPTC training utilizing distance education methods. to-date information on STD and HIV effectiveness using training program and (2) For Part I and Part III experiential epidemiology and national STD/HIV trainee evaluation information training requirements, utilize model prevention programs and priorities; and submitted quarterly by awardees to CDC STD clinics, which are those that follow to advise on budget issues. using a standardized format. CDC guidelines for integrated STD and b. Distance Learning Assistance: HIV client management, clinic Provide information on the Public E. Application Content operation, client-centered counseling, Health Training Network (PHTN) in Use the information in the Program and partner counseling, including support of distance learning training Requirements, Other Requirements, and elicitation, notification, and referral. activities. (3) For Part II experiential training c. Program Reviews: Conduct site Evaluation Criteria sections to develop requirements, utilize model STD clinics visits to: the application content. Applications (as described above) or community- (1) Review training capabilities to will be evaluated on the requirements based STD/HIV behavioral or social ensure adequate facilities, procedures, listed, so it is important to follow them intervention programs that have and staff in laying out your program plan. If you evidence of reducing sex-and drug-risk (2) Advise on instructional design and cannot currently meet one or more of behavior and STD/HIV infections. curriculum content the requirements, describe your plan to e. Distance Learning: As needed, (3) Provide technical assistance in do so, including a time line. Provide utilize distance learning strategies or defining and resolving problems brief, specific examples (1–2 pages) of products that are regional or national in (4) Monitor program implementation, each requirement rather than a lengthy scope and usable by other PTCs and project management, and evaluation narrative. The narrative section of each training agencies. Distance learning can activities Part should be no more than 45 pages include off-site programs, satellite (5) Advise on the availability of (81⁄2′′ x 11′′), excluding budget. Each broadcasts, remote video instruction, guidelines, curricula, training aids, and section must use no less than 1.5 self-study modules, train-the-trainer, software developed by CDC, the PTCs, spacing and be printed on one side, computer-based training, CD ROM, and or other agencies that can help PTCs with one inch margins, and 12-point web-based instruction. meet their training objectives. font. Letters of support, organizational f. Continuing Education and Course d. Within three months of funding charts, biosketches, position Management: (notice of grant award), CDC will descriptions, lists of training equipment, (1) Acquire and award continuing convene a meeting of all funded Part I, inventories of computer hardware and medical education (CME) credit and II, and III PTCs to outline a collaborative software, and examples of existing continuing education units (CEU) that training plan within and between program materials should be included meet the needs of most course quadrants, as appropriate, and to begin in an appendix. developing the NNPTC. participants. You must submit a single application (2) Maintain a course registration e. Facilitate collaboration between the that has a separate section and budget database, including required CME and PTCs in a geographic quadrant to ensure for each Part for which you are CEU documentation. that each HHS region within the applying. Pages should be numbered g. Evaluation: quadrant receives well-coordinated (1) Conduct on-going evaluation of all training offered by each of the three sequentially throughout the entire courses, both independently and in Parts. application, regardless of the number of conjunction with the CDC, NNPTC, or f. Support the NNPTC: Through Parts for which funding is sought. If both. NNPTC meetings, facilitate networking applying for more than one Part, you (2) Determine and measure between NNPTC members and support may refer to information in a previous appropriate process indicators (e.g., the development and maintenance of section, as appropriate. trainee demographics, quality of committees to maximize the expertise of F. Submission and Deadline presentations), immediate training NNPTC members for all Parts. There impact (e.g., changes in knowledge, will be two NNPTC meetings per year in Letter of Intent attitudes and skills), and long-range each of the first two years of funding, outcomes (e.g., changes in provider and at least one per year in each of the In order to assist CDC in planning for practice behavior, changes in client remaining three years. and executing the evaluation of health status, changes in STD/HIV g. Collaborate with Part II and Part III applications submitted under this service delivery), especially for high- PTCs to guide the development of program announcement, all parties risk populations. training programs and training intending to submit an application are (3) Establish, maintain, and support schedules that meet national needs for requested to submit a letter of intent Internet connection and other behavioral and social intervention regarding their intention to do so by information or communications systems training and partner services and January 30, 2000. Notification should and hardware and software that will support services training. include name and address of the allow for gathering, entering, and h. Communication: Through institution and name, address, and transmitting data to the CDC for publications, correspondence, narrative telephone number of the contact person, inclusion in a NNPTC national database. reports, and electronic communication, as well as the Part(s) for which funding keep PTC staff members informed of will be sought; no detailed description 2. CDC Activities national issues that affect training and of the proposed training program is a. Technical Assistance: Provide STD/ program management. sought. The letter of intent should be HIV subject matter, education, and i. Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitor submitted on or before January 30, 2000 technology experts to advise and assist and evaluate program activities by to the Grants Management Specialist in curriculum development; to advise coordinating and supporting a national identified in the ‘‘Where to Obtain on course objectives, instructional course registration database, providing Additional Information’’ section of this design, and delivery; to ensure that technical assistance for staff database announcement.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.075 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1903

Application experience, management experience, g. A plan to reproduce volumes of Submit the original and two copies of STD or HIV prevention program print-based course materials quickly PHS 5161–1 (OMB Number 0937–0189). experience); (5 points) and economically; (5 points) Forms are available at the following d. A description of the PTC Advisory h. A design for providing resources to Internet address: www.cdc.gov/* * * Committee, including function, meeting trainees (e.g., books, newsletters, Forms, or in the application kit. schedule, and individual members and journals, videotapes, literature files, and On or before March 7, 2000, submit their affiliation; (5 points) guidelines). (5 points) e. A proposed protocol for the application to the Grants 4. Training Needs Assessment (Total 30 collaborating with other PTCs in the Management Specialist identified in the Points) ‘‘Where to Obtain Additional geographic quadrant (i.e., time schedule Information’’ section of this for conference calls or meetings; Given the Part’s training focus and announcement. proposed joint activities); (5 points) coverage area the extent to which the Deadline: Applications shall be f. A plan or descriptive outline of applicant provides: considered as meeting the deadline if proposed cost-efficient arrangements a. A description of activities they are either: with health professional training conducted to determine the training (a) Received on or before the deadline programs and graduate schools for needs of health care providers and date; or obtaining faculty, fellows, and graduate prevention specialists in the coverage (b) Sent on or before the deadline date students to participate in PTC activities area. The extent to which the applicant and received in time for submission to (e.g., educational research, needs provides the source of the data and the the independent review group. assessment, formative evaluation, time period to which the data (Applicants must request a legibly-dated preparing training materials);(5 points) correspond (e.g., CDC or state or local U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain g. A letter from each university/ STD/HIV surveillance data; data from a legibly-dated receipt from a college or health department partner of training surveys conducted by applicant commercial carrier or U.S. Postal intent to participate in the PTC, or others; HIV Community Planning Service. Private metered postmarks shall specifying the training-related activities Group plans; state, regional, or national not be acceptable as proof of timely that will be provided (e.g., program documents that identify STD/HIV mailing.) coordination, serving as a clinical training needs). It should describe the Late Applications: Applications training site, providing faculty to training needs in the coverage area which do not meet the criteria in (a) or develop or teach courses, evaluation related to the Areas of Special Emphasis (b) above are considered late activities). (5 points) (see addendum). It should also note applications, will not be considered, STD/HIV prevention training in the and will be returned to the applicant. 3. Training Capability (Total 40 Points) coverage area that is provided by other programs and how that affects the G. Evaluation Criteria The extent to which the applicant provides: training plan; (10 points) Each application will be evaluated a. A description of training faculty, b. A summary, in narrative or chart individually against the following noting credentials and previous training format, of target audiences, training criteria by an independent review group experience including a one-page locations, educational content, training appointed by CDC. Only information in biosketch for each faculty member; (5 methods, and collaborations with other the application will be considered. points) STD/HIV training programs. These Applications for each Part will be b. A plan, with anticipated costs, for should reflect priorities determined by evaluated separately according to the acquiring CME and CEU appropriate for the needs assessment described in 4.a following criteria (maximum 200 most trainees; (5 points) above; (10 points) points). c. A description of proposed training c. A process to keep the PTC updated 1. Abstract (Not Scored) site(s), including location, number of on the training needs of target audiences in their coverage area. (10 Points) A summary (1 page) of the program, students that can be accommodated, and indicating the Part, the coverage area, any costs to participants for attending 5. Training Objectives (Total 20 Points) training at the proposed site(s) (e.g., the name of the person with authority The extent to which the applicant over the PTC, the academic and public lodging, per diem, travel); (5 points) d. A list of available training provides specific, measurable, time- health collaborators, other key phased, realistic educational objectives collaborators, the training objectives, the equipment, such as overhead projector, carousel projector, flip chart, melamine that reflect the didactic and experiential training audiences, and the training STD/HIV prevention training needs in evaluation plan. or chalk board, projection screen, podium, video recorder/player, and their coverage area. 2. Introduction/Program Description additional equipment used in training 6. Plan of Operation (Total 50 Points) (Total 35 Points) (e.g., light and dark-field microscopes; equipment available to support any The extent to which the applicant The extent to which the applicant provides information on the program provides: proposed distance learning activities); (5 points) components and activities listed below a. A brief history of your training that are specific to the training Part for experience related to the Part for which e. Inventory of available office computers capable of supporting which they are applying. If applying for funding is sought; (5 points) more than one Part, describe any b. An organization chart showing computer-based training and data linkages between Parts. linkages between universities/colleges processing, including software, printers, and state or local health departments modem; (5 points) Part I: STD Medical and Laboratory and related PTC positions, indicating f. A plan for keeping training faculty Services Training lines of authority; (5 points) and staff current on content area and c. Position descriptions for proposed educational methodology (e.g., through a. Clinical Capability (Total 20 Points) PTC staff, including credentials and graduate school contacts, libraries, and For each of the two model STD clinics appropriate experience (e.g., training Internet); (5 points) that will serve as clinical training sites,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.076 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1904 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices the extent to which the applicant technologies in the coverage area within facility, city, and state), training provides: one year (including production, audiences, training faculty, course (1) Current STD morbidity statistical marketing, and delivery). (5 points) objectives, brief content outline, and tables (one year) by disease, sex, age, evaluation plan. For each c. Training Marketing Plan (Total 10 and race or ethnicity, that demonstrate comprehensive course, describe the Points) a client volume and profile that reflects effective, science-based behavior change regional disease trends and allows for The extent to which the applicant theories or models upon which it is diverse clinical training opportunities; describes a plan to market training based (e.g., Diffusion of Innovations, (4 points) courses to target audiences in the Protection Motivation Theory, Social (2) A current list of the type and coverage area. Cognitive Theory, Social Learning number of the state laboratory tests Part II: Behavioral and Social Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action, performed over the past year and those Interventions Training Health Belief Model, Problem Solving sent to reference laboratories; (2 points) Therapy Model, Transtheoretical Model (3) A list of diseases for which testing, a. Clinic- and Community-based of Behavior Change).(10 points) diagnosis, and treatment procedures in Training Capability (Total 20 points) (a) Comprehensive courses are the clinic follow CDC guidelines; (2 The extent to which the applicant typically three to five days long and points) provides: may include such topics as introduction (4) A clinic and fee schedule that (1) A description of proposed clinic- to behavioral and social science theories demonstrates accessibility for or community-based training sites that and models, and application of theories communities at risk (e.g., daily, evening, provide behavioral or social and models to effective individual, and weekend hours, continual services, intervention programs targeting people group, and community-level STD/HIV and free or low-cost services); (2 points) prevention interventions. (5) An STD clinic floor plan whose behaviors place them at risk for acquiring or transmitting STDs, (b) Specific-topic Courses: Specific- indicating (by arrows) the route that topic courses are typically one to two clients take and the stops they must including HIV (e.g., in STD and HIV clinics, storefronts, recreation centers, days in length. They include such make to receive integrated services, and courses as communicating how STDs showing a traffic pattern that minimizes public sex environments, street settings). The behavioral or social and HIV are transmitted and how health movement for clients and preserves risks are reduced (e.g., client-centered confidentiality; (2 points) interventions should focus on increasing early, effective health care counseling, peer networks, therapeutic (6) An outline of clinic management trainers, group counselor-educators, protocols, such as elements of the seeking behaviors, as well as reducing STD/HIV risk behaviors. For each of the street outreach), creating tailored registration procedure and appointment, materials to support effective prevention triage, and priority systems; (2 points) proposed training sites, the applicant should provide: interventions, and recruiting and (7) The numbers and types of clinic maintaining prevention partners with staff members and the time devoted to (a) A brief description of the behavioral or social intervention; (5 affected communities. The number, their main client responsibilities; (2 type, and delivery of topic-specific points) points) (b) A Profile of persons reached in the courses will be determined in (8) A copy of the clinic record; (2 collaboration with CDC and other Part II points) previous year (numbers, demographics, networks, risk behaviors); (5 points) PTCs. (9) A description of the quality (2) The extent to which the applicant assurance plan and committee, and of (c) Numbers and titles of behavioral or social intervention staff and their describes how the training plan the clinic’s management structure. (2 addresses the Areas of Special Emphasis points). primary responsibilities; (5 points) (d) A quality assurance plan for the (as described in the addendum). (5 b. Training Activities (Total 20 Points) behavioral or social intervention points) The extent to which the applicant: program(s). (5 points) (3) The extent to which the applicant (1) Outlines a model one-year training describes how training addresses b. Training Activities (Total 20 Points) plan, based on the training capabilities cultural norms, values, and traditions; is and the needs assessment, that consists (1) The extent to which the applicant sensitive to issues of sexual identity; is of at least 200 course hours, with at least outlines a one-year training plan, based developmentally appropriate; and is 50% of the course hours devoted to on training capabilities and the needs linguistically specific and educationally experiential training activities that assessment, that consists of at least 120 appropriate. (5 points) allow participants the opportunity to hours of behavioral or social c. Training Marketing Plan (Total 10 interact with clients under the direction intervention courses, including two Points) of qualified preceptors. For each comprehensive training courses per year The extent to which the applicant proposed course in the training plan, and at least one specific-topic training describes a plan to market training the extent to which the applicant notes course per quarter (described below). At courses to target audiences in the the name of the course, length of the least one third of each course must coverage area. course, training dates, locations (facility, include an experiential training city, and state), training audiences, component (e.g., practice with peers, Part III: Partner Services Training training faculty, course objectives, brief colleagues, or instructors; prevention a. Partner Services Capability (Total 20 content outline, and evaluation plan; counseling; group facilitation; Points) (10 points) community outreach; prevention (2) Describes how the training plan material development) aimed at The extent to which the applicant addresses the Areas of Special Emphasis developing participants’ skills in provides: as described in the addendum; (5 prevention activities. For each proposed (1) A current activity table (1 year) of points) course in the training plan, note the types and numbers of clients and (3) Describes plans to conduct one or name of the course, length of the course, partner services intervention outcomes. more courses through distance learning training dates, locations (program/ Intervention outcomes include numbers

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.078 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1905 of clients eligible for interview; designated to oversee the PTC Send all reports to the Grants percentage interviewed; numbers of sex evaluation activities. (3 points) Management Specialist identified in the and needle-sharing partners per client b. A one-page biosketch (or position ‘‘Where to Obtain Additional interviewed; percentage of partners description) of the individual Information’’ section of this located; and percentage tested or treated designated to serve as data announcement. for syphilis, HIV infection, and other administrator to manage and coordinate The following additional STDs addressed with partner services. data gathering, entry, submission, and requirements are applicable to this (5 points) analysis. (2 points) program. For a complete description of (2) A list of the numbers and types of c. A plan for utilizing program each, see Attachment I in the STD/HIV prevention program staff evaluation data to provide continuous application kit. quality improvement of the PTC (e.g., members and their main client AR–4: HIV/AIDS Confidentiality quality of program and presentations, responsibilities, noting the number of Provisions reaching target audiences, geographic staff members available to serve as AR–5: HIV Program Review Panel preceptors for Part III training. (5 points) distribution of courses and trainees, Requirements (3) A quality assurance plan for usefulness of educational content). (10 AR–7: Executive Order 12372 Review partner services. (5 points) points) (4) Copies of interview forms. (5 d. A plan for conducting evaluation AR–8: Public Health System Reporting points) activities that determine: (10 points) Requirements (1) Impact of training (e.g., changes in AR–9: Paperwork Reduction Act b. Training Activities (Total 20 Points) knowledge, attitudes, and skills); and Requirements The extent to which the applicant: (2) Outcome of training (e.g., changes AR–10: Smoke-Free Workplace (1) Outlines a training plan for the in provider practice behavior; changes Requirements first year that is based on training in client health status; changes in HIV/ AR–11: DRAFT Healthy People 2010 capabilities and the needs assessment STD service delivery). AR–12: Lobbying Restrictions and includes at least 500 course hours, AR–14: Accounting System with at least 25 percent of the course 8. Budget (Not Scored) Requirements hours devoted to experiential training CDC will establish a separate funding AR–15: Proof of Non-Profit Status for federal, state, and local STD/HIV base for each training award (Part I, Part I. Authority and Catalog of Federal program personnel and others who II, Part III). engage in STD/HIV prevention activities a. Provide separate budgets for each Domestic Assistance Number in the coverage area. For each proposed Part with appropriate justifications. The This program is authorized under course in the training plan, note the total funding request is the sum of the section 318 (42 U.S.C. 247c), section 301 name of the course, length of the course, separate budgets. List each Part in a (42 U.S.C. 241), section 311 (42 U.S.C. training dates, locations (facility, city, separate column on the 424A form, 243), and section 317 (42 U.S.C. 247b), and state), training audiences, training section B. of the Public Health Service Act, as faculty, course objectives, brief content b. List and justify the cost of any amended. Regulations governing Grants outline, and evaluation plan. The additional training or computer for STD Research Demonstrations and training plan should include the equipment necessary to carry out the Public and Professional Education are following courses: (15 points) training plan. codified in Part 51b, Subparts A and F (a) Partner Services Courses: These H. Other Requirements of Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations. are standardized courses, each with The Catalog of Federal Domestic required hours. Fundamentals of Technical Reporting Requirements Assistance Number is 93.978, Sexually Disease Intervention (40 hours), Provide CDC with the original plus Transmitted Disease Research, Introduction to STD Intervention (80 two copies of: Demonstrations, and Public Information hours), and HIV Partner Counseling and 1. Quarterly narrative progress reports and Education Grants, and 93.941, HIV Referral Services (24 hours). which include training program and Demonstration, Research, Public and (b) Proposed support service courses trainee evaluation information in a Professional Education Projects. as described in Section A. standardized format provided by CDC. (2) Describes how the training plan J. Where To Obtain Additional In years 02–05 of the project period, the addresses the Areas of Special Emphasis Information narrative progress report should be in the addendum. (5 points) submitted semi-annually. Progress To receive additional written c. Training Marketing Plan (Total 10 reports must highlight major program information and to request an Points) accomplishments, document program application kit, call 1–888–GRANTS4 The extent to which the applicant progress and problems encountered in (1–888–472–6874). You will be asked to describes a plan to market training meeting program objectives, and report leave your name and address and will courses to target audiences in the on tangential activities that influence be instructed to identify the coverage area. PTC operations. The progress report Announcement number of interest. informs CDC of progress by cooperative If you have questions after reviewing 7. Evaluation (Total 25 Points) agreement recipients and is also a tool the contents of all the documents, Each Part must participate in and for documenting and disseminating business management technical conduct ad hoc and on-going evaluation information on successful training assistance may be obtained from: of all courses, both independently and strategies that can be used by other Brenda Hayes, Grants Management in conjunction with the CDC, NNPTC, PTCs. Specialist, Grants Management Branch, or both. Each Part must address the 2. Financial status report, no more Procurement and Grants Office, Centers evaluation requirements below. than 90 days after the end of the budget for Disease Control and Prevention, The extent to which the applicant period. Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine Road, provides: 3. Final financial status and Atlanta, GA 30341–4146, Telephone a. A one-page biosketch (or position performance report, no more than 90 number (770) 488–2725, Email address description) of the individual days after the end of the project period. [email protected]

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.081 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

See also the CDC home page on the research projects which will lead to participate must fax their request to Adolfo Internet for other funding, application improvements in the delivery of occupational Correa, M.D., Ph.D.,(770) 488–7197. forms, etc: http://www.cdc.gov safety and health services and the prevention Matters to be Discussed: A large body of For program technical assistance, of work-related injury and illness. It is evidence indicates that increased intake of anticipated that research funded will folic acid before and early in pregnancy can contact: Donna Anderson, Chief, promote these program goals. reduce a woman’s risk of having an infant Training and Health Communications Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will with a neural tube defect. There is additional Branch, Division of STD Prevention, convene in open session from 8:00–8:15 a.m. evidence suggesting that intake of NCHSTP, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., on February 17, 2000, to address matters multivitamins before and early in pregnancy MS E–02, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone related to the conduct of Study Section may reduce the risk of other birth defects. number: (404) 639–8360, E-mail: business. The remainder of the meeting will One of the strategic goals of the Birth Defects [email protected] proceed in closed session. The purpose of the and Pediatric Genetics Branch (BDPG) is to Potential applicants may obtain a closed sessions is for the Safety and investigate the role of nutritional factors in Occupational Health Study Section to the prevention of birth defects. The copy of ‘‘DRAFT Healthy People 2010’’ consider safety and occupational health workshop is designed to assist in the (Full Report: Stock No. 017–001–00474– related grant applications. These portions of development of a prevention research agenda 0) or ‘‘DRAFT Healthy People 2010’’ the meeting will be closed to the public in concerning the role of maternal nutrition (Summary Report: Stock No. 017–001– accordance with provisions set forth in during pregnancy. The discussion guide 00473–1) referenced in the section 552b(c) (4) and (6) title 5 U.S.C., and extramural research activities by establishing ‘‘INTRODUCTION’’ through the the Determination of the Associate Director research priorities and providing a research Superintendent of Documents, for Management and Operations, CDC, framework for CDC’s extramural partners in Government Printing Office, pursuant to Pub. L. 92–463. the area of nutrition during pregnancy, and Agenda items are subject to change as birth defects. Washington, DC 20402–9325, telephone priorities dictate. Contact Persons for More Information: (202) 783–3238. Contact Person For More Information: Adolfo Correa, M.D., Ph.D., phone (770) 488– John L. Williams, Pervis C. Major, Ph.D., Scientific Review 7164, or Carolyn Davis, phone (770) 488– Director, Procurement and Grants office. Administrator, Office of Extramural 7160, BDCDDH, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford [FR Doc. 00–680 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Coordination and Special Projects, Office of Highway, NE, M/S F–45, Atlanta, Georgia the Director, NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, 30341, fax (770) 488–7197. BILLING CODE 4163±18±P Morgantown, West Virginia 26505. The Director, Management Analysis and Telephone 304/285–5979. Services Office has been delegated the The Director, Management Analysis and authority to sign Federal Register notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Services Office has been delegated the pertaining to announcements of meetings and HUMAN SERVICES authority to sign Federal Register notices other committee management activities, for pertaining to announcements of meetings and both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Centers for Disease Control and other committee management activities, for Substances and Disease Registry. Prevention both the Centers for Disease Control and Dated: January 6, 2000. Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Carolyn J. Russell, Safety and Occupational Health Study Substances and Disease Registry. Director, Management Analysis and Services Section (SOHSS), National Institute for Dated: January 6, 2000. Occupational Safety and Health Office, Centers for Disease Control and Carolyn J. Russell, Prevention. (NIOSH); Meeting Director, Management Analysis and Services [FR Doc. 00–682 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Office, Centers for Disease Control and In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of BILLING CODE 4163±18±P Prevention. the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease [FR Doc. 00–683 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Control and Prevention (CDC) BILLING CODE 4163±19±P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND announces the following committee HUMAN SERVICES meeting: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Administration for Children and Name: Safety and Occupational Health HUMAN SERVICES Families Study Section (SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Centers for Disease Control and Submission for OMB Review; Times and Dates: 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m., Prevention. Comment Request February 17, 2000; 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m., February 18, 2000. Nutritional Factors and the Prevention Title: 45 CFR Part 95, Subpart F— Place: Embassy Suites, 1900 Diagonal of Birth Defects Workshop; Meeting Automatic Data Processing Equipment Road, Alexandria, Virgina 22314. and Serivces—Conditions for Federal Status: Open 8 a.m.–8:15 a.m., February Division of Birth Defects, Child Financial Participation (FFP) 17, 2000. Closed 8:15 a.m.–5:30 p.m., Development, and Disability and Health February 17, 2000. Closed 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m., OMB No.: 0992–0005. (BDCDDH) in the National Center for Description: The advance planning February 18, 2000. Environmental Health (NCEH) Purpose: The Safety and Occupational document (APD) process, established in Health Study Section will review, discuss, announces the following conference: the rules at 45 CFR Part 95, Subpart F, and evaluate grant application(s) received in Name: Nutritional Factors and the is the procedure by which States request response to the Institute’s standard grants Prevention of Birth Defects Workshop. and obtain approval for Federal review and funding cycles pertaining to Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.–4 p.m., January financial participation in their cost of research issues in occupational safety and 19, 2000. acquiring automatic data processing health and allied areas. Place: Atlanta Hartsfield International equipment and services. The State It is the intent of NIOSH to support broad- Airport Conference Center, Atrium 3rd floor, Agency submitted APD, provides the based research endeavors in keeping with the Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Institute’s program goals which will lead to Status: Open for participation by anyone Department of Health and Human improved understanding and appreciation for with an interest in public health issues Services (DHHS) with the following the magnitude of the aggregate health burden related to the role of nutritional factors in the information necessary to determine the associated with occupational injuries and prevention of birth defects, limited only by State’s need to acquire the requested illnesses, as well as to support more focused the space available. Persons wishing to ADP equipment and/or services:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.083 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1907

1. a statement of need; 5. a proposed budget. sections 402(a)(5), 452(a)(1), 1902(a)(4) 2. a requirements analysis and DHHS’ determination, of a State and 1102 of the Social Security Act. feasibility study; agency’s need to acquire requested ADP Respondents: State, Local or Tribal 3. a cost benefits analysis; 4. a proposed activity schedule; and, equipment or services, is authorized at Governments.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Nubmer of Average burden Instrument Number of responses per hours per Total burden respondents respondent response hours

Advance Planning Document ...... 50 1.84 60 5,520 RFP and Contract ...... 50 1.54 1.5 115.5 Emergency Funding Request ...... 27 1 1 27 Service Agreement ...... 14 1 1 14 Biennial Reports ...... 50 1 1.5 75

Estimated Total Annual Burden DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND with every grant award provides Hours: 5,751.5. HUMAN SERVICES instructions on completing and Copies of the proposed collection may submitting the OER. Administration for Children and be obtained by writing to the Native American Program Specialists Families Administration for Children and use the OER information to perform Families, Office of Information Services, legislatively required Federal program Submission for OMB Review; oversight such as evaluate project and Division of Information Resource Comment Request Management Services, 370 L’Enfant grantee performance, identify project Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. Title: Objective Evaluation Report outcomes suitable for use in program 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance (OER) evaluation and Government Officer. OMB No.: 0980–0144 Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Description: OER information is analysis, and to identify grantees and OMB Comment collected to provide the Administration projects that require more detailed Federal training and/or technical OMB is required to make a decision for Native Americans with a final report assistance. OERs are used in ANA concerning the collection of information on each discretionary grant project to competitive grant programs such as between 30 to 60 days after publication meet ANA’s legislatively required Social and Economic Development of this document in the Federal evaluation of grantees locally- Strategies (SEDS), Native American Register. Therefore, a comment is best determined grant objectives. This Languages Preservation, Environmental assured of having its full effect if OMB collection also complies with Regulatory Enhancement, etc. receives it within 30 days of Department of Health and Human publication. Written comments and Services regulations and policies The Administration for Native recommendations for the proposed requiring grantees to submit progress Americans simplified the way OER information collection should be sent reports and agencies to perform grant information is collected. Until June directly to the following: Office of oversight. 1999, OERs were transcribed onto a Management and Budget, Paperwork The information is collected in a government designed form where every Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, narrative format without the use of a project objective was listed; grantees N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: government form. Grantees provide self- often worked to fill in space under each ACF Desk Officer. evaluation information to explain the objective to accommodate the volume of final status and accomplishments information they believed was required. Dated: January 6, 2000. related to each funded, grantee- Grantees now use their letterhead and Bob Sargis, identified project objective(s). Project present the level of detail they deem Acting Reports Clearance Officer objectives are listed on an Objective appropriate. [FR Doc. 00–649 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Work Plan (OWP) which is approved Respondents: State, Local or Tribal BILLING CODE 4184±01±M and funded for each grant. An enclosure Government.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of Average Total Instrument Number of responses per burden hours burden respondents respondent per response hours

Objective Evaluation Report (OER) ...... 250 1 2 500

Estimated Total Annual Burden Families, Office of Information Services, OMB Comment Hours: 500. Division of Information Resources OMB is required to make a decision Additional Information Management Services, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. concerning the collection of information Copies of the proposed collection may 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance between 30 to 60 days after publication be obtained by writing to the Officer. of this document in the Federal Administration for Children and Register. Therefore, a comment is best

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1908 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices assured of having its full effect if OMB current nomenclature in the Chemical 2000, in the Norfolk/Hampton Roads, receives it within 30 days of Abstracts Service Registry System. Virginia area; February 16, 2000, in the publication. Written comments and The agency has determined under 21 Oakland/San Francisco, California area; recommendations for the proposed CFR 25.32(i) that this action is of the and March 1, 2000, in the Houston, information collection should be sent type that does not individually or Texas area. directly to the following: Office of cumulatively have a significant effect on ADDRESSES: The Norfolk/Hampton Management and Budget, Paperwork the human environment. Therefore,- Roads session on February 2, 2000 will Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, neither an environmental assessment be held at the Ramada Inn, 615 Atlantic N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: nor an environmental impact statement Ave., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451. ACF Desk Officer. is required. The Oakland/San Francisco meeting on Dated: January 6, 2000. Dated: December 28, 1999. February 16, 2000 will be held at the Bob Sargis, Laura M. Tarantino, Holiday Inn Financial District, 750 Kearney St., San Francisco, California Acting Reports Clearance Officer. Acting Director, Office of Premarket 94108. The Houston meeting on March [FR Doc. 00–723 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 1, 2000 will be held at the Radisson BILLING CODE 4184±01±M [FR Doc. 00–647 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Conference Center, 9100 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas 77017. All meetings/ BILLING CODE 4160±01±F DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND sessions are scheduled to begin at 9 HUMAN SERVICES A.M. and conclude at 1:00 P.M. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION Mr. Food and Drug Administration BOARD MEETING James Kelly, Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports, [Docket No. 00F±0089] Sunshine Act Meeting (202) 927–3741. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp.; Filing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The TIME AND DATE: January 31, 2000, 11:30 of Food Additive Petition Interagency Commission on Crime and a.m.–3:30 p.m. Security in U.S. Seaports, which is AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, PLACE: 901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, comprised of representatives from HHS. Arlington, Virginia 22203. several different Federal Agencies, was ACTION: Notice. STATUS: Open session. established by Executive Memorandum on April 27, 1999. The President’s SUMMARY: The Food and Drug MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: • Memorandum is printed in the Weekly Administration (FDA) is announcing Approval of the Minutes of the July 23, 1999, Meeting of the Board of Compilation of Presidential Documents, that Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. has Vol. 35 (1999), page 755. The filed a petition proposing that the food Directors. • Discussion of Fiscal Year 2000 Commission is co-chaired by additive regulations be amended to representatives from the Department of provide for the safe use of phosphorous Programs and Operations. • the Treasury, Department of acid, bis[2,4-bis(1,1-dimethyl)-6- Development of Fiscal Year 2001 Program Initiatives and Strategies. Transportation, and Department of methylphenyl] ethyl ester as a stabilizer Justice. in olefin polymers intended to contact CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: By a document published in the food. Adolfo A. Franco, Secretary to the Board Federal Register on June 16, 1999 (64 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of Directors, (703) 306–4325. FR 32211), the Commission announced Hortense S. Macon, Center for Food Dated: January 7, 2000. that it was established to conduct a Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS– Adolfo A. Franco, comprehensive study of the nature and 206), Food and Drug Administration, Sunshine Act Officer. extent of crime and the overall state of 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, [FR Doc. 00–838 Filed 1–10–00; 12:47 pm] security in U.S. seaports, and the ways 202–418–3086. BILLING CODE 7025±01±P in which Federal, State and local SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the governments were responding to this Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act problem. The Commission’s study is (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), INTERAGENCY COMMISSION ON intended to address all serious crime notice is given that a food additive CRIME AND SECURITY IN U.S. occurring in the maritime context, petition (FAP 0B4702) has been filed by SEAPORTS including but not limited to drug Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., 540 trafficking, cargo theft, and the White Plains Road, P.O. Box 2005, Public Meetings smuggling of contraband and aliens. The Tarrytown, NY 10591–9005. The Commission is responsible for petition proposes to amend the food AGENCY: Interagency Commission on submitting a report by April 27, 2000, additive regulations in § 178.2010 Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. which provides: an analysis of the Antioxidants and/or stabilizers for ACTION: Notice of Public meetings. nature and extent of serious crime and polymers (21 CFR 178.2010) to provide the overall state of security in U.S. for the safe use of phosphorous acid, SUMMARY: The Interagency Commission seaports; an overview of the specific bis[2,4-bis(1,1-dimethyl)-6- on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports missions and authorities of Federal, methylphenyl] ethyl ester as a stabilizer announces that it will be holding three state and local agencies as well as the in olefin polymers intended to contact public meetings/listening sessions to private sector in U.S. seaports; an food. This substance is regulated receive input and feedback from the assessment of the effectiveness of currently as bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6- private sector concerning the significant coordination amongst government methylphenyl)ethyl phosphite under 21 issues involving crime, security, and agencies; and recommendations for CFR 178.2010. The name phosphorous terrorism in U.S. seaports. addressing seaport-related crimes. acid, bis[2,4-bis(1,1-dimethyl)-6- DATES: The public meetings/listening Additional information about the methylphenyl] ethyl ester is the most sessions will be held on February 2, Commission and its activities may be

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.128 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1909 obtained by contacting the Dated: January 7, 2000. following areas of national interest: The Commission’s website address (http:// D. Lynn Gordon, director of a State agency responsible for www.seaportcommission.gov). Executive Director, Interagency Commission the management of recreational fish and The Commission will hold three on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. wildlife resources, selected from a public meetings/listening sessions to [FR Doc. 00–751 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] coastal State if the President of IAFWA receive input and feedback from the BILLING CODE 4820±02±P is from an inland State, or selected from private sector concerning the significant an inland State if the President of issues involving crime, security, and IAFWA is from a coastal State; saltwater terrorism in U.S. seaports. During the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and freshwater recreational fishing; course of these public meetings, the recreational boating; recreational fishing members of the Commission will also be Office of the Secretary and boating industries; conservation of interested in hearing about private recreational fishery resources; aquatic sector solutions and recommendations Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership resource outreach and education; and for addressing issues related to crime, Advisory Council Charter tourism. terrorism and security in seaports. AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. The Council will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with Presenters will be required to advise the ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Public provisions of the Federal Advisory Commission at least 24 hours in Advisory Council Charter—Sport Committee Act (Act). advance (at 202 927–2700) if they Fishing and Boating Partnership The Certification of renewal is intend to make an oral statement at a Council. meeting, and will be required to submit published below. written statements that reflect their SUMMARY: This notice is published in Certification views and recommendations in advance accordance with section 9a(2) of the I hereby certify that the renewal of the of the meetings. Some ‘‘observations’’ of Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership the working group and Commissioners U.S.C. App. (1988). Following Council is necessary and in the public during their recent visits to selected consultation with the General Services interest in connection with the performance seaports in the United States include: Administration, the Secretary of the of duties imposed on the Department of the internal conspiracies are an issue at Interior hereby renews the Sport Fishing Interior by those statutory authorities as many seaports; there is a lack of and Boating Partnership Council defined in Federal laws including, but not (Council) charter to continue for 2 years. restricted to, the Federal Aid in Sport Fish vulnerability assessments for seaports; Restoration Act, Fish and Wildlife access to seaports is frequently DATES: The charter will be filed under Coordination Act, and the Fish and Wildlife uncontrolled, allowing vulnerability to the Act January 27, 2000. Act of 1956 in furtherance of the Secretary terrorism and criminal activity; security- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the Interior’s statutory responsibilities for related meetings are not held in most Laury Parramore, Council Coordinator, administration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ports; and equipment and technology is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Service’s mission to conserve, protect, and lacking at many ports. The Commission (703) 836–1392. enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the is also interested in hearing the public’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The American people. The Council will assist the response to the following questions: purpose of the Council is to provide Secretary and the Department of the Interior What is the appropriate role for the advice to the Secretary of the Interior by providing advice on activities to enhance Federal, state, and local government in through the Director of the Service to fishery and aquatic resources. seaports? Do we need nationwide help the Department of the Interior Dated: January 5, 2000. security ‘‘standards’’ for seaports? If so, (Department) and the Service achieve Bruce Babbit, should these standards be voluntary or their goal of increasing public Secretary of the Interior. mandatory? Whose responsibility is it to awareness of the importance of acquatic [FR Doc. 00–684 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] fund security enhancements at seaports? resources and the social and economic BILLING CODE 4310±55±M Parties interested in attending the benefits of recreational fishing and meetings are requested to inform The boating. The Council will represent the Interagency Commission of their interests of the sport fishing and boating DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR intention to attend the sessions to assure constituencies and industries and will adequate accommodations are provided consist of no more than 18 members Office of the Secretary to the public. The notice may be given appointed by the Secretary to assure a in writing or telephonically. Written balanced, cross-sectional representation Invasive Species Advisory Committee notices should be sent to: The of public and private sector AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. Interagency Commission on Crime and organizations. The Council will consist ACTION: Notice of Public Meetings of the Security in U.S. Seaports, Suite 1301 N, of two ex-officio members: Director, Invasive Species Advisory Committee 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the and Invasive Species Council. Washington, D.C. 20004. Telephone President, International Association of replies may be made to Ms. Barbara Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Ferrell at (202) 927–2700. The 16 remaining members will be the Federal Advisory Committee Act, In the interest of assuring that all appointed at the Secretary’s discretion notice is hereby given of meetings of the participants at the meetings are allowed to achieve balanced representation for Invasive Species Advisory Committee the opportunity to be heard, the recreational fishing and boating and the Invasive Species Council. The Commission reserves the right to limit interests. The membership will be purpose of the Advisory Committee is to the amount of time speakers may have comprised of senior-level provide advice to the Council, as to make oral statements. The representatives for recreational fishing, authorized by Executive Order 13112, Commission is also requesting that one boating, and aquatic resource on a broad array of issues related to person from each organization, or firm, conservation. These appointees must preventing the introduction of invasive speak on behalf of all their members in have demonstrated expertise and species and providing for their control attendance at the meetings. experience in one or more of the and minimizing the economic,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.146 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices ecological, and human health impacts This should be changed to read http:/ the Carlsbad Field Office (Roads-new that invasive species cause. The Council /water.usgs.gov/wid/html/COOP.html and old), and the State of New Mexico is Co-chaired by the Secretary of the There should be no slash and no representatives (Roads and Trails), RAC Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, period in order for the link to work Subcommittee reports from the Urban/ and the Secretary of Commerce. The properly. Lands Subcommittee, the Oil and Gas duty of the Council is to provide Dated: January 6, 2000. Subcommittee, and the Roads and Trails national leadership regarding invasive Lewis V. Wade, Subcommittee, a presentation on Jeeps, species issues. The purpose of a meeting Assistant Chief Hydrologist for Information, an OHV Park presentation, BLM on January 25 is to convene the U.S. Geological Survey. Farmington Field Office (Roads-Existing Advisory Committee. A second meeting [FR Doc. 00–643 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] policy) and from the Farmington, NM on January 26 is the first joint meeting BILLING CODE 4310±Y7±M area an Oil and Gas Industry of the Advisory Committee and the presentation on Oil and Gas Roads, RAC Council. The meetings will be open to discussions and any RAC the public. Attendance will be limited DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR recommendations, develop draft agenda to space available. items and select a location for the next DATES: Bureau of Land Management Meeting of Invasive Species RAC meeting, and a RAC assessment on Advisory Committee: 1 p.m., Tuesday, [NM±910±09±1020±00] the meeting. January 25, 2000; Meeting of Invasive Species Advisory Committee and New Mexico Resource Advisory The time for the public to address the Council: 1 p.m., Wednesday, January 26, Council Meeting RAC is on Thursday February 24, 2000, 2000. Less than 15 days notice is given from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. The RAC may AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, for the Council meeting is due to reduce or extend the end time of 12 Interior. recently resolved scheduling conflicts noon depending on the number of that will permit the attendance of all ACTION: Notice of council meeting. people wishing to address the RAC. Council members at the meeting. To SUMMARY: In accordance with the Anyone wishing to address the RAC reschedule this first meeting with all Federal Land Policy and Management should be present at the 10 starting members present could take a matter of Act and the Federal Advisory time. The length of time available for months and would result in Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. each person to address the RAC will be unnecessary delay of the Council’s Appendix 1, The Department of the established at the start of the public initial preparation of the National Interior, Bureau of Land Management comment period and will depend on Invasive Species Management Plan (BLM), announces a meeting of the New how many people there are that wish to required by Executive Order 13112. Mexico Resource Advisory Council address the RAC. At the completion of ADDRESSES: S. D. Ripley International (RAC). The meeting will be held on the public comments the RAC may Center, Smithsonian Institution, 1100 February 24 and 25, 2000, at the Best continue discussion on its Agenda Jefferson Drive, SW, Washington, DC Western Sally Port Inn and Suites, 2000 items. The meeting on February 25, 20560. N. Main, Roswell, NM 88201. There is 2000, will be from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: an optional field trip on Saturday The end time of 3:30 p.m. for the Gordon Brown, Invasive Species February 26, 2000, to the Haystack meeting may be changed depending on Coordinator, Department of the Interior; Mountain area for OHV demonstrations the work remaining for the RAC. [email protected]; Phone: and rides. The optional tour will end (202) 208–6336; Fax: (202) 208–1526. back in Roswell, NM about 1 p.m. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob meeting on Thursday, February 24, Armstrong, New Mexico State Office, Dated: January 7, 2000. 2000, starts at 8:30 a.m. and will end Planning and Policy Team, Bureau of William Y. Brown, about 4:30 p.m. The meeting on Friday Land Management, 1474 Rodeo Road, Science Advisor to the Secretary. February 25, 2000, starts at 8 a.m. and PO Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico [FR Doc. 00–698 Filed 1–7–00; 3:54 pm] will end about 3:30 p.m. The field tour 87502–0115, telephone (505) 438–7436. BILLING CODE 4310±RK±P on Saturday, February 26, 2000, will start in Roswell at a site selected by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RAC at 9 a.m. and end about 1 p.m. purpose of the Resource Advisory DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR returning to the starting location. Council is to advise the Secretary of the The draft agenda for the RAC meeting Interior, through the BLM, on a variety Geological Survey includes agreement on the meeting of planning and management issues agenda, any RAC comments on the draft associated with the management of Advisory Committee on Water minutes of the last RAC meeting on Information (ACWI) public lands. The Council’s December 7 and 8, 1999, in responsibilities include providing AGENCY: United States Geological Albuquerque, NM, a check in from the advice on long-range planning, Survey, Interior. RAC members, (the following establishing resource management ACTION: Correction. presentations also include discussions) priorities and assisting the BLM to a Standards and Guidelines update identify State and regional standards for SUMMARY: In notice document vol. 65, presentation, a public comment period rangeland health and guidelines for No. 2 on page 306 in the issue of to the RAC, a BLM presentation on grazing management. Tuesday, January 4, 2000 make the urban pressure on the BLM recreation following correction:. program (as time permits), BLM Field Dated: January 6, 2000. On page 306 in the third column, the Office Managers, State of the Field Carsten F. Goff, world wide web link for the Federal- Office presentations, several Acting State Director. State Cooperative Water-Resources presentations on roads and trails from [FR Doc. 00–719 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Program Fact Sheet was listed as http:/ representatives of the BLM Roswell BILLING CODE 4310±FB±M /water.usgs.gov/wid/html/COOP.html/. Field Office (Roads access and closure),

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1911

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dated: December 21, 1999. (4) The United States, when the Michael D. Nedd, Department determines that the Bureau of Land Management Deputy Assistant Director, Information Department is likely to be affected by Resources. the proceeding; and Privacy Act of 1974; as Amended; (b) The Department deems the Revisions of Existing System of INTERIOR/BLM±15 disclosure to be: Records SYSTEM NAME: (1) Relevant and necessary to the AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Correspondence—Interior, BLM–15. proceedings, and Department of the Interior. (2) Compatible with the purpose for SYSTEM LOCATION: ACTION: Proposed revisions to an which we compiled the information. existing system of records. Communications Directorate, U.S. (3) The appropriate Federal, State, Department of the Interior, Bureau of tribal, local or foreign governmental SUMMARY: In accordance with the Land Management, 1849 C Street, NW., agency that is responsible for Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 Washington, DC 20240 investigating, prosecuting, enforcing or U.S.C. 552a), the Bureau of Land implementing a statute, rule, regulation, Management (BLM), is issuing public CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE order or license, when we become aware SYSTEM: notice of its intent to modify an existing of an indication of a violation or Privacy Act system of records notice, Public officials and private potential violation of the statute, rule BLM–15, ‘‘Correspondence.’’ The individuals who have corresponded regulation, order or license. revision will change the system location with the BLM Director, and other (4) A congressional office in response and Systems Manager. Department of the Interior officials on to an inquiry to that office by the EFFECTIVE DATES: 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), BLM issues, and whose correspondence individual to whom the records requires that the public be provided a has been responded to by the pertains. 30-day period in which to comment on Correspondence Unit. (5) To a Federal agency which has the intended use of the information in CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: requested information relevant or the system of records. The Office of The record contains the necessary to its hiring or retention of an Management and Budget, in its Circular correspondent’s name, address, and employee, or issuance of a security A–130, requires an additional 10-day correspondence history, which includes clearance, license, contract, grant, or period (for a total of 40 days) in which subject matter, text, and tracking, if other benefit. to make these comments. Any persons applicable. interested in commenting on this POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND revised system of records may do so by AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: submitting comments in writing to the 5 U.S.C. 301, 43 U.S.C. 1457, 44 BLM Privacy Act Officer, Information U.S.C. 3101, Reorganization Plan 3 of STORAGE: Resources Management Policy Group, 1950. Computer database: Paper records are U.S. Department of the Interior, WO520/ maintained in folders, by year. 725 LS, 1849 C Street, NW., ROUTINE USE OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Washington, DC 20240. Comments SYSTEM INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND RETRIEVABILITY: PURPOSES OF USES: received on or before February 2, 2000, Computer database files are will be considered. The system will be The primary use of the records is to retrievable by name of correspondent. effective, as proposed, at the end of the identify correspondents to the BLM Paper file copies are retrievable by comment period unless comments are Director and other Department of the subject matter. received which would require a Interior officials on BLM issues, and SAFEGUARDS: contrary determination. their subject matter of interest whose correspondence has been responded to ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Records are stored in a controlled area by the Correspondence Unit. the BLM Privacy Act Officer, where access is controlled by a key card Disclosures outside the Department of Information Resources Management and is limited to BLM personnel, and the Interior may be made: Policy Group, U.S. Department of the maintained with safeguards meeting the (1) Another Federal agency to enable Interior, WO–520/725 LS, 1849 C Street, requirements of 43 CFR 2.51, ‘‘Assuring that agency to respond to an inquiry by NW, Washington, DC 20240. Hand Integrity of Records.’’ Paper records are the individual to whom the record deliver comments to the Information maintained in folders in locked file pertains. Resources Management Policy Group, cabinets. Access to computerized (2) The Department of Justice, or to a records requires use of proper Room 725, 1620 L Street, NW., court, adjudicative or other Washington, DC. passwords and user identification administrative body, or to a party in codes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: litigation before a court or adjudicative Peggy Britell, Correspondence Unit, or administrative body, when: RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: BLM, WO–615/406C LS, 1849 C Street, (a) One of the following is a party to Computer database-and file copies- NW., Washington, DC 20240. the proceeding or has an interest in the destroyed in accordance with National SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM proceeding: Archives and Records Administration is proposing to amend the system notice (1) The Department or any component procedures and General Record for BLM–15, ‘‘Correspondence,’’ to more of the Department; Schedule 23/8. accurately and clearly describe the (2) Any Departmental employee system. The revisions also reflect acting in his or her official capacity; SYSTEMS MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: changes in the system location and (3) Any Departmental employee Assistant Director for Systems Manager. Accordingly, the acting in his or her individual capacity Communications, U.S. Department of BLM proposes to amend BLM–15, where the Department or the the Interior, Bureau of Land ‘‘Correspondence,’’ in its entirety to Department of Justice has agreed to Management, 1849 C Street, NW., read as follows: represent the employee; or Washington, DC 20240

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.088 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Steelhead Restoration Project organizations or businesses, available To determine whether the records are (Restoration Project). for public disclosure in their entirety. maintained on you in this system, The proposed Restoration Project is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. inquiries should be made to the Systems described as modification of the Battle Mary Marshall, Reclamation Manager identified above. A written, Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC Environmental Specialist at telephone signed request stating that the requester Project 1121 (Hydroelectric Project), number: (916) 978–5248 or e-mail seeks information concerning records owned and operated by Pacific Gas and address: pertaining to him/her is required. The Electric Company (PG&E) and licensed [email protected]. request envelope and letter should be by FERC, to restore 42 miles of salmon Additional information regarding the clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY ACT and steelhead habitat within and proposed Restoration Project can also be INQUIRY.’’ (See 43 CFR 2.60 for adjacent to reaches of Battle Creek and accessed on the Reclamation Web Site: procedures on making inquiries.) its tributaries. Project alternatives range http://www.mp.usbr.gov/regional/ from ‘‘No Action’’ (no change to the battlecreek/index.html. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Hydroelectric Project) to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Battle To see your records, write to the decommissioning and removal of all Creek is a tributary of the Sacramento Systems Manager above. Describe as hydropower diversion dams, water River entering at river mile 271, specifically as possible the records conveyance facilities, powerhouses, between Red Bluff and Redding in sought. The request envelope and letter transmission lines, and related support California. Battle Creek lies on the should be clearly marked ‘‘PRIVACY installations within the restoration area. volcanic slopes of Mount Lassen in ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.’’ A Action alternatives within the range Shasta and Tehama Counties, contains request for access must meet the content consist of various combinations of dam cold, spring-fed water, maintains requirements of 43 CFR 2.63. If copies decommissioning and removals, fish relatively high flows throughout the are sought, indicate the maximum you screen improvements, fish ladder year, and stretches through remote, are willing to pay (43 CFR 2.63(b)(4)). improvements and increased deep, shaded canyons and riparian corridors. Prior to human-influenced CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: streamflows below dams. To ensure alterations to the Battle Creek watershed Follow procedures addressed in the biological effectiveness of the proposed Restoration Project, monitoring and beginning around the turn of the 20th ‘‘Records Access Procedures’’ section century, Battle Creek historically above. adaptive management are included in all ‘‘action’’ alternatives. provided a contiguous stretch of prime RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: habitat for anadromous fish, specifically DATES: A scoping meeting will be held the salmon and steelhead species. Correspondence responded to by the to solicit comments from interested In June, 1999, the U.S. Bureau of BLM Correspondence Unit. parties to assist in determining the Reclamation entered into a SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS scope of the environmental analysis and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) OF THE ACT: to identify the significant issues related along with the National Marine None. to the proposed Restoration Project. The Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish meeting will be held on January 31, and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the [FR Doc. 00–706 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] 2000 at the Manton Joint Union California Department of Fish and Game BILLING CODE 4310±84±P Elementary School located at 31345 (CDFG) and PG&E which signaled the Forward Road in Manton, California. A intent of these agencies to pursue a display session and informal discussion restoration effort on Battle Creek in DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR will occur from 5–6 p.m., and the public relation to modification of the Bureau of Reclamation scoping meeting will occur from 6–8 Hydroelectric Project. Consequently, the p.m. California-Federal interagency program known as ‘‘CALFED’’ provided $28 Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead ADDRESSES: Send written comments on million in directed funding to Restoration Project, Tehama and the scope of the project to Mary Reclamation for the planning and Shasta Counties, CA Marshall, Environmental Specialist, implementation of the proposed Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Restoration Project. As lead Federal Way, Sacramento, California 95825 by Interior. agency, Reclamation is responsible for February 14, 2000. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an ensuring NEPA compliance for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ Our practice is to make comments, proposed Restoration Project. Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and including names and home addresses of The Federal Power Act establishes notice of public scoping meeting. respondents, available for public with FERC the exclusive authority to review. Individual respondents may license nonfederal water power projects SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) request that we withhold their home on navigable waterways and Federal of the National Environmental Policy address from public disclosure, which lands. PG&E will be required to file an Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Public we will honor to the extent allowable by application with FERC for an Resources Code, Sections 21000– law. There also may be circumstances in amendment to PG&E’s existing license 21178.1 of the California Environmental which we would withhold a to operate the hydropower facilities on Quality Act (CEQA), the Bureau of respondent’s identity from public Battle Creek that would be affected by Reclamation (Reclamation), the lead disclosure, as allowable by law. If you implementation of the proposed Federal agency, the Federal Energy wish us to withhold your name and/or Restoration Project. FERC will ensure Regulatory Commission (FERC), a address, you must state this that proposed changes in the cooperating Federal agency, and the prominently at the beginning of your Hydroelectric Project comply with State Water Resources Control Board comment. We will make all submissions NEPA prior to issuing the license (SWRCB), the lead State agency, from organizations or businesses, and amendment. propose to prepare a joint EIS/EIR for from individuals identifying themselves All FERC licensing actions in the proposed Battle Creek Salmon and as representatives or officials of California, including new licenses,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.090 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1913 license amendments, and relicensing, Program Evaluation and Information A copy of the proposed information require Clean Water Act Section 401 Resources, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, collection request can be obtained by water quality certification from the Room 715, Arlington, VA 22203–1984. contacting the employee listed below in SWRCB. SWRCB involvement in Clean Commenters are encouraged to send the contact section. Water Act Section 401 certification their comments on a computer disk, or II. Current Actions requires CEQA compliance, and the via Internet E-mail to [email protected], SWRCB will act as the CEQA lead along with an original printed copy. Ms. MSHA is seeking to continue the agency. Hill can be reached at (703) 235–1470 requirement for a regular fan The proposed Restoration Project (voice), or (703) 235–1563 (facsimile). maintenance schedule to assure an supports the restoration directives of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: uninterrupted supply of air in the mine. Central Valley Improvement Act Diane B. Hill, Program Analysis Officer, Type of Review: Extension. (CVPIA) Anadromous Fish Restoration Office of Program Evaluation and Agency: Mine Safety and Health Program; the CALFED Restoration Information Resources, U.S. Department Administration. Program; the State Salmon, Steelhead of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Title: Main Fan Maintenance Record. Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Administration, Room 719, 4015 Wilson OMB Number: 1219–0012. Program Act (California Senate Bill Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203–1984. Affected Public: Business or other for- 2261, 1990); Central Valley Salmon and Ms. Hill can be reached at profit. Steelhead Restoration and Enhancement [email protected] (Internet E-mail), (703) Cite/Reference/Form/etc: 30 CFR Plan; the Upper Sacramento River 235–1470 (voice), or (703) 235–1563 57.8525. Fisheries and Riparian Habitat (facsimile). Total Respondents: 21. Frequency: Annually. Management Plan (California Senate Bill SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1086, 1989); National Marine Fisheries Total Responses: 7. Service Proposed Recovery Plan for I. Background Average Time per Response: 1.57 Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Title 30 CFR 57.8525 requires that hours. Salmon; Restoring Central Valley main fans be maintained according to Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11 Streams—A Plan for Action and the either manufacturers’ recommendations hours. Steelhead Restoration Plan and or a written periodic schedule adopted Total Annualized Capital/Startup Management Plan for California. by the mine operator. The main fans are Costs: None. Dated: January 5, 2000. the major life support system to the Total Operation and Maintenance Costs: None. Frank Michny, entire underground mining operation. The air flow provided by the fans Comments submitted in response to Chief, Division of Environmental Affairs. this notice will be summarized and/or [FR Doc. 00–686 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] assures fresh air to the miners at working faces, reduces the chance of the included in the request for Office of BILLING CODE 4310±94±P air reaching threshold limit values of Management and Budget approval of the airborne contaminants, and dilutes information collection request; they will accumulations of possible explosive also become a matter of public record. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR gases. Dated: January 5, 2000. Mine Safety and Health Administration II. Desired Focus of Comments George M. Fesak, Director, Program Evaluation and Information Proposed Information Collection Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Resources. Administration (MSHA) is soliciting Request Submitted for Public [FR Doc. 00–718 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] comments concerning the proposed Comment and Recommendations; BILLING CODE 4510±43±M Main Fan Maintenance Record extension of the information collection related to the Main Fan Maintenance AGENCY: Notice. Record. MSHA is particularly interested DEPARTMENT OF LABOR in comments which: SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as • Evaluate whether the proposed Mine Safety and Health Administration part of its continuing efforts to reduce collection of information is necessary paperwork and respondent burden for the proper performance of the Petitions for Modification conducts a preclearance consultation functions of the agency, including program to provide the general public whether the information will have The following parties have filed and Federal agencies with an practical utility; petitions to modify the application of opportunity to comment on proposed • Evaluate the accuracy of the mandatory safety standards under and/or continuing collections of agency’s estimate of the burden of the section 101(c) of the Federal Mine information in accordance with the proposed collection of information, Safety and Health Act of 1977: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 including the validity of the 1. Monterey Coal Company (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This methodology and assumptions used; program helps to ensure that requested • Enhance the quality, utility, and [Docket No. M–1999–135–C] data can be provided in the desired clarity of the information to be Monterey Coal Company, 14300 format, reporting burden (time and collected; and Brushy Mound Road Carlinville, Illinois financial resources) is minimized, • Minimize the burden of the 62626 has filed a petition to modify the collection instruments are clearly collection of information on those who application of 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) understood, and the impact of collection are to respond, including through the (nonpermissible diesel-powered requirements on respondents can be use of appropriate automated, equipment; design and performance properly assessed. electronic, mechanical, or other requirements) to its No. 1 Mine (I.D. No. DATES: Submit comments on or before technological collection techniques or 11–00726) located in Macoupin County, March 13, 2000. other forms of information technology, Illinois. The petitioner relief from the ADDRESSES: Send comments to Diane B. e.g., permitting electronic submissions requirement to add brakes on each Hill, Program Analysis Officer, Office of of responses. wheel of its Petitto Mule Model 2066,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.092 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Serial Number 955106. The petitioner alternative method would provide at (nonpermissible diesel-powered states that additional brakes will result least the same measure of protection as equipment; design and performance in safety risks due to additional the mandatory standard. requirements) to its Foidel Creek Mine maintenance that will be required. The (I.D. No. 05–03836) located in Routt 4. Plateau Mining Company petitioner asserts that the proposed County, Colorado . The petitioner alternative method would provide at [Docket No. M–1999–138–C] requests a modification of the least the same measure of protection as Plateau Mining Company, One Oxford mandatory safety standard to permit an the mandatory standard or will not Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor, alternative method of compliance with result in a diminution of safety. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219–1410 the engine approval requirements for a diesel generator. The petitioner 2. Twentymile Coal Company has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1909(a)(1) proposes to equip the diesel generator [Docket No. M–1999–136–C] (nonpermissible diesel-powered with a DST Management SystemTM Twentymile Coal Company, One equipment; design and performance exhaust conditioner and use a Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th requirements) to its Willow Creek Mine ventilation rate of 8,200 cfm. The Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219– (I.D. No. 42–02113) located in Carbon petitioner asserts that the proposed 1410 has filed a petition to modify the County, Utah. The petitioner requests a alternative method would provide at application of 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) modification of the mandatory safety least the same measure of protection as (nonpermissible diesel-powered standard to permit an alternative the mandatory standard. equipment; design and performance method of compliance with the engine 7. Lodestar Energy, Inc. requirements) to its Foidel Creek Mine approval requirements for a diesel (I.D. 05–03836) located in Routt County, generator. The petitioner proposes to [Docket No. M–1999–141–C] Colorado. The petitioner requests a equip the diesel generator with a DST Lodestar Energy, Inc., P.O. Box 38, modification of the mandatory safety Management SystemTM exhaust Providence, Kentucky 42450 has filed a standard to permit an alternative conditioner and use a ventilation rate of petition to modify the application of 30 method of compliance for service brakes 8,200 cfm. The petitioner asserts that CFR 75.1909(b)(6) (nonpermissible on diesel-powered graders. The the proposed alternative method would diesel-powered equipment; design and petitioner proposes to equip the diesel provide at least the same measure of performance requirements) to its Baker graders with devices to limit the speed protection as the mandatory standard. Mine (I.D. No. 15–14492) located in for operating the graders to 10 miles per Webster County, Kentucky. The 5. RAG Shoshone Coal Corporation hour, and train each miner who operates petitioner requests a modification of the the grader on the proper techniques for [Docket No. M–1999–139–C] mandatory safety standard to permit an lowering the blade in order to restrict RAG Shoshone Coal Corporation, One alternative method of compliance for the speed and stop the grader. The Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th service brakes on diesel-powered petitioner states that application of the Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219– graders. The petitioner proposes to standard will result in a diminution of 1410 has filed a petition to modify the equip the diesel graders with devices to safety to the miners. In addition, the application of 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) limit the speed for operating the graders petitioner asserts that the proposed (nonpermissible diesel-powered to 10 miles per hour, and train each alternative method would provide at equipment; design and performance miner who operate the grader on the least the same measure of protection as requirements) to its Shoshone No. 1 proper techniques for lowering the the mandatory standard. Mine (I.D. No. 48–01186) located in blade in order to restrict the speed and Carbon County, Wyoming. The stop the grader. The petitioner states 3. Plateau Mining Company petitioner requests a modification of the that application of the standard will [Docket No. M–1999–137–C] mandatory safety standard to permit an result in a diminution of safety to the Plateau Mining Company, One Oxford alternative method of compliance for miners. In addition, The petitioner Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor, service brakes on diesel-powered asserts that the proposed alternative Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219–1410 graders. The petitioner proposes to method would provide at least the same has filed a petition to modify the equip the diesel graders with devices to measure of protection as the mandatory application of 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) limit the speed for operating the graders standard. to 10 miles per hour, and train each (nonpermissible diesel-powered 8. Twentymile Coal Company equipment; design and performance miner who operates the grader on the requirements) to its Willow Creek Mine proper techniques for lowering the [Docket No. M–1999–142–C] (I.D. No. 42–02113) located in Carbon blade in order to restrict the speed and Twentymile Coal Company, One County, Utah. The petitioner requests a stop the grader. The petitioner states Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th modification of the mandatory safety that application of the standard will Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219– standard to permit an alternative result in a diminution of safety to the 1410 has filed a petition to modify the method of compliance for service brakes miners. In addition, the petitioner application of 30 CFR 75.1908(a)(5) on diesel-powered graders. The asserts that the proposed alternative (nonpermissible diesel-powered petitioner proposes to equip the diesel method would provide at least the same equipment; categories) to its Foidel graders with devices to limit the speed measure of protection as the mandatory Creek Mine (I.D. No. 05–03836) located for operating the graders to 10 miles per standard. in Routt County, Colorado. The hour, and train each miner who operate 6. Twentymile Coal Company petitioner requests a modification of the the grader on the proper techniques for mandatory safety standard to permit the lowering the blade in order to restrict [Docket No. M–1999–140–C] use of pickup trucks to tow diesel fuel the speed and stop the grader. The Twentymile Coal Company, One transportation units. The petitioner petitioner states that application of the Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th proposes to only use diesel-powered standard will result in a diminution of Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219– pickup trucks to tow diesel fuel safety to the miners. In addition, the 1410 has filed a petition to modify the transportation units if the rated capacity petitioner asserts that the proposed application of 30 CFR 75.1909(a)(1) of the truck exceeds the load by a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:42 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1915 fraction of 50 percent, and equip the Administrator), under a delegation of Chemicals; Final Rule and Explosives diesel fuel transformation units with authority from the Assistant Secretary of and Blasting Agents; Final Rule automatic fire suppression devices Labor for Occupational Safety and Amendment; Corrections and when towed by the pickup truck. The Health (hereinafter called the Assistant Administrative Stay (March 4, 1992, 57 petitioner asserts that the proposed Secretary) (29 CFR 1953.4) will review FR 7847; June 1, 1992, 57 FR 23060); 29 alternative method would provide at and approve standards promulgated CFR 1910.1050 and 29 CFR 1926.60, least the same measure of protection as pursuant to a State plan which has been Occupational Exposure to 4,4, the mandatory standard. approved in accordance with section Methylenedianiline (MDA); Final Rule 9. Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. 18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR Part 1902. (August 10, 1992, 57 FR 35630); 29 CFR On January 4, 1974, notice was 1910.1027, Occupational Exposure to [Docket No. M–1999–020–M] published in the Federal Register (39 Cadmium; Final Rule (September 14, Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc., FR 1008) of the approval of the Nevada 1992, 57 FR 42102); 29 CFR 1910.146, P.O. Box 1621, Alleghany, California plan and the adoption of Subpart W to Permit-Required Confined Spaces; Final 95910 has filed a petition to modify the Part 1952 of Title 29 containing the Rule (December 1, 1998, 63 FR 66018); application of 30 CFR 57.6132(a)(6) decision. The Nevada plan provides for 29 CFR 1926.26, Exposure to Lead in (magazine requirements) to its Sixteen the adoption of Federal standards as Construction; Interim Final Rule (May 4, to One Mine (I.D. No. 04–01299) located State standards by reference. The State 1993, 58 FR 26590); 29 CFR 1910.269, in Sierra County, California. The may also adopt independent standards Electrical Power Generation, petitioner requests exemption from the after opportunity for public input. Transmission and Distribution; mandatory safety standard on the basis In response to Federal standards Electrical Protective Equipment (January that compliance with standard will changes, the State has submitted State 31, 1994, 59 FR 4320); 29 CFR result in a diminution of safety to the standard revisions identical to: 29 CFR 1910.1200, Hazard Communication; miners. The petitioner states that the 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 1926.58, Final Rule (February 9, 1994, 59 FR existence of signs poses a greater threat Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, 6126); 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135 and to the health and safety and miners, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and 1910.136, Personal Protective authorized non-employees and the Actinolite; Final Rules Amending Equipment; Final Rule; Technical general public by calling attention to the Present Standards in General Industry Amendment (May 2, 1996, 61 FR area. and in Construction and lifting 19547); 29 CFR 1910.272, Grain Request for Comments Administrative Stay (March 5, 1992, 57 Handling Facilities; Technical Persons interested in these petitions FR 7877; June 8, 1992, 57 FR 24330; Amendment; Final Rule (March 8, 1996, are encouraged to submit comments via June 30, 1992, 57 FR 29119); 29 CFR 61 FR 9577); 29 CFR 1910.1201, e-mail to ‘‘[email protected],’’ or on 1910.1048, Occupational Exposure to 1915.100, 1917.29, 1918.100, 1926.61, a computer disk along with an original Formaldehyde; Final Rule (May 27, 1928.21, Retention of DOT Markings, hard copy of the Office of Standards, 1992, 57 FR 22290); 29 CFR 1910.147, Placards, and Labels; Final Rule (July Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safety Control of Hazardous Energy Sources 19, 1994, 59 FR 36695); 29 CFR and Health Administration, 4015 (Lockout/Tagout); Final Rule and 1910.269, 1926.500–1926.503, Safety Wilson Boulevard, Room 627, Corrections and Technical Amendments Standards for Fall Protection in the Arlington, Virginia 22203. All (September 20, 1990, 55 FR 38677); 29 Construction Industry; Final Rule comments must be postmarked or CFR 1910.1025, Occupational Exposure (August 9, 1994, 59 FR 40672); 29 CFR received in that office on or before to Lead; Final Rule (January 30, 1990, 55 1910.1001, 1926.1101, 1915.1001, February 11, 2000. Copies of these FR 3146); 29 CFR 1910.1000, Air Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, petitions are available for inspection at Contaminants, Table Z–1–A; Tremolite, Anthophyllite and that address. Amendments (February 5, 1990, 55 FR Actinolite, Final Rule; Corrections 3723); 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR (August 23, 1996, 61 FR 43454); 29 CFR Dated: January 4, 2000. 1926.58, Occupational Exposure to 1910.266, Logging Operations; Final Carol J. Jones, Asbestos; Final Rule; Partial Response Rule (August 9, 1995, 60 FR 40457; Acting Director, Office of Standards, to Court Remand (February 5, 1990, 55 September 8, 1995, 60 FR 47022); 29 Regulations, and Variances. FR 3724); 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR CFR 1910.1025, Occupational Exposure [FR Doc. 00–707 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] 1926.65, Hazardous Waste Operations to Lead; Final Rule (October 11, 1995, BILLING CODE 4510±43±U and Emergency Response; Final Rule 60 FR 52856); 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 (August 22, 1994, 59 FR 43268); 29 CFR and 1926, Consolidation of Repetitive 1910.332, Electrical Safety-Related Provisions; Technical Amendments, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Work Practices; Final Rule (August 6, Final Rule (June 20, 1996, 61 FR 31427); Occupational Safety and Health 1990, 55 FR 31984); 29 CFR 1926.705, 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1926, 1928, Administration Concrete and Masonry Construction Miscellaneous Minor Technical Safety Standards; Lift Slab Construction Amendments; Final Rule (March 7, Nevada State Standards; Notice of Operations; Final Rule (October 18, 1996, 46 FR 9227); 29 CFR Part 1926, Approval 1990, 55 FR 42306); 29 CFR 1926.1050, Incorporation of General Industry Safety Standards for Stairways and Health and Safety Standards Applicable 1. Background Ladders Used in the Construction to Construction Work; Final Rule Part 1953 of Title 29, Code of Federal Industry; Final Rule; Technical (August 12, 1996, 61 FR 41738); 29 CFR Regulations, prescribes procedures Amendments (August 23, 1991, 56 FR 1926.450, Safety Standard for Scaffolds under Section 18 of the Occupational 41793); 29 CFR 1910.1030, Used in the Construction Industry, Final Safety and Health Act of 1970 Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Rule: Corrections, Partial Stay (hereinafter called the Act) by which the Pathogens; Final Rule (December 6, (November 25, 1996, 61 FR 59831); 29 Regional Administrator for 1991, 56 FR 64004); 29 CFR 1910.119 CFR 1910.1051, and 29 CFR 1926.55, Occupational Safety and Health and 29 CFR 1910.109, Process Safety Occupational Exposure to 1,3 (hereinafter called the Regional Management of Highly Hazardous Butadiene; Final Rule (November 4,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.149 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

1996, 61 FR 56746); 29 CFR 1910.1052, Requirements in the Construction of Signed at San Francisco, California this Occupational Exposure to Methylene Certain Structures, Ammonium 10th day of November 1999. Chloride; Final Rule (January 10, 1997, Perchlorate and Crane Safety Standard. Christopher Lee, 62 FR 1494); 29 CFR 1910.134 and 29 OSHA has determined that these Acting Regional Administrator. CFR 1926.103, Respiratory Protection; standards are at least as effective in [FR Doc. 00–650 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Final Rule; Corrections (April 23, 1998, comparison to OSHA’s general BILLING CODE 4510±26±P 63 FR 20098); 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, standards requirements and to 1917, 1918, 1926, Powered Industrial enforcement policy. These standards Truck (PITs) Operator Training; Final have been in effect since June 6, 1990, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Rule (December 1, 1998, 63 FR 66237); March 1, 1992 and May 1, 1997 29 CFR 1910.108 and 29 CFR 1910.94, respectively. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Dipping and Coating Operations; Final During this time OSHA has received Rule (March 23, 1999, 64 FR 13897). no indication of significant objection to These standards were adopted by the Supplements to Nevada State Plan; the State’s standards either as to State on the Federal promulgation date Approval effectiveness in comparison to OSHA’s and are contained in the Division of general standards requirements and ACTION: Approval; Supplements to Occupational Safety and Health enforcement policy or as to Nevada State Occupational Safety and Standards for General Industry and Health Plan. Construction and were adopted by conformance with the product clause requirements of section 18(c)(2) of the reference pursuant to Nevada Revised SUMMARY: This notice approves Act. OSHA, therefore, approves these Statutes § 618.295. State standards supplements to the Nevada standards. However, the right to adopted by reference have the same occupational safety and health State reconsider these approvals is reserved numbers as the corresponding Federal plan. The supplements are legislative should substantial objections be standards. amendments enacted in 1995 and 1999 submitted to the Assistant Secretary. In addition to the Federal standard and amendments to regulations changes, the State has submitted three 3. Location of Supplement for promulgated in 1983 and 1992. State Initiated Standards Plan Change Inspection and Copying. A copy of the EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2000. Supplements as follows: standards supplement, along with the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. On June 6, 1990, the State adopted approved plan, may be inspected and Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of a unique State standard for Elevator or copied during normal business hours at Information and Consumer Affairs, Hoist Requirements in the Construction the following locations: Office of the Occupational Safety and Health of Certain Structures (NAC 618.500). Regional Administrator, Occupational Administration, U.S. Department of This standard was submitted to OSHA Safety and Health Administration, 71 Labor, Room N–3647, 200 Constitution for review on November 26, 1990. The Stevenson Street, Suite 420, San Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. State standard provides that an elevator Francisco, CA 94105; Occupational SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: or personnel hoist be installed and used Safety and Health, 400 West King Street, during construction of any building or Suite 200, Carson City, NV 89710; and I. Background structure which is more than 60 feet in Office of the Directorate of Federal State The Nevada Occupational Safety and height above ground level or 48 feet in Operations, Room N3700, Room 200, Health Plan was initially approved depth below ground level and be Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, under section 18(b) of the Occupational equipped with suitable voice equipment DC 20210. Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. to enable communication between the 4. Public Participation. Under 29 CFR 667(b)) (hereinafter referred to as the elevator or hoist and each floor in an 1953.2(c), the Assistant Secretary may Act) and Part 1902 of this chapter on emergency. prescribe alternative procedures to January 4, 1974 (39 FR 1008). Final B. On March 1, 1992, the State expedite the review process or for other approval under section 18(e) was adopted a unique State standard for good cause which may be consistent proposed on November 16, 1999 (64 FR Ammonium Perchlorate (NAC 618.5155 with applicable laws. The Assistant 62138). Part 1953 of this chapter to 618.5335). This standard pertains to Secretary finds that good cause exists provides procedures for the review and the manufacture, handling and storage for not publishing the supplement to the approval of State change supplements of Ammonium Perchlorate. C. On February 25, 1997, the State Nevada State plan as a proposed change by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for adopted by reference the ANSI/ASME and for making the Regional Occupational Safety and Health Standards for: (1) Hammerhead Tower Administrator’s approval effective upon (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Cranes B30.3–1990 and addenda 3a, 3b publication for the following reasons: Secretary). and 3c; (2) Portal, Tower and Pillar 1. The standards adopted in response II. Description of Supplements Cranes, B30.4–1990 and addenda 4a, 4b to Federal standards are identical to the and 4c; and (3) Mobile and Locomotive Federal standards which were A. Amendments to Nevada Cranes, B30.5–1994 and addenda 5a, promulgated in accordance with Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act with additional requirements of a site law, including meeting requirements for In 1995 the State enacted safety plan, a clear zone, annual public participation. amendments to its Occupational Safety certification, and operator training. 2. The State standards were adopted and Health Act. The five amendments, 2. Decision. OSHA has determined in accordance with procedural submitted on June 28, 1995, included that the standards submitted in response requirements of State law and further the following revisions: to Federal standards changes are participation would be unnecessary. (1) Nevada Revised Statutes section identical to the Federal standards and 618.378 was revised to require that an therefore approves the standards. This decision is effective January 12, occupational accident which is fatal to There are no equivalent Federal 2000. one or more employees or which results standards comparable to the Nevada Authority: Section 18, Pub. L. 91–596, 84 in the hospitalization of three or more State standards for Elevator or Hoist Stat. 1608 (20 U.S.C. 667). employees be reported to the State

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.055 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1917 within 8 hours after the accident has (2) New sections were added to structure of the Nevada occupational occurred. These requirements are Nevada Revised Statutes 618 concerning safety and health program, as set out in identical to the Federal requirements the manufacture of explosives. One legislation approved by OSHA on found at 29 CFR 1904.8, published in provision requires the Division of August 24, 1995 (60 FR 43969). the Federal Register on April 1, 1994 Industrial Relations (DIR) to adopt (59 FR 15594). The amendments also standards and procedures for places of III. Decision employment where explosives are require employers not to move After careful consideration, the equipment involved in a fatality or manufactured, used, processed, handled Nevada plan supplements described multiple hospitalization until an agency or moved on site or stored. Another above are found to be in substantial investigator authorizes it and require the section requires explosives employers to conformance with comparable Federal State to begin investigating a fatality or provide an annual training and testing multiple hospitalization within 8 hours. program. An additional provision provisions and in some cases to go (2) Nevada Revised Statutes section requires that an owner or operator of a beyond Federal requirements and are 618.565 and section 618.585 relating to place of employment obtain a permit hereby approved under Part 1953 of this the Occupational Safety and Health from DIR prior to commencing chapter. The decision incorporates the Review Board were revised to allow for construction of, substantially altering requirements and implementing an alternate for the member of the board the construction of, or modifying any regulations applicable to State plans representing the general public, to major process that involves the generally. require that at least one member of the manufacturing or usage, processing, handling, moving on site or storage of IV. Location of Supplements for board be knowledgeable about Inspection and Copying occupational safety and health, and to explosives. provide that a quorum consists of three (3) A new section was added to A copy of the plan and the Nevada Revised Statutes 618 regarding members of the board, at least one of supplements may be inspected and whom must represent labor and one of assistance to small employers. If authorized by the Secretary of Labor, the copied during normal business hours at whom must represent management. the following locations: Office of the (3) Nevada Revised Statutes section Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Section is directed to Regional Administrator, Occupational 618.295(8) was revised to allow the Safety and Health Administration, State to adopt occupational safety and develop a program for small employers to eliminate or abate hazards to the Room 415, 71 Stevenson Street, San health standards which differ from Francisco, California 94105; Office of Federal standards if the State standards safety and health of employees. Except as otherwise provided by Federal law, if the State Designee, Administrator, provide protection equal to the a small employer complies with the Nevada Division of Industrial Relations, protection provided by the Federal established program, the Enforcement 400 West King Street, Suite 400, Carson standards. Section may reduce any penalty, fine or City, Nevada 89703; and the Office of (4) A new section was added to interest proposed. The program the Director of Federal-State Operations, Nevada Revised Statutes 618, mandating implementing this provision has not yet that the State adopt regulations Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue, been submitted, but will be separately NW, Washington, DC 20210. establishing standards and procedures reviewed to assure that all requirements for the operation of cranes, including a of Federal law and policy are met. In V. Public Participation site safety plan, procedures for the addition, the Safety Consultation and Under § 1953.2(c) of this chapter, the erection and dismantling of tower Training Section is to establish a toll Assistant Secretary may prescribe cranes, establishment of a clear zone, free number to provide advice to small annual certification, and operator employers who seek assistance. alternative procedures to expedite the training. The required regulations were review process or for any other good promulgated on February 25, 1997, and B. Regulations cause which may be consistent with became effective on May 1, 1997. These The Nevada regulations on applicable law. The Assistant Secretary standards have been approved by the Inspections, Citations and Proposed finds that the Nevada plan supplements OSHA Regional Administrator; a notice Penalties; Variances; and Records and described above are consistent with of this approval will be published Reports were amended in 1983, and the Federal requirements and with separately. regulation on Inspections, Citations and commitments contained in the plan and Additional amendments to the Proposed Penalties was further previously made available for public Nevada Occupational Safety and Health amended in 1992. Nevada comment. Good cause is therefore found Act were enacted in 1999. These Administrative Code Section 618.6458 for approval of these supplements, and amendments, submitted on June 29, was amended to incorporate references further public participation would be 1999, included the following revisions: to Nevada’s procedure for issuing unnecessary. (1) Two sections of Nevada Revised Notices of Violations for certain other Statutes 618 were amended to address than serious violations when the Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. criminal violations of the law. Section employer agrees to abate the violations. 667); 29 CFR Part 1902, Secretary of Labor’s 618.341 was amended to allow the The Notice of Violation procedures were Order No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033). Division of Industrial Relations to previously approved by OSHA (60 FR Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day disclose confidential information to a 43969). Nevada Administrative Code of December, 1999. law enforcement agency for the limited Section 618.589 was amended to adopt Charles N. Jeffress, purpose of pursuing a criminal Federal exemptions to recordkeeping Assistant Secretary. investigation. In addition, section requirements for low-hazard industries. [FR Doc. 00–651 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] 618.365 was amended to give the In addition, all material in the Division of Industrial Relations the regulations which repeats provisions of BILLING CODE 4510±26±P authority to prosecute criminal the Nevada Occupational Safety and violations of laws relating to labor and Health Act was deleted. Amendments industrial relations. made in 1992 reflect the reorganized

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.053 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1918 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

NUCLEAR REGULATORY Week of January 31—Tentative The last biweekly notice was published COMMISSION on December 29, 1999 (64 FR 73083). There are no meetings scheduled for Sunshine Act Meeting the Week of January 31. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of The schedule for commission Amendments to Facility Operating DATE: Weeks of January 10, 17, 24, and meetings is subject to change on short Licenses, Proposed No Significant 31, 2000. notice. To verify the status of meetings Hazards Consideration Determination, PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. and Opportunity for a Hearing Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Contact person for more information: The Commission has made a Maryland. Bill Hill (301) 415–1661. proposed determination that the STATUS: Public and Closed. The NRC Commission Meeting following amendment requests involve MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Schedule can be found on the Internet no significant hazards consideration. at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/ Under the Commission’s regulations in Week of January 10 schedule.htm 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation Monday, January 10 This notice is distributed by mail to of the facility in accordance with the 9:00 a.m. Discussion of Management several hundred subscribers; if you no proposed amendment would not (1) Issues (Closed—Ex. 2) longer wish to receive it, or would like involve a significant increase in the 10:00 a.m. Meeting with D.C. Cook to be added to it, please contact the probability or consequences of an (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations accident previously evaluated; or (2) Stang, 301–415–1345) Branch, Washington, DC 20555 (301) create the possibility of a new or 415–1661). In addition, distribution of different kind of accident from any Wednesday, January 12 this meeting notice over the Internet accident previously evaluated; or (3) 9:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public system is available. If you are interested involve a significant reduction in a Meeting) (if needed) in receiving this Commission meeting margin of safety. The basis for this 10:00 a.m. Briefing on Status of NRR schedule electronically, please send an proposed determination for each Programs, Performance, and Plans electronic message to [email protected] or amendment request is shown below. (Public Meeting) (Contact: Mike [email protected]. The Commission is seeking public Case, 301–415–1134) comments on this proposed Dated: January 7, 2000. determination. Any comments received Week of January 17—Tentative William M. Hill, Jr., within 30 days after the date of Wednesday, January 19 SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the publication of this notice will be Secretary. 8:30 a.m. Discussion of considered in making any final [FR Doc. 00–805 Filed 1–10–00; 10:58 am] Intragovernmental Issues (Closed— determination. BILLING CODE 7590±01±M Normally, the Commission will not Ex. 9) 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management issue the amendment until the Issues (Closed—Ex. 2 and 6) expiration of the 30-day notice period. NUCLEAR REGULATORY However, should circumstances change Thursday, January 20 COMMISSION during the notice period such that 9:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public failure to act in a timely way would Biweekly Notice; Applications and result, for example, in derating or Meeting) (if needed) Amendments to Facility Operating 10:00 a.m. Briefing on Status of CIO shutdown of the facility, the Licenses Involving No Significant Programs, Performance, and Plans Commission may issue the license Hazards Considerations (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donnie amendment before the expiration of the Grimsley, 301–415–8702) I. Background 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the Friday, January 21 Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the amendment involves no significant 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Native American, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hazards consideration. The final State of Nevada, and Affected Units (the Commission or NRC staff) is determination will consider all public of Local Governments publishing this regular biweekly notice. and State comments received before Representatives Responses to DOE’s Public Law 97–415 revised section 189 action is taken. Should the Commission Draft Environmental Impact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as take this action, it will publish in the Statement (EIS) for a Proposed HLW amended (the Act), to require the Federal Register a notice of issuance Geologic Repository (Public Commission to publish notice of any and provide for opportunity for a Meeting) amendments issued, or proposed to be hearing after issuance. The Commission issued, under a new provision of section Week of January 24—Tentative expects that the need to take this action 189 of the Act. This provision grants the will occur very infrequently. Tuesday, January 25 Commission the authority to issue and Written comments may be submitted 9:00 a.m. Briefing on NRC Staff’s make immediately effective any by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and Response to DOE’s Draft amendment to an operating license Directives Branch, Division of Freedom Environmental Impact Statement upon a determination by the of Information and Publications (EIS) for a Proposed HLW Geologic Commission that such amendment Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Repository (Public Meeting) involves no significant hazards Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consideration, notwithstanding the Washington, DC 20555–0001, and Wednesday, January 26 pendency before the Commission of a should cite the publication date and 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public request for a hearing from any person. page number of this Federal Register Meeting) (if needed) This biweekly notice includes all notice. Written comments may also be 10:00 a.m. Briefing on Status of NMSS notices of amendments issued, or delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Programs, Performance, and Plans proposed to be issued from December Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, (Public Meeting) 13, 1999, through December 31, 1999. Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.111 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1919

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of prehearing conference scheduled in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, written comments received may be proceeding, but such an amended Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: examined at the NRC Public Document petition must satisfy the specificity Docketing and Services Branch, or may Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L requirements described above. be delivered to the Commission’s Public Street, NW., Washington, DC. The filing Not later than 15 days prior to the first Document Room, the Gelman Building, of requests for a hearing and petitions prehearing conference scheduled in the 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by for leave to intervene is discussed proceeding, a petitioner shall file a the above date. Where petitions are filed below. supplement to the petition to intervene during the last 10 days of the notice By February 11, 2000, the licensee which must include a list of the period, it is requested that the petitioner may file a request for a hearing with contentions which are sought to be promptly so inform the Commission by respect to issuance of the amendment to litigated in the matter. Each contention a toll-free telephone call to Western the subject facility operating license and must consist of a specific statement of Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri any person whose interest may be the issue of law or fact to be raised or 1–(800)–342–6700). The Western Union affected by this proceeding and who controverted. In addition, the petitioner operator should be given Datagram wishes to participate as a party in the shall provide a brief explanation of the Identification Number N1023 and the proceeding must file a written request bases of the contention and a concise following message addressed to (Project for a hearing and a petition for leave to statement of the alleged facts or expert Director): petitioner’s name and intervene. Requests for a hearing and a opinion which support the contention telephone number, date petition was petition for leave to intervene shall be and on which the petitioner intends to mailed, plant name, and publication filed in accordance with the rely in proving the contention at the date and page number of this Federal Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for hearing. The petitioner must also Register notice. A copy of the petition Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 provide references to those specific should also be sent to the Office of the CFR Part 2. Interested persons should sources and documents of which the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 petitioner is aware and on which the Regulatory Commission, Washington, which is available at the Commission’s petitioner intends to rely to establish DC 20555–0001, and to the attorney for Public Document Room, the Gelman those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner the licensee. Building, 2120 L Street, NW., must provide sufficient information to Nontimely filings of petitions for Washington, DC, and electronically show that a genuine dispute exists with leave to intervene, amended petitions, from the ADAMS Public Library the applicant on a material issue of law supplemental petitions and/or requests component on the NRC Web site, http:/ or fact. Contentions shall be limited to for a hearing will not be entertained /www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading matters within the scope of the absent a determination by the Room). If a request for a hearing or amendment under consideration. The Commission, the presiding officer or the petition for leave to intervene is filed by contention must be one which, if Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the above date, the Commission or an proven, would entitle the petitioner to the petition and/or request should be Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, relief. A petitioner who fails to file such granted based upon a balancing of designated by the Commission or by the a supplement which satisfies these factors specified in 10 CFR Chairman of the Atomic Safety and requirements with respect to at least one 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d). Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the contention will not be permitted to For further details with respect to this request and/or petition; and the participate as a party. action, see the application for Secretary or the designated Atomic Those permitted to intervene become amendment which is available for Safety and Licensing Board will issue a parties to the proceeding, subject to any public inspection at the Commission’s notice of a hearing or an appropriate limitations in the order granting leave to Public Document Room, the Gelman order. intervene, and have the opportunity to Building, 2120 L Street, NW., As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the Washington, DC, and electronically petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to from the ADAMS Public Library forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine component on the NRC Web site, http:/ the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. /www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading how that interest may be affected by the If a hearing is requested, the Room). results of the proceeding. The petition Commission will make a final AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket should specifically explain the reasons determination on the issue of no No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit why intervention should be permitted significant hazards consideration. The 1, DeWitt County, Illinois with particular reference to the final determination will serve to decide following factors: (1) The nature of the when the hearing is held. Date of amendment request: October petitioner’s right under the Act to be If the final determination is that the 25, 1999. made a party to the proceeding; (2) the amendment request involves no Description of amendment request: nature and extent of the petitioner’s significant hazards consideration, the The proposed amendment would revise property, financial, or other interest in Commission may issue the amendment the Technical Specification allowable the proceeding; and (3) the possible and make it immediately effective, values for the reactor protection system effect of any order which may be notwithstanding the request for a electric power monitoring assembly entered in the proceeding on the hearing. Any hearing held would take overvoltage and undervoltage trip petitioner’s interest. The petition should place after issuance of the amendment. setpoints. also identify the specific aspect(s) of the If the final determination is that the Basis for proposed no significant subject matter of the proceeding as to amendment request involves a hazards consideration determination: which petitioner wishes to intervene. significant hazards consideration, any As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Any person who has filed a petition for hearing held would take place before licensee has provided its analysis of the leave to intervene or who has been the issuance of any amendment. issue of no significant hazards admitted as a party may amend the A request for a hearing or a petition consideration which is presented below: petition without requesting leave of the for leave to intervene must be filed with 1. The proposed change does not involve Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. a significant increase in the probability or

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.005 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1920 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices consequences of any accident previously conservatism in the Allowable Values in the Related Definitions.’’ The change approved evaluated. RPS Surveillance Requirement to ensure that per this TSTF is not expected to adversely The proposed Technical Specification (TS) the equipment used to meet the Limiting affect the performance and effectiveness of change revises the Reactor Protection System Condition for Operation (i.e., each of the two required testing as testing appropriate to the (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring Assembly electric power monitoring assemblies) can associated Surveillance Requirements will overvoltage and undervoltage Allowable continue to perform its required functions. At continue to be performed. The proposed Values. The new Allowable Values and the same time, the revised setpoint/ change does not have a detrimental impact setpoints will continue to provide adequate Allowable Values continue to provide on the condition or performance of any plant margin to the normal operating voltage range adequate margin to the expected operating structure, system, or component that initiates for the RPS and MSIV [main steam isolation voltage range to prevent inadvertent or valve] solenoids, thus minimizing the unnecessary tripping of the electric power an analyzed event. Consequently, the potential for inadvertent trips. The proposed monitoring assemblies (thus preventing probability of an accident previously change does not have a detrimental impact unnecessary or excessive transfer to the evaluated is not significantly increased. The on the condition or performance of any plant alternate power source). The affected equipment being tested is still required to be structure, system, or component that may equipment will thus continue to be tested operable and capable of performing the initiate an analyzed event. The proposed (calibrated and functionally tested) in a accident mitigation functions assumed in the change does not physically impact the plant manner that gives confidence that the accident analysis. As a result, the nor does it impact any design or functional equipment can perform its assumed safety consequences of any accident previously requirements of the associated system. That function. Therefore, this change does not evaluated are not significantly affected. is, the proposed change does not degrade the involve a significant reduction in a margin of Therefore, this change does not involve a performance or increase the challenges of any safety. significant increase in the probability or safety systems assumed to function in the The NRC staff has reviewed the consequences of any accident previously accident analysis. Further, the proposed licensee’s analysis and, based on this evaluated. change does not impact the Surveillance review, it appears that the three 2. The proposed change would not create Requirements themselves nor the way in standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are which the Surveillances are performed. the possibility of a new or different kind of Consequently, the probability of an accident satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident from any accident previously previously evaluated is not significantly proposes to determine that the evaluated. increased. amendment request involves no The scope of the proposed change is Additionally, the proposed change does significant hazards consideration. limited to the clarification of existing test not effect the affect the availability of Attorney for licensee: Kevin P. Gallen, requirements. As such, the proposed change equipment or systems required for mitigating Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M does not involve a physical alteration of the the consequences of an accident. The Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. plant (no new or different type of equipment revision of the overvoltage and undervoltage NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. will be installed) or a change in the methods setpoints will ensure that the associated trip Mendiola. governing normal plant operation. Thus, this functions continue to protect the RPS scram change does not create the possibility of a solenoids and main steam isolation valve AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket new or different kind of accident from any (MSIV) solenoids so that these devices will No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit accident previously evaluated. perform their intended safety function. Thus, 1, DeWitt County, Illinois 3. The proposed change will not involve a the affected equipment is still required to be significant reduction in the margin of safety. maintained Operable and capable of Date of amendment request: October As noted above, the proposed change performing the accident mitigation functions 25, 1999. clarifies requirements for the performance of assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, Description of amendment request: channel calibrations, channel functional the consequences of any accident previously The proposed amendment would revise tests, and logic system functional tests. evaluated are not significantly affected. the Technical Specification definitions Therefore, based on the above, this change Specifically, the proposed change for channel calibrations, channel incorporates the NRC-approved Technical does not involve a significant increase in the functional tests, and logic system probability or consequences of any accident Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard previously evaluated. functional tests in accordance with Technical Specification Change Traveler, 2. The proposed change would not create Technical Specification Task Force TSTF–205, Revision 3, ‘‘Revision of Channel the possibility of a new or different kind of (TSTF) Standard Technical Calibration, Channel Functional Test, and accident from any accident previously Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– Related Definitions.’’ No changes or setpoints evaluated. 205, Revision 3, ‘‘Revision of Channel to plant process limits are involved. The The proposed TS change revises the Calibration, Channel Functional Test, surveillance requirements as revised will Reactor Protection System (RPS) Electric and Related Definitions.’’ continue to ensure that affected equipment is Power Monitoring Assembly overvoltage and Basis for proposed no significant tested in a manner that gives confidence that undervoltage Allowable Values. The hazards consideration determination: the equipment can perform its appropriate proposed change does not involve a physical As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety function. Therefore, this change does alteration of the plant (no new or different not involve a significant reduction in a type of equipment will be installed) or a licensee has provided its analysis of the margin of safety. change in the methods governing normal issue of no significant hazards plant operation. The revised setpoints will consideration which is presented below: The NRC staff has reviewed the continue to ensure that the RPS bus would 1. The proposed change does not involve licensee’s analysis and, based on this be disconnected from its power supply under a significant increase in the probability or specified conditions that could damage the review, it appears that the three consequences of any accident previously RPS bus powered equipment. Thus, this standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evaluated. change does not create the possibility of a satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The proposed change clarifies the new or different kind of accident from any proposes to determine that the Technical Specification requirements for accident previously evaluated. performance of channel calibrations, channel amendment request involves no 3. The proposed change will not involve a functional test, and logic system functional significant hazards consideration. significant reduction in the margin of safety. tests. Specifically, the proposed change Attorney for licensee: Kevin P. Gallen, The proposed TS change revises the incorporates the NRC-approved Technical Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M Reactor Protection System (RPS) Electric Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Power Monitoring Assembly overvoltage and Technical Specification Change Traveler, undervoltage Allowable Values. The TSTF–205, Revision 3, ‘‘Revision of Channel NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. proposed change provides necessary Calibration, Channel Functional Test, and Mendiola.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.006 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1921

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket different type than those previously Basis for proposed no significant No. 50–461, Clinton Power Station, Unit evaluated since there are no physical changes hazards consideration determination: 1, DeWitt County, Illinois being made to the facility. In addition, the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the surveillance test requirements themselves, licensee has provided its analysis of the Date of amendment request: and the way surveillance tests are performed, December 16, 1999. will remain unchanged. Therefore, the issue of no significant hazards Description of amendment request: proposed TS changes do not create the consideration, which is presented The proposed amendment would allow possibility of a new or different kind of below: a one-time extension of some Technical accident from any previously evaluated. An evaluation of the proposed change has Specification surveillance intervals to 3. The proposed changes do not involve a been performed in accordance with support elimination of a planned spring significant reduction in a margin of safety. 10CFR50.91(a)(1) regarding no significant The one-time extended surveillance hazards considerations using the standards in 2000 mid-cycle outage (PO–8). For the frequencies do not result in a significant applicable surveillances, the licensee 10CFR50.92(c). A discussion of these reduction in the margin of safety. Although standards as they relate to this amendment proposes to extend their current the proposed TS changes will result in an request follows: surveillance intervals to November 30, increase in the interval between surveillance 2000, the scheduled startup date from tests, the impact, if any, on system Criterion 1—Does Not Involve a Significant refueling outage 7 (RF–7). availability is small. This is because, as noted Increase in the Probability or Consequences Basis for proposed no significant previously, extension of the test intervals to of an Accident Previously Evaluated hazards consideration determination: the limited extent proposed would not be The proposed change to lower the current As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the expected to have a significant impact on technical specification (TS) gas storage tank licensee has provided its analysis of the availability. Other or more frequent testing activity limits does not require new hardware performed for the affected systems or issue of no significant hazards or physical equipment modifications to the components, as well as the testing performed plant design. By lowering the setpoint, the consideration which is presented below: for redundant systems or components, resultant exposure at the exclusion area 1. The proposed changes do not involve a supports continued availability of the boundary upon an inadvertent release of a significant increase in the probability or affected functions. gas storage tank’s content will be limited to consequences of any accident previously In addition, the proposed changes do not 0.5 rem. Therefore the consequences of such evaluated. involve any physical changes to the affected an uncontrolled release of activity are The proposed Technical Specification (TS) systems or components, nor do they involve effectively reduced. Additionally, no new changes involve a one-time only change in any changes to setpoints, operating limits, or accident is introduced by the proposed the surveillance test intervals of selected safety limits. reduction in activity limits associated with Surveillance Requirements (SRs). The Based on the above, the assumptions in the the gas storage tanks. proposed TS changes do not impact the TS licensing basis are not impacted, and the Therefore, reducing the gas storage tank surveillance performance requirements proposed TS changes do not significantly limits from 300,000 Curies (Ci) to 78,782 Ci themselves nor the way in which the reduce a margin of safety. and 82,400 Ci (ANO–1 and ANO–2, surveillances are performed. The proposed The NRC staff has reviewed the respectively) does not involve a significant TS changes do not physically involve any licensee’s analysis and, based on this increase in the probability or consequences changes to the plant, nor do they impact any of any accident previously evaluated. design or functional requirements of the review, it appears that the three associated systems. Thus, the proposed TS standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Criterion 2—Does Not Create the Possibility changes do not increase the challenges of any satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff of a New or Different Kind of Accident From safety systems assumed to function in the proposes to determine that the any Previously Evaluated accident analysis. amendment request involves no The proposed change affects the In addition, the proposed TS changes do significant hazards consideration. consequences of an event associated with the not significantly affect the availability of Attorney for licensee: Kevin P. Gallen, loss of gas storage tank radioactive contents equipment or systems required to mitigate Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M on either ANO–1 or ANO–2. Since this event the consequences of an accident because (1) has been previously evaluated, no new or extension of the test intervals to the extent Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. different accident can be associated with the requested is not expected to have a proposed change. Decreasing the present TS significant impact on availability (i.e., no Mendiola. activity limits results in an exposure at the extended test interval would exceed 30 Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. exclusion area boundary to be limited to 0.5 months), and (2) other or more frequent 50–313 and 50–368, Arkansas Nuclear rem in the event of an inadvertent release of testing performed for the affected systems or One, Units 1 and 2 (ANO–1&2), Pope a gas storage tank’s content. components, as well as for redundant Therefore, this change does not create the systems or components, supports continued County, Arkansas possibility of a new or different kind of availability of the affected function. The Date of amendment request: accident from any previously evaluated. equipment subject to testing per the affected September 17, 1999. SRs is still required to be operable and Criterion 3—Does Not Involve a Significant Description of amendment request: Reduction in the Margin of Safety capable of performing any accident The proposed change to the Arkansas mitigation functions assumed in the accident The proposed change conservatively analysis. Furthermore, a historical review of Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 (ANO–1 and lowers the existing TS GRW [Gaseous surveillance test results identified no failures ANO–2), Technical Specifications Radwaste] System gas storage tank activity that would invalidate these conclusions. would lower the maximum limit for limits from 300,000 Ci to 78,782 Ci and Based on the above, the proposed TS contents of the gaseous radioactive 82,400 Ci (ANO–1 and ANO–2 respectively). changes do not significantly increase the system from 300,000 curies (Ci) to In doing so, the resultant exposure to a probability or consequences of an accident 78,782 Ci and 82,400 Ci for ANO–1 and member of the public at the exclusion area previously evaluated. ANO–2, respectively. This limit would boundary during an inadvertent release of gas 2. The proposed changes do not create the ensure that, upon an uncontrolled storage tank contents over a two-hour period possibility of a new or different kind of release of the tank’s contents over a 2- is reduced to 0.5 rem or less. The proposed accident from any accident previously change, therefore, retains the margin of safety evaluated. hour period, the resulting total whole for both ANO–1 and ANO–2. The proposed TS changes involve a one- body exposure to a member of the Therefore, this change does not involve a time only change in the surveillance testing public at the nearest exclusion area significant reduction in the margin of safety. intervals of selected SRs. Such changes do boundary would not exceed 0.5 Therefore, based on the reasoning not introduce any failure mechanisms of a roentgen equivalent man (rem). presented above and the previous discussion

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.007 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices of the amendment request, Entergy by 4. The revised FHA analyses also specific activities represent situations where Operations, Inc. has determined that the credit this action at a 20 minute delay significant radioactive releases can be requested change does not involve a to be consistent with the Loss of Coolant postulated. These operational conditions significant hazards consideration. include: Accident (LOCA) analysis. • The NRC staff has reviewed the Initial fuel movement in the Fuel Furthermore, an error was discovered Building 24 hours after shutdown, licensee’s analysis and, based on this in one of the FHA calculations. The • Fuel movement in Primary Containment review, it appears that the three release rate assumed in the analysis did after 80 hours with leakrate testing being standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not ensure that the RG 1.25 assumption conducted, and satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff of a 2-hour release was preserved. The • Fuel movement in Primary Containment proposes to determine that the error is the result of an inherent bias in with the Primary Containment open. amendment request involves no the secondary mixing effects in the dose Because the analyses affected by the significant hazards consideration. calculation. The results continue to be changes are not considered an initiator to any Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. previously analyzed accident, these changes bounded by the guidance contained in cannot increase the probability of any Reynolds, Esquire, Winston & Strawn, SRP 15.7.4 and RG 1.25. 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC previously evaluated accident. Therefore, Reanalysis showed that the release this change does not increase the probability 20005–3502. rate error, compounded with the other of occurrence of an accident evaluated NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. changes discussed above, resulted in previously in the safety analysis report Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy calculated doses greater than those (SAR). Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, currently found in the RBS USAR. In This proposed change to the USAR does River Bend Station, Unit 1, West addition, some of the doses were also increase the consequences of an accident, but the increase is within all regulatory limits Feliciana Parish, Louisiana greater than those presented in the and guidance. While the calculated off-site Date of amendment request: Amendment 85 submittal. However, the and control room doses of a FHA did December 16, 1999. licensee has stated that the results of the increase, the dose consequences remain Description of amendment request: revised analyses remain ‘‘well within’’ below the regulatory limits of 10 CFR 100 The proposed license amendment 10 CFR 100, the guidance contained in and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC [General request would revise Fuel Handling SRP 15.7.4, and RG 1.25. Since the Design Criterion]-19 as approved per analyses results are above those NUREG–0989, and the guidance contained in Accident (FHA) dose calculations for 3 SRP 15.7.4 of less than 25% of the 10 CFR scenarios documented in the River Bend reported in the RBS USAR, the criterion of 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2)(i) is, therefore, 100 limits. The cause of these events remains Station, Unit 1 (RBS), Updated Safety the failure of the fuel assembly lifting Analysis Report (USAR). The first is a satisfied. Accordingly, the licensee has mechanism. These analyses demonstrated FHA in the fuel building, assumed to concluded that these changes involve an that for the worst case bundle drop, the occur 24 hours post-shutdown. A unreviewed safety question. regulatory dose guidelines of SRP 15.7.4 second FHA analysis was prepared to Basis for proposed no significant continue to be satisfied for the required support Amendment 35 to RBS hazards consideration determination: decay periods. Technical Specifications (TS) which As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the This change accounts for the potential licensee has provided its analysis of the effects of current fuel design and operating assumed a FHA occurs in the primary strategies including increased burnup of fuel, containment 80 hours post-shutdown issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented increased iodine-131 fraction released, Main during Local Leakage Rate Testing Control Room ventilation system operation, (LLRT). A third analysis was prepared below: and release rate timing assumptions. in support of Amendment 85 to the RBS 1. The proposed changes do not Reanalysis of the off-site dose calculation TS which assumed the containment is significantly increase the probability or demonstrates that the revised doses are open at 11 days. consequences of an accident previously increased but remain less than the regulatory These analyses are being updated to evaluated. limits of 10 CFR 100 and within the guidance account for several changes. The The analyses changes described by this of SRP 15.7.4. Therefore, this change does primary reason for the revisions, as proposed change to the USAR are not not significantly increase the consequences initiators to events, and, therefore, do not of an accident previously evaluated in the stated by the licensee, was to update the involve the probability of an accident. The SAR. analyses to reflect current RBS operating changes to the FHA calculations for The proposed changes, in conjunction with strategies and make the analyses radiological doses following a FHA reflect existing administrative controls, bound the consistent with each other. Specifically, the current operating strategies and make the conditions of the current design basis fuel Cases 1 and 2 of the three analyses analyses consistent. These changes included: handling accident analysis. The analysis also assumed a Radial Peaking Factor (RPF) • Accounting for the impact of extended concludes the limiting offsite radiological of 1.5 consistent with Regulatory Guide burnup fuel, consequences are well within the acceptance • (RG) 1.25. However, current core design Addressing a change to the control room criteria of NUREG[–]0800, Section 15.7.4 and strategies could lead to an RPF as high atmospheric dispersion factors assumed in 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC[–]19. The the analysis, and analysis is also conducted in a conservative as 1.65. In addition, to account for the • Revising the Radial Peaking Factor (RPF) manner containing margins in the calculation potential impact of extended burnup used in the analysis. Current core design of mechanical analysis, iodine inventory, and fuel in future operating cycles, an strategies could lead to a RPF higher [than] iodine decontamination factor. Each of these increased iodine-131 gap fraction of that assumed in Regulatory Guide 1.25. conservatisms will further decrease the 0.12 was more conservatively assumed The TRANSACT code is used for offsite consequences. Therefore, the proposed in lieu of the 0.10 recommended by RG dose and control room dose calculations. The changes do not significantly increase the 1.25. The revised analysis also includes TRANSACT code is derived from the TACT probability or consequences of any a change to the control room V code documented in previously evaluated accident. atmospheric dispersion factors (Χ/Q) for NUREG/CR–5109. RBS has benchmarked 2. The proposed changes would not create the TRANSACT code as discussed in the the possibility of a new or different kind of the Main Control Room (MCR) request dated August 17, 1995, (RBG–41728) accident from any previous[ly] analyzed. ventilation system. Credit is taken for which resulted in the NRC granting This change does not involve initiators to Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 6.4 Amendment 85. any events in the SAR, nor does the activity guidance for manual dual control room The revisions to the FHA are used to create the possibility for any new accidents. air intakes in that the Χ/Q’s are divided establish operational conditions where Rather, this change is a result of the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.008 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1923 evaluation of the most limiting FHA, which openings in containment, in addition to the Materials (ASTM) D3803–1989 protocol. can occur at River Bend. requirements contained in the license and The affected TS are Units 1 and 2 shield The proposed changes to the dose analyses design basis. This additional protection will building ventilation system, TS 4.6.6.1; are consistent with previous limits, only enhance the ability to limit offsite effects. revising previous evaluations to account for Acceptance limits for the fuel handling Unit 1 emergency core cooling system current operating strategies and assumptions. accident are provided in 10 CFR 100 with area ventilation system, TS 4.7.8.1; Unit These changes included: additional guidance provided in NUREG[–] 1 control room emergency ventilation • Accounting for the impact of extended 0800, Section 15.7.4. The proposed system, TS 4.7.7.1; Unit 2 control room burnup fuel, changes continue to ensure that the emergency air cleanup system, TS 4.7.7; • addressing a change to the control room whole-body and thyroid doses at the and Unit 1 fuel pool ventilation atmospheric dispersion factors assumed in exclusion area and low population zone system—fuel storage, TS 4.9.12. the analysis, and • Revising the Radial Peaking Factor (RPF) boundaries, as well as control room Basis for proposed no significant used in the analysis. Current core design doses, are below the corresponding hazards consideration determination: strategies could lead to a RPF higher [than] regulatory limits. These margins are As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the that assumed in Regulatory Guide 1.25. unchanged, therefore, the proposed licensee has provided its analysis of the The radiological consequences remain changes do not involve a significant issue of no significant hazards within accepted limits of 10 CFR 100 and reduction in a margin of safety. consideration, which is presented guidance of the Standard Review Plan The commission has provided guidance below: (NUREG–0800) Section 15.7.4. Therefore, concerning the application of the standards these changes are consistent with the design of 10 CFR 50.92 by providing certain 1. Operation of the facility in accordance basis analysis. The proposed changes do not examples (51 FR 7751, March 6, 1986) of with the proposed amendment would not introduce any new modes of plant operation amendments that are not considered likely to involve a significant increase in the and do not involve physical modifications to involve a significant hazards consideration. probability or consequences of an accident the plant. Therefore, the proposed changes This proposed amendment is very similar to previously evaluated. do not create the possibility of a new or example (vi): The proposed amendment does not involve different kind of accident from any (vi) A change which either may result in a significant increase in the probability or previous[ly] analyzed. some increase to the probability or 3. The proposed changes do not involve a consequences of any accident previously consequences of a previously-analyzed evaluated. The new charcoal testing protocol significant reduction in a margin of safety. accident or may reduce in some way a safety The dose consequences are calculated in is performed offsite on samples extracted margin, but where the results of the change from the safety-related ventilation systems. accordance with regulatory guidance found are clearly within all acceptable criteria with Therefore, there is no impact on any accident in Regulatory Guide 1.25 and the SRP respect to the system or component specified initiator and therefore, no changes on the [S]ection 15.7.4. The RBS analyses in the Standard Review Plan: for example, a conservatively assumed that failures are change resulting from the application of a probability. The proposed testing protocol is consistent with those in the standard General small refinement of a previously used more conservative than previous tests; Electric GESTAR II. These analyses result in calculational model or design method. therefore, the efficiency of charcoal for the a bounding number of fuel failures. The RBS As we have shown in the preceding affected safety-related systems would not be analyses are also consistent with those discussion, this refinement to the FHA dose overestimated. With the new testing protocol, approved by the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory calculation results in a small increase to the more conservative testing results are Commission] in support of Technical consequences of a previously analyzed expected since the temperature at which Specification Amendments 35 and 85 to the accident, but the results of the change remain testing is performed is lower and the charcoal River Bend Station license (NPF–47). The clearly within the guidelines of 10 CFR 100, retention capability is more consistent with radiological dose consequences resulting Appendix A, GDC[–]19, and the guidance of actual accident conditions. The proposed from these failures are therefore analyzed using accepted methods and criteria. In SRP [S]ection 15.7.4, without reducing a change thus ensures that the charcoal in addition, the analyses contain known margin of safety. service will comply with the penetration conservatisms and margins to ensure the The NRC staff has reviewed the requirements to meet the design basis results will remain bounding. licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident conditions. The revised limits are used to establish review, it appears that the three Therefore, operation of the facility in operational conditions where specific standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the activities represent situations where satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant radioactive releases can be probability or consequences of an accident postulated. These operational conditions are proposes to determine that the previously evaluated. consistent with the design basis analysis and amendment request involves no 2. Operation of the facility in accordance are established such that the radiological significant hazards consideration. with the proposed amendment would not consequences are at or below the current Attorney for licensee: Mark create the possibility of a new or different regulatory limits and guidance. Safety Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, kind of accident from any accident margins and analytical conservatisms have 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC previously evaluated. been evaluated and are well understood. 20005. The proposed amendment will not create Conservative methods of analysis are NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm. the possibility of a new or different kind of maintained through the use of accepted Florida Power and Light Company, et accident from any accident previously methodology and benchmarking the evaluated. The proposed new charcoal proposed methods to previous analysis. al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. testing protocol only affects surveillance Margins are retained to ensure that the Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie testing requirements for ventilation systems. analysis adequately bounds all postulated County, Florida The functions of these systems remain event scenarios. The proposed change only eliminates some excess conservatism from Date of amendment request: unchanged and unaffected. No new system interactions have been introduced by the the analysis. November 17, 1999 (L–99–241) In addition, EOI [Entergy Operations, Inc.] Description of amendment request: proposed amendment, which would create a new or different type of accident than has implemented NUMARC [Nuclear The proposed amendment would revise Management and Resources Council (now previously analyzed. No physical changes are the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 being made to any structure, system or NEI)] 91–06 guidelines for shutdown Technical Specifications (TS) to require operations at RBS. Shutdown Operations component. The operation of the facility has Protection Plan and Primary-Secondary laboratory testing of activated charcoal not been altered by the proposed Containment Integrity procedures presently samples for applicable engineered safety amendment. The systems involved are not include guidance for closure of the feature ventilation systems using the considered to initiate any accidents as containment hatch and other significant American Society for Testing and previously evaluated.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

The proposed amendment will not change (EPA), Pennsylvania Department of accident analysis, the TS change request the physical plant or the modes of operation Environmental Protection (PADEP), and would also revise the allowable defined in the facility license. The changes other regulatory agencies with program penetration values to correspond to a do not involve the addition of new equipment or the modification of existing jurisdiction for reporting are included in safety factor of 2. equipment, nor do they alter the design of St. plant procedures and data base tracking Basis for proposed no significant Lucie plant systems. Therefore, operation of systems. Sections 6.8.1.4 and 6.5.4.6 are hazards consideration determination: the facility in accordance with the proposed changes to the amendment that are As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the amendment would not create the possibility administrative in nature and reflect a licensee has provided its analysis of the of a new or different kind of accident from streamlining of the GPU Nuclear, Inc. issue of no significant hazards any accident previously evaluated. management structure. consideration, which is presented below 3. Operation of the facility in accordance Basis for proposed no significant for the administrative changes: with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of hazards consideration determination: 1. The proposed amendment will not safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the involve a significant increase in the licensee has provided its analyses of the probability or consequences of an accident The proposed amendment does not involve previously evaluated. a reduction in the margin of safety. The issue of no significant hazards The ESF [engineered safety feature] margin of safety of the Technical consideration, which is presented ventilation systems are not initiators of any Specifications, its bases, the Final Safety below: Analysis Report, the Safety Evaluation Report accident previously evaluated and the change 1. The proposed changes to the TMI–2 in testing protocol to ASTM D3803–1989 as or in any other design document has not been [Three Mile Island, Unit 2] Technical affected by the proposed amendment. The requested by the NRC will be more accurate Specifications do not involve a significant and realistic and provide greater assurance of change provided in this proposed increase in the probability of occurrence or amendment is related to introducing an consistency. The acceptance criteria will be consequences of an accident or malfunction more conservative than those currently used improved testing protocol for the activated of equipment important to safety previously charcoal in safety related ventilation systems. in TS 5.5.7.c. analyzed in the safety analysis report. The 2. The proposed amendment will not The change consists of testing the charcoal changes have no impact on plant operations with a new testing protocol and with lower create the possibility of a new or different or the release of radioactive materials. kind of accident from any accident test temperatures to resemble more closely 2. The proposed changes to the TMI–2 accident conditions and to eliminate previously evaluated. Technical Specifications will not create the No new types of accidents are being potential overestimation of charcoal possibility for an accident or malfunction of efficiency. introduced because no modifications or a different type than any previously changes in operations are being proposed for Therefore, operation of the facility in evaluated in the safety analysis report accordance with the proposed amendment the ESF [engineered safety feature] because no plant configuration or operational ventilation systems. The proposed changes to would not involve a significant reduction in changes are involved. a margin of safety. TS 5.5.7.c impact acceptance criteria and test 3. The changes will not involve a protocols only. The NRC staff has reviewed the significant reduction in the margin of safety 3. The proposed amendment will not licensee’s analysis and, based on this as defined in the basis for any technical involve a significant reduction in a margin of review, it appears that the three specification for TMI–2 because no change to safety. standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. operational limits will be made. The margin of safety is not reduced. The Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed change in ESF ventilation testing determine that the amendment request licensee’s analysis and, based on this protocol includes a safety factor of two (2) for involves no significant hazards review, it appears that the three the penetration limit in excess of that consideration. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are assumed in the dose calculations of the Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff DAEC [Duane Arnold Energy Center] accident analysis. Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. proposes to determine that the Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408– amendment request involves no The NRC staff has reviewed the 0420 significant hazards consideration. licensee’s analysis and, based on this NRC Section Chief: Richard P. Correia Attorney for Licensee: Ernest L. Blake, review, it appears that the three Jr Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are GPU Nuclear, Inc., et al., Three Mile Trowbridge, 2300 N. Street, N.W., satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI–2), Washington, DC 20037. proposes to determine that the Docket No. 50–320, Dauphin County, NRC Section Chief: Mike Masnik. amendment request involves no Pennsylvania IES Utilities Inc., Docket No. 50–331, significant hazards consideration. Date of amendment request: Attorney for licensee: Al Gutterman, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn November 5, 1999. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M County, Iowa Description of amendment request: Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036– The proposed amendment would revise Date of amendment request: 5869. Technical Specifications (TSs) Sections November 10, 1999. NRC Section Chief: Claudia M. Craig. 6.8.1.4, 6.5.4.6, 6.13, 6.14, and 6.8.3. Description of amendment request: Specifically, Sections 6.13, 6.14 and The proposed amendment would revise IES Utilities Inc., Docket No. 50–331, 6.8.3 would be revised to eliminate the Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7.c, to Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn requirement to notify the Nuclear commit to the American Society for County, Iowa Regulatory Commission (NRC) of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803– Date of amendment request: exceeding environmental limits and 1989 test protocol for the ventilation November 22, 1999. changes to environmental permits such filter testing program. The proposed Description of amendment request: as National Pollution Discharge changes are consistent with Attachment The proposed amendment would adopt Elimination System (NPDES). The 2, Sample Technical Specifications, in selected NRC-approved generic changes requirements contained in the Generic Letter 99–02. Because the to the Improved Technical individual environmental permits and current TS penetration limits do not Specifications (ITS) NUREGs. The 16 program regulations administered by the reflect a safety factor in excess of that changes come from the Technical U.S. Environment Protection Agency assumed in the dose calculations of the Specification Task Force (TSTF) process

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.011 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1925 developed by the industry and the NRC. 2. Does the change create the possibility of The proposed change will not reduce a Three of these changes are Bases-only a new or different kind of accident from any margin of safety because it has no effect on changes but are included for accident previously evaluated? any safety analyses assumptions. In addition, completeness relative to the TSTF The proposed change does not involve a the details to be moved from the Technical physical alteration of the plant (no new or Specifications to other documents are the process. different type of equipment will be installed) same as the existing Technical Basis for proposed no significant or changes in methods governing normal Specifications. Since any future changes to hazards consideration determination: plant operation. The proposed change does these details will be evaluated, no significant As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the impose different requirements. However, reduction in a margin of safety will be licensee has provided its analysis of the these changes are consistent with the allowed. A significant reduction in the issue of no significant hazards assumptions in the safety analyses and margin of safety is not associated with the licensing basis. Thus, this change does not elimination of the 10 CFR 50.92 requirement consideration, which is presented below create the possibility of a new or different for NRC review and approval of future for the administrative changes: kind of accident from any accident changes to the relocated details. The 1. Does the change involve a significant previously evaluated. proposed change is consistent with the BWR increase in the probability or consequences 3. Does this change involve a significant [Boiling Water Reactor]/4 Standard Technical of an accident previously evaluated? reduction in a margin of safety? Specifications, NUREG–1433, issued by the The proposed change involves The imposition of more restrictive NRC Staff, revising the Technical reformatting, renumbering, and rewording requirements either has no effect on or Specifications to reflect the approved level of the existing Technical Specifications. The increases the margin of plant safety. As detail, which indicates that there is no reformatting, renumbering, and rewording provided in the justification, each change in significant reduction in the margin of safety. process involves no technical changes to the this category is, by definition, providing As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the additional restrictions to enhance plant existing Technical Specifications. As such, licensee has provided its analysis of the this change is administrative in nature and safety. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses and licensing issue of no significant hazards does not affect initiators of analyzed events consideration, which is presented below or assumed mitigation of accident or basis. Therefore, the change does not involve transient events. Therefore, this change does a significant reduction in a margin of safety. for less restrictive changes—category 3, not involve a significant increase in the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the relaxation of completion time: probability or consequences of an accident licensee has provided its analysis of the 1. Does the change involve a significant previously evaluated. issue of no significant hazards increase in the probability or consequences 2. Does the change create the possibility of consideration, which is presented below of an accident previously evaluated? a new or different kind of accident from any for less restrictive changes—removed The proposed change relaxes the accident previously evaluated? Completion Time for a Required Action. The proposed change does not involve a detail: Required Actions and their associated physical alteration of the plant (no new or 1. Does the change involve a significant Completion Times are not initiating different type of equipment will be installed) increase in the probability or consequences conditions for any accident previously or changes in methods governing normal of an accident previously evaluated? evaluated and the accident analyses do not plant operation. The proposed change will The proposed change relocates certain assume that required equipment is out of not impose any new or eliminate any old details from the Technical Specifications to service prior to the analyzed event. requirements. Thus, this change does not other documents under regulatory control. Consequently, the relaxed Completion Time create the possibility of a new or different The Bases, UFSAR [updated final safety does not significantly increase the probability kind of accident from any accident analysis report], and Technical Requirements of any accident previously evaluated. The previously evaluated. Manual will be maintained in accordance consequences of an analyzed accident during 3. Does this change involve a significant with 10 CFR 50.59. In addition to 10 CFR the relaxed Completion Time are the same as reduction in a margin of safety? 50.59 provisions, the Technical Specification the consequences during the existing The proposed change will not reduce a Bases are subject to the change control Completion Time. As a result, the margin of safety because it has no effect on provisions in the Administrative Controls consequences of any accident previously any safety analyses assumptions. This change Chapter of the Technical Specification. The evaluated are not significantly increased. is administrative in nature. Therefore, the UFSAR is subject to the change control Therefore, this change does not involve a change does not involve a significant provisions of 10 CFR 50.71(e). Other significant increase in the probability or reduction in a margin of safety. documents are subject to controls imposed by consequences of an accident previously Technical Specifications or regulations. evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Since any changes to these documents will 2. Does the change create the possibility of licensee has provided its analysis of the be evaluated, no significant increase in the a new or different kind of accident from any issue of no significant hazards probability or consequences of an accident accident previously evaluated? consideration, which is presented below previously evaluated will be allowed. The proposed change does not involve a for more restrictive changes: Therefore, this change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or significant increase in the probability or different type of equipment will be installed) 1. Does the change involve a significant consequences of an accident previously or a change in the methods governing normal increase in the probability or consequences evaluated. plant operation. The Required Actions and of an accident previously evaluated? 2. Does the change create the possibility of associated Completion Times have been The proposed change provides more a new or different kind of accident from any evaluated to ensure that no new accident stringent requirements for operation of the accident previously evaluated? initiators are introduced. Thus, this change facility. These more stringent requirements The proposed change does not involve a does not create the possibility of a new or do not result in operation that will increase physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind of accident from any accident the probability of initiating an analyzed event different type of equipment will be installed) previously evaluated. and do not alter assumptions relative to or a change in the methods governing normal 3. Does this change involve a significant mitigation of an accident or transient event. plant operation. The proposed change will reduction in a margin of safety? The more restrictive requirements continue not impose or eliminate any requirements The relaxed Completion Time for a to ensure process variables, structures, and adequate control of the information will Required Action does not involve a systems, and components are maintained be maintained. Thus, this change does not significant reduction in the margin of safety. consistent with the safety analyses and create the possibility of a new or different As provided in the justification, the change licensing basis. Therefore, this change does kind of accident from any accident has been evaluated to ensure that the allowed not involve a significant increase in the previously evaluated. Completion Time is consistent with the safe probability or consequences of an accident 3. Does this change involve a significant operation under the specified Condition, previously evaluated. reduction in a margin of safety? considering the operability status of the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.012 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices redundant systems of required features, the issue of no significant hazards letters dated January 22, February 5, capacity and capability of remaining features, consideration, which is presented below March 17, and November 24, 1999. The a reasonable time for repairs or replacement for less restrictive changes—category 6, September 3, 1998, amendment of required features, and the low probability of a DBA [design basis accident] occurring relaxation of surveillance requirement application was previously noticed in during the repair period. Therefore, this acceptance criteria: the Federal Register on December 16, change does not involve a significant 1. Does the change involve a significant 1998 (63 FR 69345). reduction in a margin of safety. increase in the probability or consequences Description of amendment requests: The amendment would revise Section As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the of an accident previously evaluated? 5.6.6, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System (RCS) licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed change relaxes the acceptance criteria of Surveillance PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE issue of no significant hazards Requirements. Surveillances are not initiators LIMITS REPORT (PTLR),’’ of the consideration, which is presented below to any accident previously evaluated. improved Technical Specifications for less restrictive changes—category 4, Consequently, the probability of an accident (TSs), that were issued in Amendment relaxation of required action. previously evaluated is not significantly Nos. 135 and 135 on May 28, 1999. The 1. Does the change involve a significant increased. The equipment being tested is still required to be Operable and capable of amendment would add the phrase ‘‘and increase in the probability or consequences LTOP’’ (low-temperature overpressure of an accident previously evaluated? performing the accident mitigation functions The proposed change relaxes Required assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, protection) to the first sentence of item Actions. Required Actions and their the consequences of any accident previously 5.6.6.b that identifies the limits that can associated Completion Times are not evaluated are not significantly affected. be determined by the licensee in the initiating conditions for any accident Therefore, this change does not involve a PTLR, and (2) replace the current list of previously evaluated and the accident significant increase in the probability or documents listed in item 5.6.6.b by the analyses do not assume that required consequences of an accident previously evaluated. NRC letter that would approve this equipment is out of service prior to the amendment and Westinghouse WCAP– analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed 2. Does the change create the possibility of Required Actions do not significantly a new or different kind of accident from any 14040–NP–A, ‘‘Methodology Used to increase the probability of any accident accident previously evaluated? Develop Cold Overpressure Mitigation previously evaluated. The Required Actions The proposed change does not involve a System Setpoints and RCS Heatup and in the change have been developed to physical alteration of the plant (no new or Cooldown Limit Curves,’’ dated January provide assurance that appropriate remedial different type of equipment will be installed) 1996. WCAP–14040–NP–A is the NRC- actions are taken in response to the degraded or a change in the methods governing normal approved topical report which provides condition, considering the operability status plant operation. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different a methodology for developing the LTOP of the redundant systems of required setpoints and RCS heatup and cooldown features, and the capacity and capability of kind of accident from any accident remaining features while minimizing the risk previously evaluated. limit curves for Westinghouse plants, associated with continued operation. As a 3. Does this change involve a significant such as Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power result, the consequences of any accident reduction in a margin of safety? Plant, Units 1 and 2. previously evaluated are not significantly The relaxed acceptance criteria for Basis for proposed no significant increased. Therefore, this change does not Surveillance Requirements do not result in a hazards consideration determination: involve a significant increase in the significant reduction in the margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the probability or consequences of an accident As provided in the justification, the relaxed licensee has provided its analysis of the Surveillance Requirement acceptance criteria previously evaluated. issue of no significant hazards 2. Does the change create the possibility of have been evaluated to ensure that they are a new or different kind of accident from any sufficient to verify that the equipment used consideration, which is presented accident previously evaluated? to meet the LCO [limiting condition for below: The proposed change does not involve a operation] can perform its required functions. 1. The proposed change does not involve physical alteration of the plant (no new or Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be a significant increase in the probability or different type of equipment will be installed) tested in a manner that gives confidence that consequences of an accident previously or a change in the methods governing normal the equipment can perform its assumed evaluated. plant operation. The Required Actions and safety function. Therefore, this change does The proposed changes to Figures 3.4–2 and associated Completion Times in the change not involve a significant reduction in a 3.4–3 of Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.9.1 have been evaluated to ensure that no new margin of safety. and the associated Bases adjust the reactor accident initiators are introduced. Thus, this The NRC staff has reviewed the coolant system (RCS) heatup and cooldown change does not create the possibility of a licensee’s analysis and, based on this pressure/temperature (P/T) limits to permit new or different kind of accident from any operation through 16 effective full power accident previously evaluated. review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are years (EFPY). The 16 EFPY P/T limits are 3. Does this change involve a significant more restrictive than the current limits; this reduction in a margin of safety? satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accounts for an expected incremental The relaxed Required Actions do not proposes to determine that the increase in reactor vessel embrittlement, and involve a significant reduction in the margin amendment request involves no assures the reactors will continue to be of safety. As provided in the justification, the significant hazards consideration. operated within acceptable stresses and at change has been evaluated to minimize the Attorney for licensee: Al Gutterman, temperatures for which the reactor vessel risk of continued operation under the metal exhibits ductile properties. The P/T specified Condition, considering the Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M limits developed for 16 EFPY were operability status of the redundant systems of Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036– determined in accordance with 10 CFR 50, required features, the capacity and capability 5869. Appendix G, and maintain the same margins of remaining features, a reasonable time for NRC Section Chief: Claudia M. Craig. of safety as the current limits. The proposed repairs or replacement of required features, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, changes will not impact the probability of and the low probability of a DBA [design overpressurization or brittle fracture of the basis accident] occurring during the repair Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo vessel, and therefore will not impact the period. Therefore, this change does not Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. involve a significant reduction in a margin of 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, consequences of an accident. safety. California The present low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) pressure and enable As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Date of amendment requests: temperature setpoints were reviewed and licensee has provided its analysis of the September 3, 1998, as supplemented by found to be acceptable and conservative for

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.014 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1927 use through 16 EFPY, based on use of ASME The LTOP setpoints were reevaluated consequences of an accident previously [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] using the requirements of ASME Code Case evaluated. Code Case N–514, which provides acceptable N–514. This code case was developed to The FPP [Fire Protection Program] and FPS margins to the prevention of vessel provide the necessary margins of safety for [Fire Protection System] are not being overpressurization and brittle fracture. the prevention of reactor vessel changed. Operability requirements and Therefore, there is no change to the overpressurization and brittle fracture. The procedural controls of the FPP and FPS are consequences of accidents previously LTOP evaluation results conclude the current not being changed. The proposed changes analyzed. Since no changes are proposed in LTOP setpoints are conservative for involve only where the FPP and FPS the actual LTOP setpoints, nor any physical operation through 16 EFPY. In addition, description is located and how changes can alteration of the LTOP system, nor a change avoiding an unnecessary reduction in the be made. Consequently, the changes will not to the method by which the LTOP system LTOP, the PORV pressure setpoint prevents affect the probability or consequences of an performs its function, there would be no an increase in the likelihood of an accident occurring. change to the probability of an accident inadvertent PORV actuation Future changes to the FPP and FPS as previously evaluated. The proposed change Therefore, the proposed changes do not described in the Defueled Safety Analysis to the Bases incorporates use of ASME Code involve a significant reduction in a margin of Report would be made in accordance with 10 Case N–514, which will benefit DCPP [Diablo safety. CFR 50.59. This ensures that adequate Canyon Power Plant] by not resulting in a controls will remain in place so that the reduced RCS P/T window and reduced The NRC staff has reviewed the public health and safety will be protected. power-operated relief valve (PORV) pressure licensee’s analysis and, based on this Therefore, the proposed changes do not setpoint for LTOP. This maintains the current review, it appears that the three involve a significant increase in the level of operator flexibility during heatup standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. probability or consequences of an accident and cooldown, and prevents an increase in Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to previously evaluated. the probability of an accident associated with determine that the amendment requests 2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of an inadvertent PORV actuation. involve no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed changes do not accident from any accident previously involve a significant increase in the consideration. evaluated. probability or consequences of an accident Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. The FPP and FPS are not being changed. previously evaluated. Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Operability requirements and procedural 2. The proposed change does not create the Company, P.O. Box 7442, San controls of the FPP and FPS are not being possibility of a new or different kind of Francisco, California 94120. changed. The proposed changes involve only accident from any accident previously NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek. where the FPP and FPS description is located evaluated. and how changes can be made. The proposed changes to TS 3.4.9.1, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Consequently, the changes will not affect the ‘‘Reactor Coolant System—Pressure/ Docket No. 50–133, Humboldt Bay probability or consequences of an accident Temperature Limits,’’ do not involve any Power Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, occurring. physical alteration to any plant system or California Therefore, the proposed changes do not change the method by which any safety- create the possibility of a new or different related system performs its function. The Date of amendment request: kind of accident from any accident changes to TS 3.4.9.1 account for the effects December 1, 1999. previously evaluated. of an incremental increase in reactor vessel Description of amendment request: 3. The proposed change does not involve embrittlement and are requested in order to The proposed amendment would revise a significant reduction in a margin of safety. restrict future reactor operation to within the Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) The FPP and FPS are not being changed. Operability requirements and procedural acceptable stress levels and temperature Unit 3 Technical Specifications (TS) regimes in accordance with 10 CFR 50, controls of the FPP and FPS are not being Appendix G, requirements. These changes related to fire protection, administrative changed. The proposed changes involve only are needed to maintain the current P/T limit controls, and quality assurance audits. where the FPP and FPS description is located margins of safety as defined by 10 CFR 50, The fire protection requirements would and how changes can be made. Appendix G, and ASME XI, Appendix G, for be relocated verbatim from the TS to the Consequently, the changes will not affect the operation through 16 EFPY. The possibility HBPP Defueled Safety Analysis Report probability or consequences of an accident of a new kind of accident such as (DSAR). The administrative controls occurring. catastrophic failure of the reactor vessel is requirements would be revised to (1) Therefore, the proposed changes do not prevented by maintaining acceptable margins refer to the DSAR for a description of involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. of safety. the plant organization, (2) modify The present LTOP pressure setpoint was information pertaining to plant staff For the proposed changes to the reviewed and found to be acceptable and administrative controls requirements, conservative for the extension of the P/T titles and qualifications to reflect the curves to 16 EFPY. current organization, and (3) replace a the licensee’s analysis states: Additionally, the proposed changes will reference to the Final Hazards Summary 1. The proposed change does not involve not affect the ability of the LTOP system to Report with a reference to the DSAR. a significant increase in the probability or provide pressure relief at low temperatures, Quality assurance audit requirements consequences of an accident previously thereby maintaining the LTOP design basis. would be relocated from the TS to the evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not Quality Assurance Plan. The organization title and responsibility create the possibility of a new or different Basis for proposed no significant changes update the Technical Specification kind of accident from any accident (TS) to reflect the current organization and previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination: have no impact on the function or operability 3. The proposed change does not involve As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the of plant systems, structures, or components, a significant reduction in a margin of safety. licensee has provided its analyses of the or the ability of the plant to safely maintain The proposed changes to TS 3.4.9.1 adjust issue of no significant hazards SAFSTOR status. Consequently, the changes the RCS heatup and cooldown P/T limits to consideration, which are presented will not affect the probability or permit operation through 16 EFPY. The P/T below: consequences of an accident occurring. limits have been determined in accordance For the proposed changes to the fire Therefore, the proposed changes do not with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and include protection requirement, the licensee’s involve a significant increase in the the safety margins with regard to brittle probability or consequences of an accident fracture required by the ASME Section XI, analysis states: previously evaluated. Appendix G, which maintain the same 1. The proposed change does not involve 2. The proposed change does not create the margins of safety as the current limits. a significant increase in the probability or possibility of a new or different kind of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.016 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices accident from any accident previously analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes do to isolate the penetration such that the offsite evaluated. not involve a significant reduction in a dose consequences are not significantly The organization title and responsibility margin of safety. impacted. The lack of motive force in changes update the TS to reflect the current containment during fuel movement to expel organization and have no impact on the The NRC staff has reviewed the the radioactive material allows a more function or operability of plant systems, licensee’s analysis and, based on this flexible isolation interval. The exception for structures, or components, or the ability of review, it appears that the three the containment ventilation isolation valves the plant to safely maintain SAFSTOR status. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are is based on being exposed to a motive force Consequently, the changes will not affect the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff and the flow paths outside the auxiliary probability or consequences of an accident proposes to determine that the building secondary containment enclosure occurring. amendment requests involve no (ABSCE) is based on being exposed to an Therefore, the proposed changes do not significant hazards consideration. unfiltered atmosphere. Timely isolation of create the possibility of a new or different Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. the specified flow paths is required to ensure kind of accident from any accident that the unlikely transmission of radioactive previously evaluated. Warner, Esquire, Pacific Gas and material does not occur. Interactions that 3. The proposed change does not involve Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San may occur during the period of time before a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Francisco, California 94120. isolation will be controlled by operation of The organization title and responsibility NRC Section Chief: Michael Masnik. the ABGTS and will not significantly changes update the TS to reflect the current increase the consequences of an accident as organization and have no impact on the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket previously evaluated. Completion of function or operability of plant systems, Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah penetration isolation and operation of the structures, or components, or the ability of Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton ABGTS, as required by the administrative the plant to safely maintain SAFSTOR status. County, Tennessee controls, will maintain the offsite dose Consequently, the changes will not affect the Date of application for amendments: consequences well within the 10 CFR 100 probability or consequences of an accident limits. occurring. October 12, 1999 (TS 99–15). B. The proposed amendment does not Therefore, the proposed changes do not Brief description of amendments: The create the possibility of a new or different involve a significant reduction in a margin of proposed amendments would change kind of accident from any accident safety. the Sequoyah (SQN) Operating Licenses previously evaluated. For the proposed changes to the DPR–77 (Unit 1) and DPR–79 (Unit 2) by The proposed allowance to open quality assurance audit requirements, revising the Technical Specification penetrations in Mode 6 will not alter plant functions or equipment operating practices the licensee’s analysis states: (TS) to provide for unisolation of containment penetrations under other than penetration isolation. 1. The proposed change does not involve administrative controls. This revision Containment penetration status is not a significant increase in the probability or will add a footnote to Specification considered to be the source of an accident. consequences of an accident previously Therefore, since the plant functions and evaluated. 3.9.4.c indicating this allowance and the equipment are not altered and the isolation The proposed changes simplify the necessary Bases addition for this section status of containment penetrations do not Technical Specifications (TS), meet to clarify the use of this allowance. contribute to the initiation of postulated regulatory requirements for relocated TS, and Basis for proposed no significant accidents, the proposed revision will not implement: (1) The recommendations of hazards consideration determination: create a new or different kind of accident. NRC’s letter dated October 25, 1993, from As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the C. The proposed amendment does not William T. Russell to the chairpersons of the licensee has provided its analysis of the involve a significant reduction in a margin of industry owners groups; (2) the issue of no significant hazards safety. Commission’s Final Policy Statement on TS consideration, which is presented The isolation requirements for containment Improvements; and (3) the current revision of penetrations ensure that the release of 10 CFR 50.36. Future changes to these below: radioactivity is minimized to maintain the 10 requirements will be controlled by 10 CFR A. The proposed amendment does not CFR 100 limits for offsite dose consequences 50.54. This ensures that adequate controls involve a significant increase in the in the event of an FHA. The proposed change will remain in place so that the public health probability or consequences of an accident to allow penetrations to be unisolated does and safety will be protected. The proposed previously evaluated. not significantly affect the expected dose changes are administrative in nature and do The proposed revision will allow the consequence because of the absence of not involve any modifications to any plant opening of specific containment penetrations containment pressurization potential during equipment or affect plant operation. during the movement of irradiated fuel or fuel movement or core alterations. The most Therefore, the proposed changes do not core alterations provided administrative significant offsite dose contributor to the fuel involve a significant increase in the controls are implemented. These controls handling event is the containment purge probability or consequences of an accident will establish the proper awareness of the system that generates a motive force for the previously evaluated. unisolated penetration condition, designate radioactive material. This flow path is 2. The proposed change does not create the individuals to isolate the penetration in the excluded from the proposed allowance possibility of a new or different kind of event of an FHA [fuel handling accident], because of this motive force potential along accident from any accident previously and [to] ensure the auxiliary building gas with flow paths outside the ABSCE. Without evaluated. treatment system (ABGTS) is available. The this motive force, as is the case with other The proposed changes are administrative status of containment penetrations does not penetrations during fuel movement or core in nature, do not involve any physical impact the generation of an accident nor does alterations, the potential for additional offsite alterations to any plant equipment, and cause the ability to unisolate penetrations affect dose consequence is unlikely. As an no change in the method by which any this potential. The proposed revision does additional measure, this allowance applies to safety-related system performs its function. not alter any plant equipment or operating flow paths that can be filtered by the ABGTS. Therefore, the proposed changes do not practices other than penetration isolation Therefore, the margin of safety provided by create the possibility of a new or different such that the probability of an accident is the containment building penetration kind of accident from any accident increased. requirements is not significantly impacted by previously evaluated. The administrative controls provide the proposed allowance to open penetrations 3. The proposed change does not involve adequate requirements to provide timely under administrative controls. With the a significant reduction in a margin of safety. identification and closure of penetrations timely provision to identify and isolate The proposed changes do not alter opened under this allowance should a fuel affected penetrations and the provision for implementation of the basic regulatory handling event occur. Designated individuals ABGTS operability, the margin of safety is requirements and do not affect any safety ensure that adequate resources are available maintained without a significant reduction.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.017 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1929

The NRC has reviewed the licensee’s humidity control is already accounted for in Previously Published Notices of analysis and, based on this review, it the test conditions. Consideration of Issuance of appears that the three standards of 10 Applying the ASTM D3803–1989 test Amendments to Facility Operating CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the methodology and using the new safety factor Licenses, Proposed No Significant is expected to yield a net improvement in NRC staff proposes to determine that the safety. The ASTM D3803–1989 test protocol Hazards Consideration Determination, amendment request involves no is expected to improve the identification of and Opportunity for a Hearing significant hazards consideration. degraded charcoal filters and lead to their The following notices were previously Attorney for licensee: General timely replacement without any adverse published as separate individual Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, effects on filter performance. Therefore, the notices. The notice content was the 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 10H, change in testing does not significantly same as above. They were published as increase the consequences of an accident. Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. individual notices either because time NRC Section Chief: Richard P. B. The proposed amendment does not did not allow the Commission to wait Correia. create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident for this biweekly notice or because the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket previously evaluated. action involved exigent circumstances. Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah The proposed change in laboratory tests They are repeated here because the Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton performed on charcoal filters will not alter biweekly notice lists all amendments County, Tennessee plant functions or equipment operating issued or proposed to be issued practices other than possibly resulting in Date of application for amendments: involving no significant hazards more frequent replacement of charcoal filters. consideration. November 24, 1999 (TS 99–16). As stated previously, current methods for Brief description of amendments: The selecting and obtaining charcoal samples for For details, see the individual notice proposed amendments would change testing will be retained without change. The in the Federal Register on the day and the Sequoyah (SQN) Operating Licenses ASTM D3803–1989 test methodology is not page cited. This notice does not extend DPR–77 (Unit 1) and DPR–79 (Unit 2) by expected to alter the filters; therefore, it will the notice period of the original notice. updating the Technical Specification not adversely alter the resulting filter performance. Since the plant functions and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– (TS) surveillance requirements for 313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, penetration efficiency tests of charcoal equipment are not altered, the proposed revision will not create a new or different Pope County, Arkansas adsorbers to comply with American kind of accident. Date of amendment request: Society for Testing and Materials C. The proposed amendment does not (ASTM) test standard ASTM D3803– December 16, 1999. involve a significant reduction in a margin of Brief description of amendment: The 1989 as directed by NRC Generic Letter safety. proposed change would amend (GL) 99–02. Analyses of design-basis accidents assume Basis for proposed no significant a particular ESF [Engineered Safety Feature] Technical Specification 4.18.5.b to hazards consideration determination: charcoal filter adsorption efficiency when allow tube 110/60 to remain in service As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the calculating offsite and control room operator through the current operating cycle licensee has provided its analysis of the doses. Charcoal filter samples are tested to (cycle 16) with two axial indications determine whether the filter adsorber issue of no significant hazards that have potential through-wall depths efficiency is greater than that assumed in the greater than the plugging limit. The consideration, which is presented design-basis accident analysis. The below: axial indications are located in the roll laboratory test acceptance criteria contains a transition region and are contained safety factor to ensure that the efficiency A. The proposed amendment does not within the upper tubesheet. involve a significant increase in the assumed in the accident analysis is still valid probability or consequences of an accident at the end of the operating cycle. Because Date of publication of individual previously evaluated. ASTM D3803–1989 is a more accurate and notice in Federal Register: December 29, The proposed revision will require demanding test than older tests, NRC 1999 (64 FR 73080). laboratory tests of safety-related charcoal indicated in GL 99–02 that licensees Expiration date of individual notice: filter adsorbers to tighter specifications. NRC upgrading their TS to this new protocol will Comments on no significant hazards research indicates that the new test protocols be able to use a safety factor as low as 2 for yield more accurate measures of filter determining the acceptance criteria for considerations by January 12, 2000; efficiency and better reproducibility of test charcoal filter efficiency. This safety factor requests for hearing by January 28, 2000. results. No physical change is made to the can be used for systems with or without Clarification: The December 29, 1999, filter by these expanded timeframes of testing humidity control because the lack of notice indicated that requests for a and tighter controls; therefore, no change to humidity control is already accounted for in hearing with respect to issuance of this the filter behavior is expected. Current the test conditions. As stated in the GL, the amendment must be filed by January 12, methods for selecting and obtaining charcoal new test protocol and associated safety 2000. The correct deadline for this samples for testing will be retained without factors have been reviewed and found to not action is January 28, 2000. change. The proposed revision does not alter significantly decrease the margin of safety. Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. any plant equipment or operating practices other than filter tests that are conducted The NRC has reviewed the licensee’s Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, away from the plant site, and as such the analysis and, based on this review, it 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC probability of an accident is not increased. appears that the three standards of 10 20005–3502. Laboratory test acceptance criteria contain CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy a safety factor to ensure that the efficiency NRC staff proposes to determine that the assumed in the accident analysis is still valid Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, at the end of the operating cycle. Because amendment request involves no River Bend Station, Unit 1, West ASTM D3803–1989 is a more accurate and significant hazards consideration. Feliciana Parish, Louisiana demanding test than older tests, upgrading Attorney for licensee: General Date of amendment request: TSs to the ASTM D3803–1989 protocol Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, allows use of a safety factor of 2 for December 16, 1999. 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 10H, Description of amendment request: determining the acceptance criteria for Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. charcoal filter efficiency. This safety factor The proposed changes would revise the can be used for systems with or without NRC Section Chief: Richard P. River Bend Station (RBS) Technical humidity control because the lack of Correia. Requirements Manual, Section TR

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.018 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

3.9.14, and add an exception to the amendments. If the Commission has Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, current prohibition for travel of loads in prepared an environmental assessment Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert excess of 1200 pounds over fuel under the special circumstances Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 assemblies in the spent fuel storage provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has and 2, Calvert County, Maryland pool. The exception would allow the made a determination based on that Date of application for amendments: licensee to move the spent fuel pool assessment, it is so indicated. September 1, 1999. (SFP) watertight gates, which separate Brief description of amendments: The the SFP from the cask and lower transfer For further details with respect to the amendments revised the Technical pools, to perform maintenance and action see (1) The applications for Specifications as follows: repairs on the gates and watertight seals. amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 1. Technical Specification 1.1 is Related sections of the RBS Updated the Commission’s related letter, Safety changed to replace the definition of Safety Analysis Report would also be Evaluation and/or Environmental Azimuthal Power Tilt with a new revised to be consistent with the Assessment as indicated. All of these definition. exception. The licensee determined that items are available for public inspection 2. Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 is movement of the gate, with its at the Commission’s Public Document changed by replacing the peak linear associated rigging, over spent fuel Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L heat rate safety limit with less than or would involve an unreviewed safety Street, NW., Washington, DC, and equal to 22 kW/ft. question in accordance with Title 10 of electronically from the ADAMS Public 3. Technical Specification the Code of Federal Regulations, Section Library component on the NRC Web Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.6.2 is 50.59. site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic changed by replacing the degraded Date of publication of individual Reading Room). notice in Federal Register: December 21, voltage function with transient degraded 1999 (64 FR 71511). Arizona Public Service Company, et al., voltage and steady-state degraded Expiration date of individual notice: Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, voltage functions. January 20, 2000. Correction: The and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear 4. Technical Specification SRs 3.8.1.9 December 21, 1999, notice indicated Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and and 3.8.1.15 are changed by replacing that requests for a hearing with respect 3, Maricopa County, Arizona the steady-state voltage range with the to issuance of this amendment must be range of greater than or equal to 4060 filed by January 28, 2000. The correct Date of application for amendments: volts and less than or equal to 4400 deadline for this action is January 20, December 16, 1998, as supplemented volts. 2000. July 16, September 29, and December 5. Technical Specification 5.6.5.a is Attorney for licensee: Mark 21, 1999. changed by adding Technical Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, Specifications 3.1.4 and 3.3.1 to the list. Brief description of amendments: The 6. Technical Specification Figure 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC amendments revise Technical 20005. 2.1.1–1 is changed by removing the Specifications 3.8.1 and 3.37 to ensure reference to Figure B2.1–1. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to that the appropriate actions are taken to 7. Various Technical Specifications Facility Operating Licenses prevent double sequencing of safety- and Figures 2.1.1–1a are changed by During the period since publication of related loads and that the setpoint removing references to Unit 2, Cycle 12, the last biweekly notice, the allowable values for the degraded and deleting Figure 2.1.1–1a. Commission has issued the following voltage relays reflect the required 8. Technical Specification 5.6.5.b, amendments. The Commission has function of the relays. Item 41.ii is changed by correcting determined for each of these Date of issuance: December 29, 1999. CEN–99(B)–P to CEN–119(B)–P. amendments that the application Date of issuance: December 15, 1999. Effective Date: December 29, 1999, to complies with the standards and Effective date: As of the date of requirements of the Atomic Energy Act be implemented within 90 days. issuance to be implemented within 30 of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Amendment Nos: Unit 1–123, Unit 2– days. Commission’s rules and regulations. 123, Unit 3–123. Amendment Nos.: 232 and 208. The Commission has made appropriate Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– findings as required by the Act and the 41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 53 and DPR–69: Amendments revised Commission’s rules and regulations in amendments revised the Technical the Technical Specifications. 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal the license amendment. Register: October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54372). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Date of initial notice in Federal The Commission’s related evaluation Amendment to Facility Operating Register: March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14279) of these amendments is contained in a License, Proposed No Significant The July 16, September 29, and Safety Evaluation dated December 15, Hazards Consideration Determination, December 21, 1999, letters provided 1999. and Opportunity for A Hearing in additional clarifying information that No significant hazards consideration connection with these actions was was written within the scope of the comments received: No. published in the Federal Register as original application and Federal Commonwealth Edison Company, indicated. Register notice and did not change the Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle Unless otherwise indicated, the staff’s initial proposed no significant Commission has determined that these County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle hazards consideration determination. County, Illinois amendments satisfy the criteria for The Commission’s related evaluation of categorical exclusion in accordance the amendments is contained in a Safety Date of application for amendments: with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Evaluation dated December 29, 1999. August 6, 1999, as supplemented on to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental November 15, 1999. impact statement or environmental No significant hazards consideration Brief description of amendments: The assessment need be prepared for these comments received: No. amendments revised Technical

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1931

Specification 3/4.4.6, ‘‘Vacuum Relief’’ Brief description of amendments: The Date of initial notice in Federal to remove specific operability amendments revise Section 5.5.7, Register: November 17, 1999 (64 FR requirements related to position ‘‘Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel 62706). indication for the suppression chamber- Inspection Program,’’ of the Technical The Commission’s related evaluation drywell vacuum breakers. The Specifications by adding a new of the amendments is contained in a amendments also reformat the action paragraph. The existing single Safety Evaluation dated December 21, statement for inoperable vacuum paragraph of Section 5.5.7 requires that 1999. breakers, increase the surveillance inspection of each reactor coolant pump No significant hazards consideration interval for verifying that the vacuum flywheel be done per the comments received: No breakers are closed, and delete the recommendations of Regulatory Position requirement to verify that the manual C.4.b of Regulatory Guide 1.14. The Florida Power and Light Company, et isolation valves are closed for an amendments add a new paragraph al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, inoperable and open vacuum breaker. which specifies that in lieu of Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of issuance: December 21, 1999. Regulatory Positions C.4.b(1) and Date of application for amendment: Effective date: Immediately, to be C.4.b(2), alternative inspection December 18, 1998, as supplemented implemented within 30 days. techniques may be used. Date of September 13, 1999. Amendment Nos.: 138 and 122. issuance: December 21, 1999. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Effective date: As of the date of Brief description of amendment: This 11 and NPF–18: The amendments issuance and shall be implemented amendment revises the St. Lucie, Unit 2 revised the Technical Specifications. (SL–2), Technical Specifications (TS) Date of initial notice in Federal within 45 days from the date of issuance. Index Page III, TS 1.10, Dose Equivalent Register: August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46428). iodine-131; TS 2.1.1.2, Linear Heat Rate; The November 15, 1999, submittal Amendment Nos.: 182 (Unit 1); 174 (Unit 2). TS 3.1.1.1/4.1.1.1.1, Shutdown provided additional clarifying Margin—T Greater than 200 °F; TS 3/ information that did not change the Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– avg 35 and NPF–52: Amendments revised 4.1.1.2, Shutdown Margin—Tavg Less staff’s initial proposed no significant Than or Equal to 200°F; TS 3.1.2.2, hazards consideration determination. the Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Boration Systems Flow Paths— The Commission’s related evaluation of Operating; TS 3.1.2.4, Charging the amendments is contained in a Safety Register: November 17, 1999 (64 FR 62705). Pumps—Operating; TS 3.1.2.6, Boric Evaluation dated December 21, 1999. Acid Makeup Pumps—Operating; TS No significant hazards consideration The Commission’s related evaluation 3.1.2.8, Borated Water Sources— comments received: No. of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, Operating; and TS 6.9.1.11, Core Commonwealth Edison Company, 1999. Operating Limits Report (COLR). The Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad No significant hazards consideration amendment also relocates the core Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 comments received: No. operating limits for shutdown margin to and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois the SL–2 COLR. The following Bases Date of application for amendments: Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. have also been changed in connection July 16, 1999. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear with this amendment: TS Bases 2.1.1, Brief description of amendments: The Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg Reactor Core; Bases Figure B2.1–1, Axial amendments revise Technical County, North Carolina Power Distributions for Thermal Margin Specification 4.7.D.6 by replacing the Date of application for amendments: Safety Limits; TS Bases 2.2.1, Reactor leakage limit of 11.5 standard cubic feet October 15, 1999. Trip Setpoints (Variable Power Level- per hour (scfh) for each main steam Brief description of amendments: The High); TS Bases 3/4.1.1.1 and 3/4.1.1.2, isolation valve (MSIV) with a limit of 46 amendments revise Section 5.5.7, Shutdown Margin; and TS Bases 3/ scfh on the total combined leakage for ‘‘Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel 4.1.2, Boration Systems. the MSIVs of all four main steam lines. Inspection Program,’’ of the Technical Date of Issuance: December 21, 1999. Date of issuance: December 21, 1999. Specifications by adding a new Effective Date: As of date of issuance, Effective date: Immediately, to be paragraph. The existing single to be implemented prior to fuel reload implemented within 30 days. paragraph of Section 5.5.7 requires that for Cycle 12. Amendment Nos.: 192 and 188. inspection of each reactor coolant pump Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Amendment No.: 105. flywheel be done per the 29 and DPR–30: The amendments Facility Operating License No. NPF– recommendations of Regulatory Position revised the Technical Specifications. 16: Amendment revised the TS. Date of initial notice in Federal C.4.b of Regulatory Guide 1.14. The amendments add a new paragraph Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 25, 1999 (64 FR Register: February 10, 1999 (64 FR 46429). which specifies that in lieu of Regulatory Positions C.4.b(1) and 6697). The supplemental letter dated The Commission’s related evaluation September 13, 1999, provided of the amendments is contained in a C.4.b(2), alternative inspection techniques may be used. additional information that did not Safety Evaluation dated December 21, expand the scope of the amendment 1999. Date of issuance: December 21, 1999. Effective date: As of the date of request as noticed or change the original No significant hazards consideration proposed no significant hazards comments received: No. issuance and shall be implemented within 45 days from the date of consideration determination. Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket issuance. The Commission’s related evaluation Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba Amendment Nos.: 190 (Unit 1); 171 of the amendment is contained in a Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York (Unit 2). Safety Evaluation dated December 21, County, South Carolina Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 1999. Date of application for amendments: 9 and NPF–17: Amendments revised the No significant hazards consideration October 15, 1999. Technical Specifications. comments received: No.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.021 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Florida Power and Light Company, Brief description of amendment: The Safety Analysis Report and Emergency Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey amendment revises Technical Operating Procedures to use Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Dade County, Specification (TS) Surveillance methodology to credit the negative Florida Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.3.7 to allow a reactivity provided by insertion of the Date of application for amendments: ‘‘representative sample’’ of reactor rod cluster control assemblies (RCCAs) April 26, 1999. instrumentation line excess flow check into the reactor core following any Brief description of amendments: The valves (EFCVs) to be tested every 24 design basis loss-of-coolant accident, amendments revise the Technical months, instead of testing each EFCV during realignment from a cold leg Specifications (TS) for Turkey Point every 24 months. recirculation to a hot leg recirculation Units 3 and 4 to correct the Technical Date of issuance: December 29, 1999. configuration. This change to the Specification Index and to remove Effective date: December 29, 1999. licensing basis, when evaluated by the inconsistencies, and make Amendment No.: 230. licensee in accordance with 10 CFR administrative changes. A portion of the Facility Operating License No. DPR– 59.59, resulted in an unreviewed safety request, related to the proposed deletion 49: The amendment revised the question that requires prior approval by of dates for the approved security plans, Technical Specifications. the NRC staff in accordance with the Date of initial notice in Federal was denied. provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 prior to Date of issuance: December 20, 1999. Register: July 14, 1999 (64 FR 38028). implementation. The amendments also Effective date: December 20, 1999. The October 5 and 8, 1999, letters change the Bases for Technical Amendment Nos.: 203 and 197. provided clarifying information that was Specifications Section 3/4.5.5, Refueling Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– within the scope of the original Federal Water Storage Tank. 31 and DPR–41: Amendments revised Register notice and did not change the Date of issuance: December 28, 1999. the TS. staff’s initial proposed no significant Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal hazards consideration determination. issuance and shall be implemented Register: June 2, 1999 (64 FR 29711). The Commission’s related evaluation within 60 days. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Amendment Nos.: 236 and 218. of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 1999. 58 and DPR–74: Amendments revised 1999. No significant hazards consideration the Technical Specifications. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Date of initial notice in Federal comments received: No. Register: October 20, 1999 (64 FR Indiana Michigan Power Company, 56531). GPU Nuclear, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50– Docket No. 50–315, Donald C. Cook The licensee’s letters of November 10 289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, and 19, 1999, provided additional Unit 1 Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Michigan information that did not change scope of Date of application for amendment: Date of application for amendment: the application or the staff’s proposed December 3, 1998, as supplemented December 3, 1998. no significant hazards consideration January 11, February 4, March 4, March Brief description of amendment: This determination. 10, and March 15, 1999. amendment revised the Technical The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendment: This Specifications for sealed source leakage of the amendments is contained in a amendment conforms the license to testing to specifically address testing Safety Evaluation dated December 28, reflect the transfer of Facility Operating requirements for fission detectors. 1999. License No. DPR–50 for the Three Mile Date of issuance: December 20, 1999. No significant hazards consideration Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, from Effective date: December 20, 1999, comments received: No. with full implementation within 45 GPU Nuclear, Inc., et al., to AmerGen Indiana Michigan Power Company, days. Energy Company, LLC, as previously Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald Amendment No.: 235. approved by Order dated April 12, 1999. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating License No. DPR– Date of issuance: December 20, 1999. Berrien County, Michigan Effective date: As of the date of 58: Amendment revised the Technical issuance and shall be implemented Specifications. Date of application for amendments: within 30 days. Date of initial notice in Federal November 5, 1999. Amendment No.: 218. Register: August 11, 1999 (64 FR Brief description of amendment: The Facility Operating License No. DPR– 43773). amendments would revise Unit 1 and 2 50: Amendment revised the license and The Commission’s related evaluation Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.1, the Technical Specifications. of the amendment is contained in a Action ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b,’’ to reflect the Date of initial notice in Federal Safety Evaluation dated December 20, monitoring of pressure from the Reactor Register: December 21, 1998 (63 FR 1999. Coolant System instead of the 70436). No significant hazards consideration pressurizer. The amendment would also The Commission’s related evaluation comments received: No. revise Unit 1 and 2 TS Surveillance of the amendment is contained in a Requirement 4.5.1.c to require Indiana Michigan Power Company, Safety Evaluation dated April 12, 1999. verification that power is removed from Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald Comments received: Yes. See safety each emergency core cooling system C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, evaluation dated April 12, 1999. accumulator isolation valve operator Berrien County, Michigan instead of verification that each IES Utilities Inc., Docket No. 50–331, Date of application for amendments: accumulator isolation valve breaker is Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn September 17, 1999, as supplemented physically removed from the circuit. County, Iowa November 10 and 19, 1999. Furthermore, the amendment would Date of application for amendment: Brief description of amendments: The make administrative changes to Unit 1 April 12, 1999, as supplemented amendments would approve the and 2 TS Bases 3/4.5.1. October 5 and 8, 1999. licensee’s revision of the Updated Final Date of issuance: December 23, 1999.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.023 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1933

Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal Manual or to the Process Control issuance and shall be implemented Register: November 16, 1999 (64 FR Program.’’ within 30 days. 62228). Date of issuance: December 15, 1999. Amendment No.: 237 and 219. The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of its date of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– of the amendment is contained in a issuance, and shall be implemented 58 and DPR–74: Amendments revised Safety Evaluation dated December 16, within 120 days. the Technical Specifications. 1999. Amendment No.: 66. Date of initial notice in Federal No significant hazards consideration Facility Operating License No. NPF– Register: November 23, 1999 (64 FR comments received: No 86: Amendment revised the Technical 65735). Specifications. The Commission’s related evaluation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Date of initial notice in Federal of the amendments is contained in a Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point Register: April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19972). Safety Evaluation dated December 23, Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, The Commission received comments 1999. New York which were addressed in the staff’s No significant hazards consideration Date of application for amendment: Safety Evaluation dated December 15, comments received: No. March 31, 1999. 1999. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Brief description of amendment: The Commission’s related evaluation Docket No. 50–315, Donald C. Cook Amendment changes Technical of the amendment is contained in a Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Specification Table 3.6.1.2–1 by adding Safety Evaluation dated December 15, Michigan two relief valves, and associated leak 1999. rate criteria, to be installed on the No significant hazards consideration Date of application for amendment: drywell equipment drain line and comments received: Yes. August 17, 1999. drywell floor drain line. Brief description of amendment: The Date of issuance: December 16, 1999. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, amendment removes the steam Effective date: As of the date of Docket No. 50–244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear generator voltage-based repair criteria, issuance and shall be implemented Power Plant, Wayne County, New York F* repair criteria, and sleeving within 30 days. Date of application for amendment: methodologies from the Unit 1 Amendment No.: 88. October 20, 1999. Technical Specifications and clarifies Facility Operating License No. NPF– Brief description of amendment: The the Bases sections accordingly. 69: Amendment revises the Technical amendment changes from December 31, Date of issuance: December 22, 1999. Specifications. 1999, to June 30, 2001, the date Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal specified in TS 4.3.1.1.b Note associated issuance and shall be implemented Register: May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24197). with maintaining spent fuel pool boron within 45 days. The Commission’s related evaluation concentration >2300 ppm at all times Amendment No.: 238. of the amendment is contained in a Facility Operating License No. DPR– until a permanent resolution to the Safety Evaluation dated December 16, current criticality concerns is 58: Amendment revises the Technical 1999. Specifications. implemented. No significant hazards consideration Date of issuance: December 21, 1999. Date of initial notice in Federal comments received: No Register: October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54375). Effective date: December 21, 1999. The Commission’s related evaluation North Atlantic Energy Service Amendment No.: 75. of the amendment is contained in a Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50–443, Facility Operating License No. DPR– Safety Evaluation dated December 22, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, 18: Amendment revised the Technical 1999. Rockingham County, New Hampshire Specifications. No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal Date of amendment request: March 5, comments received: No. Register: November 19, 1999 (64 FR 1998. 63345). Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Description of amendment request: The Commission’s related evaluation Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point This amendment revises the Technical of the amendment is contained in a Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, Specifications (TSs) by relocating the Safety Evaluation dated December 21, New York procedural details of the Radiological 1999. Date of application for amendment: Effluent Technical Specifications No significant hazards consideration November 8, 1999. (RETS) to the Offsite Dose Calculation comments received: No. Brief description of amendment: The Manual. The TSs were also revised to relocate procedural details associated Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power amendment changed action statements, Corporation, Docket No. 50–271, definitions, and footnotes pertaining to with solid radioactive wastes to the Process Control Program. In addition, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, the Technical Specifications for primary Vernon, Vermont containment leakage and primary the Administrative Controls section of containment purge system to allow an the TSs was revised to incorporate Date of application for amendment: alternative approach for isolating a programmatic controls for radioactive September 4, 1998, as supplemented on bypass leakage path and/or purge effluents and environmental monitoring. February 8, April 16, August 26, system line. These changes are consistent with the September 16, and November 17, 1999. Date of issuance: December 16, 1999. guidance provided in Generic Letter 89– Brief description of amendment: The Effective date: As of the date of 01, ‘‘Implementation of Programmatic amendment increases the spent fuel issuance to be implemented within 30 Controls for Radiological Effluent pool storage capacity from 2,870 to days. Technical Specifications in the 3,353 fuel assemblies. Amendment No.: 87. Administrative Controls Section of the Date of Issuance: December 21, 1999. Facility Operating License No. NPF– Technical Specifications and the Effective date: As of the date of 69: Amendment revises the Technical Relocation of Procedural Details of issuance, and shall be implemented Specifications. RETS to the Offsite Dose Calculation within 30 days.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.024 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Amendment No.: 182 Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Description of Form N–4, Its Purpose Facility Operating License No. DPR– Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point and the Industry Entities Affected 28: Amendment revised the Technical Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, There are two separate statutes which Specifications. Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc require investment companies to file Date of initial notice in Federal County, Wisconsin registration statements with the Register: October 1, 1998 (64 FR 52774). Date of application for amendments: Commission if they are offering their The supplemental information did not April 12, 1999. securities to the public. Each must affect the staff’s proposed no significant Brief description of amendments: register as an investment company hazards consideration determination, These amendments update references in under the Investment Company Act of and was within the scope of the original the Technical Specifications to 1940 (‘‘1940 Act’’), and must register the amendment application as published. information in the updated Final Safety securities it will offer under the The Commission’s related evaluation Analysis Report (FSAR). The update is Securities Act of 1933 (‘‘1933 Act’’). of this amendment is contained in a necessary to reflect relocation of the Form N–4 is part is the integrated Safety Evaluation dated December 21, referenced information in the updated registration and reporting system by 1999. FSAR. which registrants satisfy the registration No significant hazards consideration Date of issuance: December 23, 1999. requirements of both the 1940 Act and comments received: No. Effective date: As of the date of the 1933 Act by filing a single issuance and shall be implemented registration statement. Form N–4 is the Virginia Electric and Power Company, et within 30 days from the date of required form that insurance company al., Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, issuance. separate accounts organized as unit North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–192; Unit 2– investment trusts (‘‘IC UIT separate and No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia 197. accounts’’) must use if they offer Date of application for amendments: Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– variable annuity contracts. November 18, 1998, as supplemented by 24 and DPR–27: Amendments revised The Form N–4’s purpose is to provide letter dated October 22, 1999. the Technical Specifications. investors with material information Brief description of amendments: The Date of initial notice in Federal concerning securities offered for public amendments change the North Anna Register: May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24204). sale. The first part includes a simplified Power Station Technical Specifications The Commission’s related evaluation prospectus that satisfies the prospectus (TS) to increase the allowable of the amendments is contained in a delivery requirements of the 1933 Act. groundwater elevation at the southeast Safety Evaluation dated December 23, The second part is a Statement of section of the service water reservoir 1999. Additional Information available free of dike from 277 to 280 feet at the toe and No significant hazards consideration charge to prospective investors upon from 280 to 295 feet at the crest. In comments received: No. request. A third part of the registration addition, TS Table 3.7–6 has been Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day statement includes all of the other reorganized to clarify zones of interest of January 2000. mandatory information that is not in the Service Water Reservoir, the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. specifically required to be in the location of piezometer devices, and Suzanne Black, prospectus or the Statement of piezometer device numbers. The Acting Director, Division of Licensing Project Additional Information. proposal to eliminate device numbers Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor As a regulatory matter, Form N–4 from the TS was denied because the Regulation. satisfies the disclosure requirement of device number helps to indicate the [FR Doc. 00–611 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] the 1933 Act. Form N–4 also satisfies the 1940 requirement that investment location of the piezometer within the BILLING CODE 7590±01±P zone as well as the piezometer itself. companies file a registration statement Finally the column heading for with the Commission pursuant to Section 8(b). Allowable Drain Flow Rate was clarified SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE It is estimated that, currently, there to be the total flow rate. COMMISSION Date of issuance: As of the date of are 615 IC UIT separate accounts issuance and shall be implemented Proposed Collection; Comment required to file initial and post effective within 30 days. Request registration statements on an annual and as required basis using Form N–4. The Effective date: December 29, 1999. Upon Written Request, Copies Available burden from Form N–4 requires Amendment Nos.: 220 and 201. From: Securities and Exchange approximately 219.8 hours per post Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Commission, Office of Filings and effective amendment and 298 hours for 4 and NPF–7. Amendments revised the Information Services, Washington, D.C. each initial registration. The total Technical Specifications. 20549 burden hours for Form N–4 is estimated Date of initial notice in Federal Form N–4, SEC File No. 270–282, OMB at 284,379.20 in the aggregate. The Register: December 16, 1998 (63 FR Control No. 3235–0318 estimates of average burden hours are 69349). The supplemental letter dated Notice is hereby given that, pursuant made solely for the purposes of the October 22, 1999, contained clarifying to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act and are not information only, and did not change (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities derived from a comprehensive or even the initial no significant hazards and Exchange Commission representative survey or study of the determination. (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments costs of Commission rules and forms. The Commission’s related evaluation on the collection of information Written comments are invited on: (a) of the amendments is contained in a summarized below. The Commission whether the proposed collection of Safety Evaluation dated December 29, plans to submit this existing collection information is necessary for the proper 1999. of information to the Office of performance of the functions of the No significant hazards consideration Management and Budget for extension agency, including whether the comments received: No. and approval. information will have practical utility;

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1935

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 19(b)(3)(A) of Act 4 and subparagraph of the burden of the collection of Statement of the Purpose of, and (f)(2) rule 19b–4 thereunder.5 At any information; (c) ways of enhance the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule time within 60 days of the filing of the quality, utility, and clarity of the Change proposed rule change, the Commission information collected; and (d) ways to In its filing with the Commission, the may summarily abrogate such rule minimize the burden of the collection of self-regulatory organization included change if it appears to the Commission information on respondents, including statements concerning the purpose of that such action is necessary or through the use of automated collection and basis for the proposed rule change appropriate in the public interest, for techniques or other forms of information and discussed any comments it received the protection of investors, or otherwise technology. Consideration will be given on the proposed rule change. The text in furtherance of the purposes of the to comments and suggestions submitted of these statements may be examined at Act.6 in writing within 60 days of this the places specified in Item IV below. publication. The self-regulatory organization has IV. Solicitation of Comments Please direct your written comments prepared summaries, set forth in Interested persons are invited to to Michael E. Bartell, Associate sections A, B, and C below, of the most submit written data, views and Executive Director, Office of significant aspects of such statements. arguments concerning the foregoing, Information Technology, Securities and including whether the proposed rule Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change is consistent with the Act. N.W., Washington, DC 20549. Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Persons making written submissions Dated: January 4, 2000. Change should file six copies thereof with the Margaret H. McFarland, 1. Purpose Secretary, Securities and Exchange Deputy Secretary. Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., [FR Doc. 00–676 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] The purpose of the change is to Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of BILLING CODE 8010±01±M respond to the needs of our constituents the submission, all subsequent with respect to overall competitive amendments, all written statements market conditions and customer with respect to the proposed rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE satisfaction. change that are filed with the COMMISSION 2. Statutory Basis Commission, and all written The Exchange represents that the communications relating to the [Release No. 34±42315; File No. SR±NYSE± proposed rule change between the 99±49] proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,2 in general, and Commission and any person, other than Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice furthers the objectives of section those that may be withheld from the of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 6(b)(4) 3 in particular, in that it provides public in accordance with the of Proposed Rule Change by the New for the equitable allocation of reasonable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be York Stock Exchange, Inc., to Extend dues, fees, and other charges among the available for inspection and copying in the Current $400,000 Monthly Limit on Exchange’s members and issuers and the Commission’s Public Reference Transaction Charges Through 2000 other persons using its facilities. Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC. Copies of such filing B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s January 4, 2000. will also be available for inspection and Statement on Burden on Competition Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the copying at the principal office of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Exchange believes that the NYSE. All submissions should refer to (‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on proposed fee change will not impose File No. SR–NYSE–99–49 and should be December 16, 1999, the New York Stock any burden on competition that is not submitted by February 2, 2000. Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. For the Commission, by the Division of filed with the Securities and Exchange Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s authority.7 proposed rule change as described in Statement on Comments on the Margaret H. McFarland, Items I, II, and III below, which Items Proposed Rule Change Received From Deputy Secretary. have been prepared by the NYSE. The Members, Participants or Others Commission is publishing this notice to [FR Doc. 00–677 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] The Exchange has not solicited, and solicit comments on the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8010±01±M change from interested persons. does not intend to solicit, comments regarding the proposed rule change. The 1. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Exchange has not received any Statement of the Terms of Substance of unsolicited written comments from the Proposed Rule Change members or other interested parties. The current fee structure provides for III. Date of Effectiveness of the a $400,000 cap on an individual Proposed Rule Change and Timing for member firm’s monthly transaction Commission Action charges and is in effect through the end The foregoing rule change constitutes of 1999. The proposed revision would or changes a due, fee, or other charge 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). continue the monthly transaction charge imposed by the NYSE and, therefore, 5 17 CFR 250.19b–4(f)(2). cap at $400,000 through the end of has become effective pursuant to section 6 In reviewing this proposal, the Commission has 2000. considered the proposal’s impact on efficiency, 2 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.051 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 94-2(4) provided that SSA adjudicators this Social Security Acquiescence must adopt such a finding from a final Ruling as provided by 20 CFR [Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 00- 1(4); Rescission of Social Security decision on the prior claim unless there 404.985(c) or 416.1485(c), we will Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4)] was new and material evidence relating publish a notice in the Federal Register to that finding. stating that we will apply our Albright v. Commissioner of the Social On April 22, 1999, the United States interpretation of the Act or regulations Security Administration (Interpreting Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involved and explaining why we have Lively v. Secretary of Health and issued a decision in Albright v. decided to relitigate the issue. Human Services); Effect of Prior Commissioner of the Social Security (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Disability Findings on Adjudication of Administration, 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security - a Subsequent Disability ClaimÐTitles 1999), in which it clarified its intent in Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security - II and XVI of the Social Security Act; Lively and interpreted the holding to be Retirement Insurance; 96.004 Social Security Rescission of Social Security more limited than that reflected in - Survivors Insurance; 96.005 - Special Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4). Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners; 96.006 - Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4), Lively v. Supplemental Security Income.) Secretary of Health and Human Furthermore, the court stated that Dated: December 1, 1999. Services ‘‘SSA’s treatment of later-filed applications as separate claims is Kenneth S. Apfel, AGENCY: Social Security Administration. eminently logical and sensible, Commissioner of Social Security. ACTION: Notice of Social Security reflecting the reality that the mere Acquiescence Ruling and Rescission of passage of time often has a deleterious Acquiescence Ruling 00-1(4) Social Security Acquiescence Ruling. effect on a claimant’s physical or mental Albright v. Commissioner of the condition.’’ Social Security Administration, 174 SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR Because the Fourth Circuit’s decision F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (Interpreting 402.35(b)(2), the Commissioner of Social in Albright concluded that Lively v. Secretary of Health and Security gives notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4) is not an Human Services)—Effect of Prior Acquiescence Ruling 00-1(4) and accurate statement of its holding in Disability Findings on Adjudication of a rescission of Social Security Lively, we are rescinding that Subsequent Disability Claim—Titles II Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4). Acquiescence Ruling and publishing and XVI of the Social Security Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2000. this Acquiescence Ruling to reflect the Issue: Whether, in making a disability Albright court’s interpretation of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determination or decision on a holding in Lively, and to acquiesce in Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social subsequent disability claim with respect that portion of the Albright holding that Security Administration, 6401 Security to an unadjudicated period, the Social conflicts with our interpretation of our 1 Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Security Administration (SSA) must regulations. We also provide in this (410) 965-1695. consider a finding of a claimant’s Acquiescence Ruling an explanation of residual functional capacity or other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are how SSA’s adjudicators will apply the finding required under the applicable rescinding Social Security Acquiescence Albright holding to claims within the sequential evaluation process for Ruling 94-2(4) and publishing this Fourth Circuit. determining disability, made in a final Acquiescence Ruling in accordance We will apply the holding of the decision by an Administrative Law with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2). Court of Appeals’ decision as explained Judge (ALJ) or the Appeals Council on A Social Security Acquiescence in this Social Security Acquiescence the prior disability claim. Ruling explains how we will apply a Ruling to claims at all levels of Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation: holding in a decision of a United States administrative adjudication within the Sections 205(a) and (h) and 702(a)(5) of Court of Appeals that we determine Fourth Circuit. This Social Security the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a) conflicts with our interpretation of a Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all and (h) and 902(a)(5)), 20 CFR provision of the Social Security Act (the determinations and decisions made on 404.900(a), 404.957(c)(1), 416.1400(a), Act) or regulations when the or after January 12, 2000. If we made a 416.1457(c)(1), Acquiescence Ruling Government has decided not to seek determination or decision on an (AR) 94-2(4) (rescinded). further review of that decision or is application for benefits between April Circuit: Fourth (Maryland, North unsuccessful on further review. 22, 1999, the date of the Court of Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West On July 7, 1994, we issued Appeals’ decision in Albright v. Virginia). Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4) (59 FR Commissioner of the Social Security Albright v. Commissioner of the 34849) to reflect the holding in Lively v. Administration, 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. Social Security Administration, 174 Secretary of Health and Human 1999), and January 12, 2000, the F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (Interpreting Services, 820 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir. 1987). effective date of this Social Security Lively v. Secretary of Health and Acquiescence Ruling 94-2(4) provided Acquiescence Ruling, you may request Human Services, 820 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir. that, in making a disability application of the Social Security 1987)). determination or decision on a Acquiescence Ruling to your claim if Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling subsequent disability claim with respect you first demonstrate, pursuant to 20 applies to determinations or decisions at to an unadjudicated period, the Social CFR 404.985(b)(2) or 416.1485(b)(2), Security Administration (SSA) must that application of the Ruling could 1 Under the Social Security Independence and adopt a finding regarding a claimant’s change our prior determination or Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-296, effective March 31, 1995, SSA became an residual functional capacity, or other decision. independent Agency in the Executive Branch of the finding required under the applicable If this Social Security Acquiescence United States Government and was provided sequential evaluation process for Ruling is later rescinded as obsolete, we ultimate responsibility for administering the Social determining disability, made in a final will publish a notice in the Federal Security and Supplemental Security Income programs under titles II and XVI of the Social decision by an Administrative Law Register to that effect as provided in 20 Security Act. Prior to March 31, 1995, the Secretary Judge or the Appeals Council on a prior CFR 404.985(e) or 416.1485(e). If we of Health and Human Services had such disability claim. Acquiescence Ruling decide to relitigate the issue covered by responsibility.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.096 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1937 all levels of the administrative review application for benefits, found that Mr. judicial review. The district court process (i.e., initial, reconsideration, Lively was limited to light work. The referred the case to a magistrate judge ALJ hearing and Appeals Council). court further noted that a person with who found that SSA had interpreted the Lively2 the plaintiff’s education and vocational holding in Lively too broadly in Description of Case: In a decision background who is 55 years of age or promulgating AR 94-2(4). The district dated October 19, 1981, an ALJ found older and limited to light work would court adopted the magistrate judge’s that the plaintiff, Mr. Lively, was not be considered disabled under Rule findings and conclusions, and disabled under Rule 202.10 of the 202.02 of the medical-vocational remanded Mr. Albright’s claims for de medical-vocational guidelines, 20 CFR guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, novo consideration by SSA. After the Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, and Appendix 2. The court found it district court’s denial of SSA’s motion denied his application for disability inconceivable that Mr. Lively’s to alter or amend the judgment, SSA insurance benefits. In applying Rule condition had improved so much in two appealed to the United States Court of 202.10, the ALJ found that Mr. Lively weeks as to enable him to perform Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. had the residual functional capacity for medium work. Accordingly the court Holding: The Fourth Circuit affirmed light work. The decision that Mr. Lively held: the district court’s decision and held was not entitled to disability insurance Principles of finality and fundamental that AR 94-2(4) was not an accurate benefits became the final decision of fairness * * * indicate that * * * [SSA] statement of the holding in Lively. The SSA and was affirmed by the district must shoulder the burden of demonstrating court further stated that Lively was a court. that the claimant’s condition had improved ‘‘rare case’’ involving ‘‘a finding that sufficiently to indicate that the claimant was The plaintiff filed a second initially disqualified the claimant from application for disability insurance capable of performing medium work. * * * [E]vidence, not considered in the an award of benefits [which later] benefits on December 14, 1983. After earlier proceeding, would be needed as an convincingly demonstrated his holding a hearing, an ALJ concluded independent basis to sustain a finding entitlement thereto as of two weeks that the plaintiff was not entitled to contrary to the final earlier finding. hence.’’ The court then stated that disability insurance benefits. The ALJ Albright ‘‘[u]nlike the [Acquiescence] Ruling at determined that Mr. Lively retained the Description of Case: William Albright issue in * * * [Albright’s] case, functional capacity for the performance applied for disability insurance benefits however, the prior adjudication in of work activity at any exertional level and Supplemental Security Income on Lively — though highly probative — was on and prior to December 31, 1981, the April 17, 1991, alleging that he had been not conclusive.’’ The court further held date his insured status expired. The ALJ unable to work since March 31, 1990, that: did not discuss in his decision the 1981 because of neck and back injuries. The finding by another ALJ that the plaintiff We therefore disagree with the claims were denied initially and upon Commissioner that Lively abrogated the had the residual functional capacity to reconsideration. In a decision issued on established law of preclusion ***. At its do only light work. This decision May 28, 1992, that denied benefits, an essence, Lively really has very little to do became the final decision of SSA and ALJ determined Mr. Albright’s with preclusion. Although we discussed the was appealed to the district court. The testimony about the intensity of his pain doctrine of res judicata generally, and more case was referred to a United States was not credible and found that his particularly its incorporation into the Social Magistrate who found that the evidence impairment had been ‘‘not severe’’3 Security Act through 42 U.S.C. 405(h), Lively before the ALJ on the plaintiff’s 1983 since at least January 3, 1991. Mr. is not directly predicated on the statute, but application was sufficient to sustain Albright did not appeal this decision. on ‘‘[p]rinciples of finality and fundamental SSA’s decision that the plaintiff was not In November and December 1992, Mr. fairness drawn from § 405(h).’’ [Lively, 820 Albright filed subsequent applications F.2d at 1392] (emphasis added). The disabled as of December 31, 1981. The distinction is subtle, but important. district court adopted the Magistrate’s for disability insurance benefits and Report and Recommendation. Mr. Supplemental Security Income. These Rather than signaling a sea change in the Lively then appealed to the United claims were denied initially and again law of preclusion, the result in Lively is upon reconsideration. On October 26, instead best understood as a practical States Court of Appeals for the Fourth illustration of the substantial evidence rule. Circuit. 1994, an ALJ found that Mr. Albright’s In other words, we determined that the Holding: The Fourth Circuit reversed prior claims had been denied at the finding of a qualified and disinterested and remanded the decision of the second step of the sequential evaluation tribunal that Lively was capable of district court. The court stated that: process and that there was an absence performing only light work as of a certain Congress has clearly provided by statute of new and material evidence regarding date was such an important and probative that res judicata prevents reappraisal of both the severity of his impairment. fact as to render the subsequent finding to the [SSA]’s findings and * * * decision in Accordingly, the ALJ applied AR 94-2(4) contrary [relating to a period that began two Social Security cases that have become final, which was published on July 7, 1994, weeks later] unsupported by substantial 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), and the courts have and found that Mr. Albright was not evidence. To have held otherwise would readily applied res judicata to prevent disabled.4 have thwarted the legitimate expectations of * * * [SSA] from reaching an inconsistent After the Appeals Council denied the claimants * * * that final agency adjudications should carry considerable result in a second proceeding based on claimant’s request for review, he sought evidence that has already been weighed in a weight. [Footnotes omitted.] claimant’s favor in an earlier proceeding. 3 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920 provide a The court observed that the prior The court noted that the plaintiff sequential evaluation process for evaluating residual functional capacity finding in became 55 years of age two weeks after disability. These regulations provide at step two Lively was ‘‘highly probative’’ of the that if an individual does not have any impairment the ALJ, in connection with the first or combination of impairments that is ‘‘severe,’’ the claimant’s residual functional capacity individual is not disabled. for the period that began two weeks 2 The decision of the Fourth Circuit in Albright 4 In an action that was uncontested on appeal and after the previously adjudicated period (the subject of this AR) was based, in part, upon the later termed ‘‘entirely proper’’ by the Fourth Circuit because, absent evidence to the panel’s interpretation of the Fourth Circuit’s prior in Albright, the ALJ dismissed Mr. Albright’s claims decision in Lively. Accordingly, the following insofar as they related to the period up to and contrary, ‘‘a claimant’s condition very discussion of that earlier case is provided as including May 28, 1992, the date of the prior ALJ’s likely remains unchanged within a background material. decision on Mr. Albright’s earlier claims. discrete two-week period.’’ The court

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 19:30 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices indicated that the probative value of a 404.1520, 416.920 or 416.924, as years as in Albright. In determining the prior finding relating to a claimant’s appropriate, which was made in a final weight to be given such a prior finding, medical condition will likely diminish decision by an ALJ or the Appeals an adjudicator must consider all ‘‘as the timeframe expands,’’ and that Council on a prior disability claim.5 relevant facts and circumstances on a ‘‘[t]he logic so evident in Lively When adjudicating a subsequent case-by-case basis. * * * applies with nowhere near the disability claim arising under the same [FR Doc. 00–702 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] force in Albright’s situation’’ where ‘‘the or a different title of the Act as the prior BILLING CODE 4191±02±F relevant period exceeds three years.’’ claim, an adjudicator determining The court also stated that SSA’s whether a claimant is disabled during a ‘‘treatment of later-filed applications as previously unadjudicated period must DEPARTMENT OF STATE separate claims is eminently logical and consider such a prior finding as sensible, reflecting the reality that the evidence and give it appropriate weight [Public Notice 3201] mere passage of time often has a in light of all relevant facts and deleterious effect on a claimant’s circumstances. In determining the Bureau of Personnel; 30-Day Notice of physical or mental condition.’’ weight to be given such a prior finding, Information Collection [OMB Control Number 1405±0008]: Registration for Statement as to How Albright Differs an adjudicator will consider such factors as: the Foreign Service Officer Written From SSA’s Interpretation of the Examination Regulations (1) whether the fact on which the prior finding was based is subject to ACTION: Notice. In a subsequent disability claim, SSA change with the passage of time, such as considers the issue of disability with a fact relating to the severity of a SUMMARY: The Department of State has respect to a period of time that was not claimant’s medical condition; submitted the following information adjudicated in the final determination (2) the likelihood of such a change, collection request to the Office of or decision on the prior claim to be a considering the length of time that has Management and Budget (OMB) for new issue that requires an independent elapsed between the period previously approval in accordance with the evaluation from that made in the prior adjudicated and the period being Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. adjudication. Thus, when adjudicating a adjudicated in the subsequent claim; Comments should be submitted to OMB subsequent disability claim involving an and within 30 days of the publication of this unadjudicated period, SSA considers (3) the extent that evidence not notice. the facts and issues de novo in considered in the final decision on the The following summarizes the determining disability with respect to prior claim provides a basis for making information collection proposal the unadjudicated period. SSA does not a different finding with respect to the submitted to OMB: consider prior findings made in the final period being adjudicated in the Type of Request: Continuation. determination or decision on the prior subsequent claim. Originating Office: PER/REE. claim as evidence in determining Where the prior finding was about a Title of Information Collection: disability with respect to the fact which is subject to change with the Registration for the Foreign Service unadjudicated period involved in the passage of time, such as a claimant’s Officer Written Examination. subsequent claim. residual functional capacity, or that a Frequency: One application period SSA interprets the decision by the claimant does or does not have an per year. United States Court of Appeals for the impairment(s) which is severe, the Form Number: 1405–0008. Fourth Circuit in Albright to hold that likelihood that such fact has changed Respondents: Registrants for the where a final decision of SSA after a generally increases as the interval of Foreign Service Officer Written hearing on a prior disability claim time between the previously Examination. contains a finding required at a step in adjudicated period and the period being Estimated Number of Respondents: the sequential evaluation process for adjudicated increases. An adjudicator 13,600. determining disability, SSA must should give greater weight to such a Average Hours Per Response: 15 consider such finding as evidence and prior finding when the previously minutes per response. give it appropriate weight in light of all adjudicated period is close in time to Total Estimated Burden: 3,415 hours. relevant facts and circumstances when the period being adjudicated in the Public comments are being solicited adjudicating a subsequent disability subsequent claim, e.g., a few weeks as to permit the agency to: Evaluate whether the proposed claim involving an unadjudicated in Lively. An adjudicator generally collection of information is necessary period. should give less weight to such a prior for the proper performance of the finding as the proximity of the period Explanation of How SSA Will Apply functions of the agency, including previously adjudicated to the period The Albright Decision Within The whether the information will have being adjudicated in the subsequent Circuit practical utility. claim becomes more remote, e.g., where Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s This Ruling applies only to disability the relevant time period exceeds three findings in cases involving claimants estimate of the burden of the collection, including the validity of the who reside in Maryland, North Carolina, 5 In making a finding of a claimant’s residual South Carolina, Virginia or West functional capacity or other finding required to be methodology and assumptions used. Virginia at the time of the determination made at a step in the applicable sequential Enhance the quality, utility, and or decision on the subsequent claim at evaluation process for determining disability clarity of the information to be provided under the specific sections of the collected. the initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing regulations described above, an ALJ or the Appeals or Appeals Council level. It applies only Council may have made certain subsidiary findings, Minimize the reporting burden on to a finding of a claimant’s residual such as a finding concerning the credibility of a those who are to respond, including functional capacity or other finding claimant’s testimony or statements. A subsidiary through the use of automated collection finding does not constitute a finding that is required techniques or other forms of technology. required at a step in the sequential at a step in the sequential evaluation process for evaluation process for determining determining disability provided under 20 CFR FOR FURTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: disability provided under 20 CFR 404.1520, 416.920 or 416.924. Copies of the proposed information

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.096 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1939 collection and supporting documents 44; 301–4th Street, S.W., Room 700, Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, may be obtained from Beatrice E. Washington, D.C. 20547–0001. U.S. Department of State (telephone: Smotherman, Bureau of Personnel, Dated: January 6, 2000. 202/619–6982). The address is U.S. Examination Division, Foreign Service William B. Bader, Department of State, SA–44; 301–4th Written Officer Examination (202) 261– Street, S.W., Room 700, Washington, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of 8906, U.S. Department of State, Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. D.C. 20547–0001. Washington, DC 20522. Public Department of State. Dated: January 6, 2000. comments and questions should be [FR Doc. 00–740 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] William B. Bader, directed to the State Department Desk BILLING CODE 4710±08±P Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Officer, Office of Information and Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Regulatory Affairs, Office of Department of State. Management and Budget (OMB), DEPARTMENT OF STATE [FR Doc. 00–742 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20530, (202) 395–5971. [Public Notice 3200] BILLING CODE 4710±08±P Dated: December 13, 1999. Rueben Torres, Culturally Significant Objects Imported Executive Director, Bureau of Personnel, for Exhibition Determinations: Culture DEPARTMENT OF STATE Department of State. and Continuity: The Jewish Journey [Public Notice 3199] [FR Doc. 00–743 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] ACTION BILLING CODE 4710±15±P : Notice Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; Determinations: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Painting Revolution: Kandinsky, following determinations: Pursuant to DEPARTMENT OF STATE Malevich and the Russian Avant Garde the authority vested in me by the Act of [Public Notice 3198] October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. DEPARTMENT: United States Department 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and of State. Culturally Significant Objects Imported Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. ACTION: Notice. for Exhibition Determinations: ``Art in 2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority Rome in the Eighteenth Century'' No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the DEPARTMENT: United States Department Delegation of Authority No. 236 of following determinations: Pursuant to of State. October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby the authority vested in me by the Act of ACTION: Notice. determine that the objects to be October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. included in the exhibition ‘‘Culture and 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Continuity: The Jewish Journey’’ Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. following determinations: Pursuant to imported from abroad for the temporary 2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority the authority vested in me by the Act of exhibition without profit within the No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. United States, are of cultural Delegation of Authority No. 236 of 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and significance. These objects are imported October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. pursuant to a loan agreement with a determine that the objects to be 2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority foreign lender. I also determine that the included in the exhibition ‘‘Painting No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and exhibition or display of the exhibit Revolution: Kandinsky, Malevich and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of objects at the Jewish Museum from on the Russian Avant Garde’’ imported October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby or about March 1, 2000 to on or about from abroad for the temporary determine that the objects to be December 1, 2004, is in the national exhibition without profit within the included in the exhibition ‘‘Art in Rome interest. Public Notice of these United States, are of cultural in the Eighteenth Century,’’ imported determinations is ordered to be significance. These objects are imported from abroad for the temporary published in the Federal Register. The pursuant to loan agreements with exhibition without profit within the action of the United States in this matter foreign lenders. I also determine that the United States, are of cultural and the immunity based on the exhibition or display of the exhibit significance. These objects are imported application of the provisions of law objects at the Phoenix Art Museum from pursuant to loan agreements with involved does not imply any view of the on or about April 1, 2000 to on or about foreign lenders. I also determine that the United States concerning the ownership June 30, 2000; at the Chicago Cultural exhibition or display of the exhibit of these exhibition objects. Further, it is Center from on or about July 22, 2000 objects at the Philadelphia Museum of not based upon and does not represent to on or about October 8, 2000; at the Art, from on or about February 27, 2000 any change in the position of the United Portland Art Museum from on or about to on or about May 21, 2000; and at the States regarding the status of Jerusalem November 1, 2000 to on or about Museum of Fine Arts, Houston from on or the territories occupied by Israel January 20, 2001 and at the Frederick R. or about June 17, 2000 to on or about since 1967. See letter of September 22, Weisman Art Museum, Minneapolis, September 17, 2000, is in the national 1978, of President Jimmy Carter, from on or about February 1, 2001 to on interest. Public Notice of these attached to the Camp David Accords, or about March 31, 2001, is in the Determinations is ordered to be reprinted in 78 Dept. of State Bulletin 11 national interest. Public Notice of these published in the Federal Register. (October 1978); Statement of September determinations is ordered to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 1, 1982 of President Ronald Reagan, published in the Federal Register. further information, including a list of reprinted in 82 Dept. of State Bulletin 23 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline H. (September 1982).’’ further information, including a Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, Office of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For description of the exhibit object, contact the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of further information, including a Jacqueline H. Caldwell, Attorney- State (telephone: 202/619–5078). The description of the exhibit object, contact Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, address is U.S. Department of State, SA– Jacqueline H. Caldwell, Attorney- U.S. Department of State (telephone:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.097 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

202/619–6982). The address is U.S. Background Alternatives Department of State, SA–44; 301–4th Nolichucky Dam and Reservoir were TVA will evaluate a reasonable range Street, S.W., Room 700, Washington, of alternatives in the EIS. At this time, D.C. 20547–0001. built in 1913 at kilometer 73.6 (mile 46) on the Nolichucky River, 12 kilometers those alternatives are likely to include Dated: January 6, 2000. (7.5 miles) south of Greeneville in removal of some or all of the existing William B. Bader, Greene County, Tennessee. The sediment in the reservoir, pertinent Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of drainage area above the dam covers modifications to the dam structure, Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. about 3,100 square kilometers (1,183 various combinations of sediment Department of State. square miles) and includes areas within removal and dam modifications, and no [FR Doc. 00–741 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] Greene, Washington, and Unicoi action. TVA will use the results of BILLING CODE 4710±08±P counties in eastern Tennessee, and evaluating the potential impacts of specific alternatives on the Yancey, Mitchell, and Avery counties in environmental, cultural, and western North Carolina. The reservoir, socioeconomic resources, together with known as Davy Crockett Lake, extends TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY engineering and economic upstream about 9.6 kilometers (6 miles) considerations, to select a preferred from the dam and has a surface area of Environmental Impact Statement on alternative. Flood Remediation at Nolichucky about 254 hectares (635 acres). Reservoir, Greene County, Tennessee Downstream from the dam, the Scoping Process Nolichucky River flows through Greene, Scoping, which is integral to the EIS AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. Cocke, Hamblen and Jefferson counties process, is a procedure that solicits ACTION: Notice of intent. before joining the French Broad River in public input to ensure that: (1) all Douglas Reservoir. pertinent issues are identified early and SUMMARY: This notice is provided in When TVA bought the project in 1945 properly studied; (2) issues of little accordance with the Council on as a power production facility, sand and significance do not consume substantial Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 silt from past mining upstream in North time and effort; (3) the draft EIS is CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA’s Carolina already had begun to fill in the thorough and balanced; and (4) delays procedures implementing the National reservoir. Even though erosion control caused by an inadequate EIS are Environmental Policy Act. Recent measures in the watershed were started avoided. TVA’s NEPA procedures studies suggest that the build-up of sand as early as the 1950s, so much sand and require that the scoping process and silt at the Nolichucky Dam and silt had built up in the reservoir by the commence soon after a decision is made Reservoir causes flood levels that 1970s that TVA decided to stop to prepare an EIS in order to provide an impact non-federal lands and property producing power at Nolichucky Dam. early and open process for determining in Greene County, Tennessee. The Since 1972, TVA, the Tennessee the scope and for identifying the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will Wildlife Resources Agency, and a significant issues related to a proposed prepare an environmental impact variety of cooperating organizations action. The scope of issues to be statement (EIS) that assesses the impacts have managed the reservoir for wildlife addressed in this draft EIS will be of alternative ways to resolve the viewing and environmental education. determined, in part, from written flooding impacts of sediment build-up. comments submitted by mail or e-mail, Recently, in response to letters and TVA wants to use the EIS process to and comments presented orally or in questions from local property owners, make sure everyone understands what writing at public meetings. The TVA began studying the geographic the present flood situation is, how it preliminary identification of reasonable extent to which areas would be affected came to be that way, and has an alternatives and environmental issues in during flood events. The results of this opportunity to comment on what should this notice is not meant to be exhaustive preliminary study suggest that the be done to address the flooding impacts. or final. build-up of sand and silt in the reservoir Public comments are invited concerning The scoping process for this project both the scope of the issues and the causes higher flood levels than were will include specific opportunities for alternatives that should be addressed in present when TVA bought the both public and interagency input. TVA the EIS. Nolichucky facilities. is distributing an information package to DATES: Comments on the scope of the Proposed Issues To Be Addressed affected landowners and other issues and alternatives to be addressed interested stakeholders and is offering in the EIS must be postmarked or e- The EIS will describe the existing them the opportunity to provide mailed no later than February 21, 2000, environmental, cultural, and comments. TVA will hold public and to ensure consideration. socioeconomic resources in the project interagency scoping meetings in the vicinity, including the reservoir and ADDRESSES: Written comments should project area. A public scoping meeting adjacent non-federal property and be sent to Linda B. Oxendine, is scheduled for Thursday, January 20, facilities located within the present 100- Environmental Policy and Planning, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at the Greenville High year flood elevation. TVA’s evaluation Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West School in Greenville, Tennessee. The of environmental impacts to these Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, public is invited to submit written or e- resources will include the present and Tennessee 37902–1499. Comments may mail comments on the scope of this EIS be e-mailed to [email protected]. potential effects of sediment no later than February 21, 2000. accumulations in the reservoir on flood An interagency scoping meeting will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: elevations in the area; how the human be held the same day at 1:00 p.m. at a Susan B. Fuhr, Manager, Cherokee/ population would be affected; convenient location in the project area. Douglas Watershed Team at (865) 632– recreational use of the reservoir; The agencies to be included in the 3266 or John J. Jenkinson, Nolichucky terrestrial and aquatic life, including interagency scoping are the U.S. Project EIS Coordinator (865) 632–1513. endangered and threatened species; and Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: historic and archaeological resources. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.094 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1941 and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 23.683–1 that might be beneficial. This Service, the Eastern Band of Cherokee notice announces the availability of the Indians and Cherokee Nation of Federal Aviation Administration following proposed policy Oklahoma, the Tennessee Department of [Policy Statement Number ACE±00±23.683± memorandum, ACE–00–23.683–01, for Environmental and Conservation, North 01] review and comment. The purpose of Carolina Department of Environment this memorandum is to address and Natural Resources, Tennessee Proposed Issuance of Policy certification projects initiated after the Wildlife Resources Agency, The Memorandum, Discussion of final date of the memo. Certification Tennessee State Historic Preservation Compliance Methods in Advisory projects already in work do not necessarily need to comply. However, Officer, Greene County, the town of Circular (AC) 23.683±1 normal compliance and safety Greeneville, and other agencies, as AGENCY: Federal Aviation considerations, including the effects of appropriate. Administration, DOT. deformation per § 23.305(a), would TVA will develop and maintain a ACTION: Notice of policy statement; apply to existing and future projects. mailing list to identify the agencies, request for comments. Effect of General Statement of Policy organizations, and individuals or groups identified as interested parties who have SUMMARY: This document announces an The FAA is presenting this requested to be included in the process. FAA proposed general statement of information as a set of guidelines TVA will also maintain a public policy applicable to the type appropriate for use. However, this reference file at the Cherokee/Douglas certification of normal, utility, acrobatic, document is not intended to establish a Watershed Team Office, 2611 Andrew and commuter category airplanes. This binding norm; it does not constitute a document advises the public, in Johnson Highway, Morristown, new regulation and the FAA would not particular manufacturers of normal, apply or rely upon it as a regulation. Tennessee, which will include copies of utility, acrobatic, and commuter The FAA Aircraft Certification Offices all written correspondence, documents, category airplanes, of additional (ACO’s) that certify normal, utility, meeting notices, agendas and information related to the compliance acrobatic, and commuter category summaries, etc. methods in current advisory circular AC airplanes should generally attempt to After consideration of the scoping 23.683–1. This notice is necessary to follow this policy when appropriate. comments, TVA will develop the sets of advise the public of FAA policy and Applicants should expect that the environmental issues and alternatives to give all interested persons an certificating officials would consider be addressed in the EIS. Once the opportunity to present their views on this information when making findings evaluation of these issues and analysis the policy statement. of compliance relevant to new of the environmental consequences of DATE: Comments submitted must be certificate actions. Applicants also may each alternative is completed, TVA will received no later than February 11, consider the material contained in this issue a draft EIS for public review and 2000. proposed policy statement as a comment. A Notice of Availability of the ADDRESSES: Send all comments on this supplement to that currently contained draft EIS will be published by the policy statement to the individual in AC 23.683–1 when developing a Environmental Protection Agency in the identified under FOR FURTHER means of compliance with the relevant Federal Register. TVA will solicit INFORMATION CONTACT. certification standards. Also, as with all advisory material, written comments on the draft EIS and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: this statement of policy identifies one hold at least one public information Lester Cheng, Federal Aviation means, but not the only means, of meeting to receive comments on the Administration, Small Airplane compliance. draft EIS. Directorate, ACE–111, Room 301, 901 Because this proposed general TVA is interested in receiving Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; statement of policy only announces comments on the scope of issues and telephone (816) 329–4120; fax 816–329– what the FAA seeks to establish as alternatives that should be addressed in 3047; e-mail: [email protected]. policy, the FAA considers it to be an the EIS. Written comments on the scope SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: issue for which public comment is of the issues and alternatives to be Comments Invited appropriate. Therefore, the FAA addressed in this EIS should be mailed requests comment on the following on or before February 21, 2000. TVA Interested persons are invited to proposed general statement of policy comment on this proposed policy anticipates completing the draft EIS relevant to compliance with § 23.305(a) statement, ACE–00–23.683–01, by early in 2001. and other related regulations. submitting such written data, views, or Dated: January 5, 2000. arguments as they desire. Comment General Statement of Policy Kathryn J. Jackson, should be marked, ‘‘Comments to policy The method of showing compliance Executive Vice President, River System statement ACE–00–23.683–01,’’ and be with 23.683 presented in AC 23.683–1 Operations & Environment. submitted in duplicate to the above dwells only on the control system. It [FR Doc. 00–579 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] address. The Manager, Small Airplane does not explicitly specify the Directorate, will consider all consideration of loading on adjacent BILLING CODE 8120±08±P communications received on or before structures and elements. This is the closing date for comments. consistent with the wording in § 23.683 of the regulations. Testing, not analysis Background must be used to show compliance with After reviewing the compliance § 23.683. There are other regulations, methods in advisory circular 23.683–1, related to 23.683, which must also be the directorate determined that there met. These include the following: was additional information related to Section 23.305(a), [Subpart C— the compliance methods in current AC Structure, General] Strength and

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.099 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Deformation, requires that ‘‘At any load fixed surface proximity for each control (viii) The above procedure should be up to limit loads, the deformation may system as appropriate. repeated in the opposite direction. not interfere with safe operation.’’ f. The entire control system must be (ix) With limit load applied to the Section 23.307, [Subpart C— loaded to the limit airloads or the limit adjacent fixed surface and limit or Structure, General] Proof of Structure, pilot forces whichever are less (§ 23.683 intermediate load applied to the control states that ‘‘Compliance with the (b)(1)). surface, no signs of jamming, or of any strength and deformation requirements g. Minimum clearances around permanent set of any connection, of § 23.305 must be shown for each control surfaces and minimum tensions bracket, attachment, etc., may be critical load condition. Structural in cable systems should be defined to be present. analysis may be used only if the incorporated in the airplane’s (x) The control system should operate structure conforms to those for which instructions for continued freely without excessive friction. experience has shown this method to be airworthiness. The test article should (xi) Cable systems should be checked reliable. In other cases, substantiating incorporate these minimum clearances with the loads applied to ensure that load tests must be made.’’ and tensions, unless they are to be excessive slack does not develop in the Section 23.655(a), [Subpart D—Design otherwise accounted for. system. and Construction, Control Surfaces] h. If reductions in the minimum (xii) Repeat this process for each of Installation, requires that ‘‘Moveable clearances described in paragraph g the critical loading conditions as surfaces must be installed so that there above are possible due to environmental defined by paragraphs d and f above. is no interference between any surfaces, conditions expected in service, then this (2) The tests described in this section their bracing, or adjacent fixed must be accounted for. This can be support the demonstration that structure, when one surface is held in accomplished through analysis or structural deformations not interfere its most critical clearance positions and during testing by adjusting the test with safe operation as required by the others are operated through their article clearances to encompass these § 23.305(a). Accomplish the following: full movement.’’ effects. (i) Load the adjacent fixed Section 23.681(a), [Subpart D—Design (1) The tests described in this section aerodynamic surface (wing, horizontal and Construction, Control Surfaces] support the demonstration that the tail, or vertical tail) in accordance with Limit Load Static Tests, requires that control system is free from jamming, one of the conditions of paragraph d and ‘‘Compliance with the limit load excessive friction, and excessive e above. requirements of this part must be shown deflection as required by § 23.683(a)(1), (ii) Operate the unloaded control by tests in which— (2), and (3). They also support the system from stop to stop. (1) The direction of the test loads demonstration that structural (iii) No signs of interference (contact) produces the most severe loading in the deformations not interfere with safe may be present. control system; and operation as required by § 23.305(a). (iv) The control system should (2) Each fitting, pulley, and bracket Accomplish the following: operate freely without excessive used in attaching the system to the main (i) Load the adjacent fixed friction. structure is included.’’ aerodynamic surface (wing, horizontal The current method in AC 23.683–1 is (v) Repeat this process for each of the tail, or vertical tail) in accordance with modified below to account for the critical adjacent fixed surface loading one of the conditions of paragraphs d deformation effects of adjacent structure conditions as defined by paragraphs d and e above. or elements. In addition to § 23.683, this and e above. (ii) Support the control surface being modified method demonstrates Note: An alternate procedure may be used tested while it is located at the neutral compliance with § 23.305(a) as it relates to accommodate the testing described in position. to § 23.683. It also demonstrates sections (1) and (2) above during structural compliance with § 23.681(a). This (iii) Load the control surfaces to the tests of a partial airplane. This method critical limit loads, as described in requires that all control system components testing may be conducted as follows: that are attached to or enclosed by the loaded Except where otherwise specified, the paragraph f above, and evaluate their proximity to the fixed adjacent structure test structure be installed per type design. A tests described below in sections (1), (2), sufficiently representative mockup of and (3) should be conducted within the for interference (contact). (iv) Load the pilot’s control until the remaining control system components must following parameters. be used to ensure that the full length of any a. Conduct the control system control surface is just off the support. cables which extend from the loaded test operation tests by operating the controls (v) Determine the available control structure are included. This is necessary to from the pilot’s compartment. surface travel which is the amount of make a reasonable assessment that slack that b. All the control surfaces must be movement of the surface from neutral could develop in control cables is not installed in accordance with the type when the cockpit control is moved excessive enough to cause an entanglement design to their adjacent fixed surface on through the limits of its travel. or jam. The control surface activation may be (vi) The control surface under loads input at any convenient location between the the airframe. mockup terminus and the cockpit. c. The entire control system and described in paragraph f above, should adjacent fixed structure should be travel a minimum of 10 percent of the (3) The tests described in this section loaded simultaneously. total unloaded travel, as measured from will demonstrate that the control system d. The adjacent fixed surfaces (wings, the neutral position. This should be is free from excessive deflection as horizontal stabilizers, vertical demonstrated for both directions of required by § 23.683(a)(3). These tests stabilizers, etc.) should be loaded to travel. complete the demonstration that the provide deflections equivalent to critical (vii) To address the possibility of a control system is free from jamming and limit load flight conditions. critical intermediate control surface excessive friction as required by e. The structural deflections should loading, gradually remove load from the § 23.683(a)(1) and (2) as well as the correspond to the limit flight conditions control surface (while maintaining the demonstration that structural which represent the worst case load on the adjacent fixed surface) until deformations not interfere with safe conditions for increased cable tension, maximum control surface travel is operation as required by § 23.305(a). decreased cable tension, and control/ achieved. Also, these tests meet the limit load

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.101 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1943 static test requirements of § 23.681(a). SUMMARY: On February 1, 1996, the Association of American Railroads; Accomplish the following: Federal Highway Administration issued (Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA– (i) With the adjacent fixed surface a Notice of Intent to prepare an 1999–5104) (wing, horizontal tail, or vertical tail) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The Association of American unloaded, support the control surface for the proposed replacement of the M– Railroads (AAR) seeks a waiver of being tested while it is located at the 64 bridge over the Ontonagon River in compliance from certain provisions of neutral position. the Village of Ontonagon, Ontonagon 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety (ii) Load the control surfaces to the County, Michigan. The M–64 bridge is Standards. Specifically, the petitioner critical limit loads, as described in eligible for the National Register of seeks relief from the requirements of paragraph f above, and evaluate their Historic Places. The proposed project § 213.137(d), to use flange-bearing frogs proximity to the fixed adjacent structure also involves reconstruction of the (FBF) in crossing diamonds on Classes for jamming or contact. bridge approach roadways on either side 2 through 5 track in revenue service. (iii) Load the pilot’s control until the of the river. The Federal Highway Currently, the standards allow FBFs control surface is just off the support. Administration is issuing this Notice to only in Class 1 track. (iv) Operate the cockpit control in the Specifically, § 213.137(a) limits the direction opposite the load to the extent withdraw its original Notice of Intent from February 1, 1996. flangeway depth measured from a plane of its travel. across the wheel-bearing area of a frog (v) The above procedure should be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the on Class 1 track to not less than 13⁄8 inch repeated in the opposite direction. past several years, several alternatives and 11⁄2 inches on Classes 2 through 5 (vi) The minimum loaded control have been studied and coordination has track. Section 213.137(d) states that surface travel from the neutral position taken place with the public and various where frogs are designed as flange- in each direction is 10 percent of the interested agencies. This coordination bearing, flangeway depth may be less total unloaded control surface travel. has resulted in alternatives being than that shown for Class 1 if operated (vii) Under limit load, no signs of developed which will likely not have at Class 3 speeds. AAR seeks a waiver jamming, or of any permanent set of any significant impacts on the natural or from § 213.137(d) to allow the use of connection, bracket, attachment, etc., human environment. As a result, the FBFs in Track Classes 2 through 5 in may be present. addition to Class 1. (viii) The control system should Federal Highway Administration has determined that an environmental AAR’s petition states that it seeks the operate freely without excessive waiver in order to improve safety. The friction. impact statement is no longer needed. In lieu of an EIS, the Federal Highway petition discusses the development of Note: The tests described in section (3) Administration and the Michigan the recently revised federal Track Safety above are normally accomplished using a Standards and states that at the time of complete airplane. As a minimum, they must Department of Transportation are preparing an environmental assessment/ the discussions by the Railroad Safety be completed using an airframe/control Advisory Committee (an industry system that completely represents the final programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation committee which recommended product from the cockpit controls to the which will be circulated for public and control surface. revisions to the track standards), AAR interested agency review and comments. had not completed its tests on the FBFs Regardless of the amount of travel of Should it be determined during this at higher speeds. AAR says those tests a control surface when tested as process that an EIS is needed, one will have now been completed and support described above, the airplane must have be prepared following a new Notice of application of Section 213. adequate flight characteristics as Intent. The petition proposes that up to five specified in § 23.141. Any airplane Issued on: January 5, 2000. FBF crossing diamond installations be which is a close derivative of a previous James J. Steele, permitted during the first six-month type certificated airplane needs not period with one installation subject to Division Administrator, Lansing, Michigan. exceed the control surface travel of the wheel inspection. AAR proposes that original airplane; however, the flight [FR Doc. 00–708 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] the first FBF crossing diamond for use characteristics should be tested to BILLING CODE 4910±22±M above Class 1 speeds be installed by the ensure compliance. industry, after FRA’s approval of this Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on waiver petition, in a location where December 21, 1999. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION speeds of 40 mph or greater are allowed Michael Gallagher, in at least one direction over the Federal Railroad Administration Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft diamond. Certification Service. Petition for Waiver of Compliance While the railroad industry feels that [FR Doc. 00–689 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] the recent Facility for Accelerated BILLING CODE 4910±13±U In accordance with part 211 of Title Service Testing (FAST) tests, as well as earlier tests at AAR’s Transportation 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Technology Center (TTC), provided a notice is hereby given that the Federal DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION much more severe test on wheels than Railroad Administration (FRA) received would ever occur in revenue service, the Federal Highway Administration a request for a waiver of compliance industry said it is ‘‘willing to monitor with certain requirements of its safety wheels for the first FBF crossing Environmental Impact Statement standards. The individual petition is diamond if FRA believes such Withdrawal: Ontonagon County; described below, including the party monitoring is necessary.’’ Wheels of at Michigan seeking relief, the regulatory provisions least 10 cars (80 wheels) of one involved, the nature of the relief being AGENCY: Federal Highway dedicated group of cars (most likely on requested, and the petitioner’s Administration (FHWA), DOT. a unit train that cycles on a pre- arguments in favor of relief. determined route using the diamond) ACTION: Notice of Intent Withdrawal. would be used. A cut of cars included

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.103 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices in a train carrying other commodities report concerning the ‘‘lack of AAR’s petition states that extensive could also be used. significant impact loads due to the full-scale testing of the FBF concept has AAR’s petition states that the wheels transition from tread-bearing to flange- been performed by them at speeds up to would be monitored by visual bearing diamonds.’’ 80 mph to prove the safety of the FBF inspection and by taking profiles of AAR’s petition also states that FRA concept. The petition included a flanges. Reports on these wheels would currently permits the use of the FBF summary of the safety issues evaluated be forwarded to FRA three months, six concept. AAR says that the proposal for during the full-scale testing. AAR months, one year and two years FBFs is not a radical change because the testing included a wheel ‘‘torture test’’ following installation of the FBF concept is already in use. AAR’s involving overheating, locked brakes crossing diamond. Reports on the petition states that it has been widely and other items when the test over the condition of the first diamond itself used on rail transit lines now under the flange-bearing sections took place. would be forwarded to FRA at the same Federal Transit Authority’s jurisdiction According to AAR’s petition, the results time intervals. AAR proposes that not for more than a century, not only where of the tests provided convincing more than four additional FBF crossing tracks cross, but also for turnout frogs evidence of the safety of the concept, diamonds be installed within the first and, in some cases, switches. For and the use of wheels in flange-bearing six months after the initial installation. example, FBF use is the current practice was approved by AAR’s Wheel, Axle, The railroads would notify FRA at least on light rail lines in Boston, Bearing and Lubrication (WABL) thirty days in advance of the installation Philadelphia, Toronto, New Orleans, Committee in 1997. of each FBF crossing diamond. This San Francisco, Galveston, Memphis and AAR says that extensive tests also notification would include the location, other cities. took place on locomotives. The first test train MGT, speed and train types AAR says that FRA permits the was performed at AAR’s Chicago Track (intermodal, mixed freight, unit coal, flange-bearing concept in some cases Lab in early 1995 (This facility has since passenger, etc.) for each of the crossing now, and it was also permitted prior to been moved to Pueblo). These tests tracks, as well as plans and the recent revisions to the track safety involved 10,000 passes of a 263,000 specifications for the crossing diamond standards. FRA allows flange depth at pound car over flange-bearing sections itself. Six months after the first FBF and caused no adverse effects. 10 mph (15 mph passenger) to be 13⁄8 The second series of tests were crossing diamond enters service, inches (See 49 CFR 213.137(as)), even additional FBF diamonds beyond the performed from 1995 through 1997. though flanges are allowed to be 11⁄2 first five could be installed. For each These tests involved severe braking and inches under current freight car such location, the industry would high wheel temperatures with cars up to standards. The petition goes on to state provide FRA with the same train and 315,000 pounds at 60 mph, as well as that even at speeds up to 90 mph, diamond design information on the first passenger and other equipment at flangeways are only required to be 11⁄2 five FBF crossing diamonds thirty days speeds up to 80 mph. This series of tests inches deep, which means that with the in advance of installation. involved both AC and DC locomotives Each new FBF crossing diamond most minute variations, flange-bearing with wheels locked and dragged over would be inspected on foot daily for the will occur. The petition states that the the flange-bearing sections. Some first five days of service and on foot track standards ‘‘properly’’ allow flanges wheels with pre-existing cracks were weekly thereafter for the first year of to ride on the tops of joint bars at any used, and even under these severe service. After this, inspection would be speed as this condition has not been conditions, the cracks did not grow. at the normal inspection interval for shown to cause safety problems. Yet, Following approval of the flange- track crossings in accordance with this condition is more severe than bearing concept by the WABL § 213.235 of the Federal Track Safety designed flange-bearing because of the Committee in 1997, a decision was Standards. sudden impact from the flange hitting made to use the FAST loop for a third In support of its argument, AAR’s the end of the joint bar. series of tests at TTC to test specific petition states that there are two major The petition states that in addition, designs of crossing diamonds using the safety advantages created by the use of FBFs are used and have been used for flange-bearing concept. These tests were FBF crossing diamonds instead of the over a century when regular railroad much more severe than present revenue conventional tread-bearing diamonds. tracks cross double-flanged gantry crane service because nearly all of the cars AAR’s petition also states that first rails in port facilities. AAR’s petition were 315,000 pounds with no empties, advantage is the elimination of adverse states that this is a standard way of and the wheels were subjected to a effects on track, locomotives and handling such crossings and exists at frequency of diamond crossings of at railroad cars caused by rolling stock numerous ports. For example, at least 10 times what would be expected passing over the eight 2-inch gaps in the Savannah, Norfolk Southern in revenue service. According to AAR’s running rail surface of conventional locomotives and crews make dozens report, in these tests, the flange-bearing diamonds where two tracks cross on the and perhaps hundreds of flange-bearing diamond has lasted longer than any level. According to the petition, the crossings per day and have done so for other diamond design. These tests also vertical impacts at conventional decades with no adverse safety effect or showed how FBF diamond designs crossing diamonds are the highest found wheel problems. could be further improved for additional in railroad service, other than in AAR’s petition states that FRA has no durability, primarily through the derailments. AAR’s petition states that prohibition against flange-bearing in elimination of flange-bearing joints. the second safety advantage is a result general, only with respect to frogs. AAR’s petition states that with all of of the introduction of residual According to the petition, the railroads this extensive testing (documented in compressive stresses in the flange tip of are free to install the flange-bearing attachments) whose cost has run well the wheel due to cold working. AAR switches that exist on some transit over one million dollars, the crossing believes that this can prevent any crack properties (where the switch points diamonds using FBFs have been shown opening and, therefore, retard wheel provide guidance but do not support to be suitable for revenue service. Other crack growth, which could lead to vertical loads) and flange-bearing weight items of trackwork innovation, such as wheel failure. In an attachment to the scales (offered for sale by European swing-nosed frogs and tangential petition, AAR included a technical manufacturers). geometry switch points, are developed

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.107 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1945 by the industry without the need for requested, and the petitioner’s DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA waivers. AAR states that, of course, arguments in favor of relief. this type of product improvement will Federal Railroad Administration Chesaning Central & Owosso Railroad; continue with FBFs also. In conclusion, the petition states that Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA– Notice of Application for Approval of the granting of this waiver request 1999–5793 Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From concerning revenue service use of FBF Chesaning Central & Owosso Railroad crossing diamonds is necessary for the Requirements of Title 49 Code of seeks a permanent waiver of compliance Federal Regulations Part 236 implementation of a technological from certain provisions of the Safety improvement in railway engineering. Glazing Standards, 49 CFR part 223, Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Interested parties are invited to which requires certified glazing, for its Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 participate in these proceedings by road switcher, locomotive CC&O 1508, U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads submitting written views, data, or ALCO RS–3, built in 1954. have petitioned the Federal Railroad comments. FRA does not anticipate Administration (FRA) seeking approval scheduling a public hearing in Locomotive CC&O 1508 is utilized as for the discontinuance or modification connection with these proceedings since a locomotive for a tourist train of the signal system or relief from the the facts do not appear to warrant a operation, which operates strictly in a requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as hearing. If any interested party desires captive rural farm area and does not detailed below. an opportunity for oral comment, they exceed 25 mph at any time during its should notify FRA, in writing, before operation, which is seasonal. Docket No. FRA–1999–6516 the end of the comment period and The reason for this request for relief Applicant: Burlington Northern and specify the basis for their request. is economical. The cost to retrofit the Santa Fe Railway, Mr. William G. All communications concerning these locomotive with updated window Peterson, Director Signal Engineering, proceedings should identify the frames and glazing would cause an 4515 Kansas Avenue, Kansas City, appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver economical burden that this rail Kansas 66106. Petition Docket Number 1999–5104) and operation is unable to bear. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Interested parties are invited to Railway seeks approval of the proposed DOT Docket Management Facility, participate in these proceedings by reduction of the traffic control system Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th submitting written views, data, or limits, on the North and South Fast Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. comments. FRA does not anticipate Tracks between AY Tower, CP39, Communications received within 45 scheduling a public hearing in milepost 3.9 and CP50, milepost 5.0, on days of the date of this notice will be connection with these proceedings since the Kansas City Division, Emporia considered by FRA before final action is the facts do not appear to warrant a Subdivision, near Kansas City, Kansas. taken. Comments received after that hearing. If any interested party desires The proposed changes include the date will be considered as far as an opportunity for oral comment, they discontinuance and removal of two practicable. All written communications should notify FRA, in writing, before holding signals at CP50, removal of the concerning these proceedings are the end of the comment period and No.5 power-operated switch at CP39, available for examination during regular specify the basis for their request. and relocation of the begin/end CTC to business hours (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) at milepost 3.9. the above facility. All documents in the All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the The reason given for the proposed public docket are also available for changes is to make track changes near inspection and copying on the Internet appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number 1999–5793) and AY Tower to allow for improved access at the docket facility’s web site at http:/ to the Diesel Shops. /dms.dot.gov. must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Any interested party desiring to Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, protest the granting of an application 2000. Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. shall set forth specifically the grounds Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Communications received within 45 upon which the protest is made, and Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety days of the date of this notice will be contain a concise statement of the Standards and Program Development. considered by FRA before final action is interest of the Protestant in the [FR Doc. 00–709 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] taken. Comments received after that proceeding. Additionally, one copy of BILLING CODE 4910±06±P date will be considered as far as the protest shall be furnished to the practicable. All written communications applicant at the address listed above. concerning these proceedings are All communications concerning this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION available for examination during regular proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted Federal Railroad Administration business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Petition for Waiver of Compliance public docket are also available for Management Facility, Room PI–401, inspection and copying on the Internet Washington, DC 20590–0001. In accordance with part 211 of Title at the docket facility’s web site at http:/ Communications received within 45 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), /dms.dot.gov. days of the date of this notice will be notice is hereby given that the Federal considered by the FRA before final Railroad Administration (FRA) received Issued in Washington, DC on January 3, action is taken. Comments received after a request for a waiver of compliance 2000. that date will be considered as far as with certain requirements of its safety Grady C. Cothen, Jr., practicable. All written communications standards. The individual petition is Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety concerning these proceedings are described below, including the party Standards and Program Development. available for examination during regular seeking relief, the regulatory provisions [FR Doc. 00–711 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at DOT involved, the nature of the relief being BILLING CODE 4910±06±P Central Docket Management Facility,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.109 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

Room PI–401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION cubic inches or 12 times the combined Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590– volume of all service brake chambers. 0001. All documents in the public National Highway Traffic Safety The rear air brake chambers of the docket are also available for inspection Administration affected buses are 30 inches in diameter. and copying on the internet at the [Docket No. NHTSA±99±5681; notice 2] During the agency’s compliance testing docket facility’s Web site at http:// of various motor vehicles, the agency dms.dot.gov. American Transportation Corporation, conducted compliance testing on an Am FRA expects to be able to determine Grant of Application for Decision of Tran bus and found that the bus met the these matters without an oral hearing. Inconsequential Noncompliance air reservoir and the braking However, if a specific request for an oral performance requirements specified in American Transportation Corporation FMVSS No. 121. The compliance test hearing is accompanied by a showing (AmTran) has determined certain air that the party is unable to adequately vehicle was equipped with smaller rear brake systems on AmTran buses were brake chambers (24-inch diameters) present his or her position by written built with air tank volumes that are not statements, an application may be set than the affected buses. in full compliance with Federal Motor On August 16, 1999, AmTran for public hearing. Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. provided the agency with its in-house Issued in Washington, DC on January 3, 121, ‘‘Air brake systems,’’ and has filed test results on a subject model bus. 2000. an appropriate report pursuant to 49 These tests evaluated the vehicle’s air Grady C. Cothen, Jr., CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and consumption under severe braking and Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Noncompliance Reports.’’ AmTran has indicated that the bus’ braking system Standards and Program Development. also applied to be exempted from the had sufficient compressed air to [FR Doc. 00–710 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] notification and remedy requirements of adequately stop the vehicle during BILLING CODE 4910±06±P 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle repeated brake applications. Safety’’ on the basis that the Based on the agency’s test findings noncompliance is inconsequential to and the information provided by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION motor vehicle safety. AmTran, the agency believes that in this Notice of receipt of the application case, the true measure of its National Highway Traffic Safety was published, with a 30-day comment inconsequentiality to motor vehicle Administration period, on May 25, 1999, in the Federal safety is whether this air reservoir Register (64 FR 28242). NHTSA combined volume affects the vehicle’s [Docket No. NHTSA±99±6038] received no comments on this overall stopping ability. In this case, it application during the 30-day comment does not appear to adversely affect Notice of Receipt of Petition for period. Since November 5, 1998, stopping ability. Laboratory test data Decision That Nonconforming 1998± AmTram has produced vehicles that results submitted by the manufacturer 1999 Audi A6 Passenger Cars Are comply with the air reservoir combined demonstrate that this non-compliant Eligible for Importation; Correction volume requirements of FMVSS No. braking system maintains sufficient air 121. after several brake applications. In AGENCY: National Highway Traffic FMVSS No. 121 establishes the consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. performance and equipment has decided that the applicant has met ACTION: Correction to notice of receipt of requirements for the braking systems on its burden of persuasion that the petition for decision that vehicles equipped with air brake noncompliance it describes is nonconforming 1998–1999 Audi A6 systems. On January 12, 1995, NHTSA inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, passenger cars are eligible for issued a final rule in the Federal its application is granted, and the importation. Register (60 FR 2896) amending FMVSS applicant is exempted from providing No. 121 to allow the volume of each air the notification of the noncompliance SUMMARY: This document corrects a brake chamber to be determined by that is required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and document published on August 5, 1999 either the actual volume of the brake from remedying the noncompliance, as (64 FR 42756) announcing receipt by chamber at maximum travel of the brake required by 49 U.S.C. 30120. NHTSA of a petition for a decision that piston (or pushrod), or the ‘‘rated (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of 1998–1999 Audi A6 passenger cars that volume’’ of each brake chamber authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8) were not originally manufactured to pursuant to a table of specified values,’’ Issued on: January 7, 2000. whichever is lower. On July 11, 1996, comply with all applicable Federal Stephen R. Kratzke, NHTSA published a final rule amending motor vehicle safety standards are Acting Associate Administrator for Safety eligible for importation into the United Table V. The agency decided to revise Performance Standards. certain rated volumes in Table V, States. The notice incorrectly identified [FR Doc. 00–749 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] thereby removing design restrictions the docket number for this petition as BILLING CODE 4910±59±P ‘‘Docket No. NHTSA–99–6039.’’ The that had continued to discourage the use docket number should have been of long stroke brake chambers. properly identified as ‘‘Docket No. AmTran’s calculation of the minimum DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA–99–6038.’’ required air capacity of affected buses is Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) and based on the amended Table V. Surface Transportation Board From October 27, 1995, through (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority [Finance Docket No. 33407] at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. November 5, 1998, AmTran produced 122 units with an air reservoir Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Issued on January 7, 2000. combined volume of 3,630 cubic inches Marilynne Jacobs, Railroad Corporation Construction Into or 11.6 times the combined volume of the Powder River Basin Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. all service brake chambers. Standard [FR Doc. 00–750 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] No. 121 requires those units to have an AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, BILLING CODE 4910±59±P air reservoir combined volume of 3,744 DOT.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.105 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices 1947

ACTION: Amended notice of intent to agencies interested in or affected by the By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, prepare an environmental impact proposed project of additional USCG Section of Environmental Analysis. statement (EIS); addition of U.S. Coast and USBR decisions triggered by the Vernon A. Williams, Guard and U.S. Department of the project. Secretary. Interior Bureau of Reclamation as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 00–739 Filed 1–12–00; 8:45 am] cooperating agencies. Environmental Review Process BILLING CODE 4915±00±P SUMMARY: On February 20, 1998, the The Board has determined that an Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Corporation (DM&E) filed an application must be prepared in accordance with with the Surface Transportation Board the provisions of the National Surface Transportation Board (Board) for authority to construct and Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior [STB Docket No. AB±33 (Sub±No. 143X)] operate new rail line facilities in east- to its decisions on the proposed project. central Wyoming, southwest South The Board is the lead agency, Union Pacific Railroad Co.Ð Dakota, and south-central Minnesota. pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5(c), Abandonment and Discontinuance of The project involves approximately supervising the preparation of the EIS. Trackage Rights ExemptionÐin 280.9 miles of new rail line The USFS, BLM, COE, USCG, and USBR Wright, Franklin and Cerro Gordo construction. Additionally, DM&E are cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40 Counties, IA proposes to rebuild approximately 597.8 CFR 1501.6, and shall adopt the EIS and miles of existing rail line along its base their respective decisions on it. Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) current system to standards acceptable The NEPA process is intended to assist has filed a notice of exemption under 49 for operation of unit coal trains. The the Board, its cooperating agencies, and CFR part 1152 Subpart F—Exempt project would require actions by a the public in identifying and assessing Abandonments and Discontinuances of number of Federal agencies, including the potential environmental Service and Trackage Rights to abandon the Board, the U.S. Department of consequences of a proposed action a 12.38-mile line of railroad over the Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the before a decision on the proposed action Thornton Industrial Lead (formerly U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of is made. The Board’s Section of known as the Fort Dodge Branch) from Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Environmental Analysis (SEA) is milepost 17.14 near Thornton to Army Corps of Engineers (COE), who responsible for ensuring that the Board milepost 29.52 near Belmond, in previously agreed to be cooperating complies with the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Wright, Franklin and Cerro Gordo agencies for the EIS. As part of its plans 4321–4335, and related environmental Counties, IA.1 The line traverses United to rebuild its rail line through Pierre, statutes. The EIS should include all of States Postal Service Zip Codes 50421, South Dakota, DM&E proposes to the information necessary for decisions 50449, 50457, and 50479. rebuild its existing bridge or construct a by the Board and the cooperating UP has certified that: (1) no local new bridge over the Missouri River to agencies. traffic has moved over the line for at permit the operation of unit coal trains. SEA and the cooperating agencies are least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has preparing a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the traffic moving over the line; (3) no responsibility and authority to issue proposed project. The DEIS will address formal complaint filed by a user of rail bridge permits under the provisions of those environmental issues and service on the line (or by a state or local Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act concerns identified during the scoping government entity acting on behalf of of 1899, and under the General Bridge process and detailed in the scope of such user) regarding cessation of service Act of 1946. Therefore, in order for study. It will also contain a reasonable over the line either is pending with the DM&E to rebuild or construct a new range of alternatives to the proposed Surface Transportation Board (Board) or bridge over navigable waters, it must action and recommended environmental with any U.S. District Court or has been apply for a permit from the USCG, mitigation measures. The DEIS will be decided in favor of complainant within which in turn would require an made available upon its completion for the 2-year period; and (4) the environmental review of DM&E’s action public review and comment. A Final requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 pursuant to NEPA. The U.S.D.I. Bureau EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 of Reclamation (USBR) is the agency reflecting SEA’s further analysis and the (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 responsible for operation and comments on the DEIS. In reaching each (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 administration of the Angostura decision in this case, the agencies will (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR Reservoir and associated irrigation take into account the DEIS, the FEIS, 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental canals and ditches. The USBR works and all public and agency comments agencies) have been met. closely with the local irrigation district received. As a condition to this exemption, any for repayment of project costs based on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: employee adversely affected by the water delivered and acres of irrigated Victoria Rutson, Project Manager, abandonment and discontinuance shall land. If this project crosses lands, Surface Transportation Board, Powder be protected under Oregon Short Line R. irrigation ditches or canals under the River Basin Expansion Project, 1– Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. jurisdiction of the USBR, a permit for 877–404–3044; such crossings will be required from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Wendy 1 Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.50(d)(2), the railroad USBR prior to construction. Depending Schmitzer, (307) 358–4690; must file a verified notice with the Board at least on the alternative approved for 50 days before the abandonment or discontinuance U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, is to be consummated. The applicant in its verified construction, the USBR may be required Bill Carson, (307) 746–4453; notice, indicated a proposed consummation date of to issue a permit, which would U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jerry February 7, 2000. Because the verified notice was normally require environmental review. Folkers, (402) 221–4173; officially filed upon payment of the required filing Consequently, USCG and USBR have U.S. Coast Guard, Roger Wiebusch, fee on December 23, 1999, consummation may not take place prior to February 11, 2000. Applicant’s agreed to be cooperating agencies for the (314) 539–3900, ext. 378; representative has been contacted and has EIS. The purpose of this Amended U.S.D.I. Bureau of Reclamation, Dennis confirmed that consummation may occur no earlier Notice of Intent is to notify persons and Breitzman, (701) 250–4242, ext. 3101. than February 11, 2000.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.137 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 1948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Notices

91 (1979). To address whether this historic preservation matters must be time and will be open to the public. The condition adequately protects affected filed within 15 days after the EA remaining sessions and the committee’s employees, a petition for partial becomes available to the public. reporting session will be closed to the revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) Environmental, historic preservation, public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. must be filed. Provided no formal public use, or trail use/rail banking § 10(d). conditions will be imposed, where expression of intent to file an offer of The notice shall constitute my financial assistance (OFA) has been appropriate, in a subsequent decision. determination, pursuant to the authority received, this exemption will be Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR placed in heads of departments by 5 effective on February 11, 2000, unless 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of U.S.C. App. § 10(d) and vested in me by stayed pending reconsideration. consummation with the Board to signify Petitions to stay that do not involve that it has exercised the authority Treasury Department Order No. 101–05, environmental issues,2 formal granted and fully abandoned its line. If that the closed portions of the meeting expressions of intent to file an OFA consummation has not been effected by are concerned with information that is under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),3 and trail UP’s filing of a notice of consummation exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR by January 12, 2001, and there are no § 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest 1152.29 must be filed by January 24, legal or regulatory barriers to requires that such meetings be closed to 2000. Petitions to reopen or requests for consummation, the authority to the public because the Treasury public use conditions under 49 CFR abandon will automatically expire. Department requires frank and full 1152.28 must be filed by February 1, Board decisions and notices are advice from representatives of the 2000, with: Surface Transportation available on our website at financial community prior to making its Board, Office of the Secretary, Case ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ final decision on major financing Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Decided: January 5, 2000. operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management Washington, DC 20423. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, A copy of any petition filed with the Director, Office of Proceedings. advisory committees established by the Board should be sent to applicant’s Vernon A. Williams, several major segments of the financial representative: James P. Gatlin, General community. When so utilized, such a Secretary. Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad committee is recognized to be an Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Room [FR Doc. 00–604 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 830, Omaha, NE 68179. BILLING CODE 4915±00±P §3. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption Although the Treasury’s final is void ab initio. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY announcement of financing plans may UP has filed an environmental report not reflect the recommendations which addresses the effects, if any, of Departmental Offices, Debt provided in reports of the advisory the abandonment and discontinuance Management Advisory Committee; committee, premature disclosure of the on the environment and historic Meeting committee’s deliberations and reports resources. The Section of Environmental would be likely to lead to significant Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 Analysis (SEA) will issue an financial speculation in the securities U.S.C. App. § 10(a)(2), that a meeting environmental assessment (EA) by market. Thus, these meetings fall within will be held at the U.S. Treasury January 14, 2000. Interested persons the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. Department, 15th and Pennsylvania may obtain a copy of the EA by writing § 552b(c)(9)(A). Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., on to SEA (Room 500, Surface February 1, 2000, of the following debt The Office of Financial Markets is Transportation Board, Washington, DC management advisory committee: The responsible for maintaining records of 20423) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565– Bond Market Association, Treasury debt management advisory committee 1545. Comments on environmental and Borrowing Advisory Committee. meetings and for providing annual The agenda for the meeting provides reports setting forth a summary of 2 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised for a technical background briefing by committee activities and such other by a party or by the Board’s Section of Treasury staff, followed by a charge by matters as may be informative to the Environmental Analysis in its independent the Secretary of the Treasury or his public consistent with the policy of 5 investigation) cannot be made before the U.S.C. § 552b. exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Out- designate that the committee discuss of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any particular issues, and a working session. Dated: January 6, 2000. request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible Following the working session, the Lee Sachs, so that the Board may take appropriate action before committee will present a written report the exemption’s effective date. Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets). 3 of its recommendations. Each offer of financial assistance must be [FR Doc. 00–688 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is The background briefing by Treasury set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). staff will be held at 9:00 a.m. Eastern BILLING CODE 4810±25±M

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 11:04 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A12JA3.027 pfrm03 PsN: 12JAN1 Wednesday January 12, 2000

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (LCRMR) rulemaking are public water The Agency believes that a delay of AGENCY systems (PWSs) that are classified as three years is not necessary, or either community water systems (CWSs) appropriate. The revisions in today’s 40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142 or non-transient non-community water action are effective April 11, 2000. Until systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated today’s action takes effect, the existing [FRL±6515±6] categories and entities include: requirements of the NPDWRs for Lead RIN 2140±AC27 and Copper, and applicable State Category Examples of requirements, remain in effect and are National Primary Drinking Water regulated entities enforceable. Regulations for Lead and Copper As noted above, section 1412(b)(10) Industry ...... Privately-owned provides the Agency with flexibility to AGENCY: Environmental Protection CWSs and Agency. NTNCWSs. establish an effective date for a NPDWR earlier than 3 years after promulgation ACTION: Final rule. State, Tribal, and Publicly-owned CWSs local governments. and NTNCWSs. where ‘‘practicable’’. In addition, under SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection section 1445(a), EPA has the flexibility Agency (EPA) is making several minor This table is not intended to be to establish an effective date for revisions to the national primary exhaustive, but rather provides a guide recordkeeping, reporting, and drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) for readers regarding entities regulated monitoring requirements any time not for lead and copper to improve by the LCRMR. This table lists the types shorter than 30 days after promulgation. implementation. The intended effect of of entities that EPA is now aware could EPA is promulgating the recordkeeping, this action is to eliminate unnecessary potentially be regulated by the LCRMR. reporting, and monitoring requirements requirements, streamline and reduce Other types of entities not listed in the under both sections 1445 and 1412 of reporting burden, and promote table could also be regulated. To the SDWA, and the remainder of the consistent national implementation. The determine whether your facility is rule under section 1412. EPA believes changes promulgated in today’s action regulated by the LCRMR, you should that a 90-day effective date is do not affect the lead or copper carefully examine the applicability appropriate under both of these maximum contaminant level goals, the criteria in §§ 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title provisions. For purposes of its effective action levels, or the basic regulatory 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations date under section 1412, EPA believes it requirements. In compliance with the (CFR). If you have questions regarding is practicable for systems to implement Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this the applicability of the LCRMR to a the revised rule requirements in today’s action also amends the table that lists particular entity, consult the person rule in 90 days. First, the revisions to the Office of Managment and Budget listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER the existing regulation are minor and (OMB) control numbers issued under INFORMATION CONTACT Section. generally do not require any installation of new or different treatment by PWSs. the PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and Effective Date Copper. Second, this rule in many respects Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe DATES: This final rule is effective April streamlines existing requirements and Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 11, 2000. some of the benefits of the regulation Amendments of 1996 specifies that any will not be realized if implementation For judicial review purposes, this amendments to a NPDWR promulgated were to be delayed for three years. final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m., under SDWA section 1412 shall take Because the effective date is well in eastern time on January 26, 2000, as effect on the date that is 3 years after the advance of the deadline for State provided in 40 CFR 23.7. date on which the regulation is adoption of these revised regulations, ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record, promulgated ‘‘unless the Administrator EPA will take steps to enter into a including public comments on the determines that an earlier date is cooperative agreement with the States to proposed revisions and EPA’s practicable, except that the ensure that the primacy States (rather responses, applicable Federal Register Administrator, or a State (in the case of than EPA) continue to be the lead entity notices, other major supporting an individual system), may allow up to implementing these new requirements. documents, and a copy of the index to 2 additional years to comply with a Although EPA will enforce the new the public docket for this rulemaking, maximum contaminant level or regulations until States get primacy for are available for review at EPA’s Water treatment technique if the Administrator the revised regulations, States will share Docket; 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, or State (in the case of an individual information with EPA about water DC 20460. For access to the Docket system) determines that additional time system compliance with the new materials, call (202) 260–3027 between is necessary for capital improvements.’’ requirements. 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for Section 1445(a) of the SDWA, which an appointment and directions to room authorizes EPA to establish More Stringent State Provisions EB57. recordkeeping, reporting and For water systems in those States that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The monitoring requirements, does not have primary enforcement Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free specifically address when such responsibility for the 1991 Lead and (800) 426–4791, or Judy Lebowich; requirements shall become effective. Copper Rule (LCR), State program Standards and Risk Management The Agency’s authority to establish requirements that are more stringent Division; Office of Ground Water and effective dates for requirements under than revisions in today’s rule will Drinking Water; EPA (4607); 401 M this provision, therefore, is governed by continue to govern until the primacy Street S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 State incorporates these revisions into telephone (202) 260–7595. U.S.C. 553(d), which provides that an its approved Primacy program. As SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency publish a final rule in the discussed in the next section, States Federal Register not less than 30 days have two years, from the date of Regulated Entities before its effective date, although an promulgation, to revise their Primacy Entities potentially regulated by this earlier effective date can be established program to incorporate the revisions in Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions under certain circumstances. today’s rule, unless they qualify for an

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1951 extension. Table 1 identifies which the primacy State’s regulations before with their Primacy Agency before provisions in today’s rule, which are they can be implemented by water implementing any of these less stringent less stringent than the 1991 LCR and systems within the State’s jurisdiction. provisions. which, therefore, must be adopted into Water systems, therefore, should check

TABLE 1.ÐLCRMR PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION

CFR Section Revision

141.81 ...... Deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81(b)(3)(i). 141.82 ...... Compliance determinations under § 141.82(g). 141.85 ...... All revisions to section. 141.86 ...... Following revisions: • Eliminate justification letters for too few tier 1 sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(8)) and/or lead service line sample sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(9)); • NTNCWSs and special-case CWSs without sufficient first-draw sites under §§ 141.86(b)(1), (2), and (5); • Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples prior to analysis under § 141.86(b)(2); • Eliminate requirement for systems subject to water quality parameter monitoring to explicitly request approval for re- duced monitoring under §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii); • Use of alternate period to conduct reduced lead and copper tap monitoring under § 141.86(d)(4)(iv); • Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap under § 141.86(d)(4)(v); • Sample invalidation under § 141.86(f); and • Monitoring waivers under § 141.86(g). 141.87 ...... All revisions to section except the table at the end of the section. 141.88 ...... Reduced source water monitoring for systems without maximum permissible source water levels. 141.89 ...... All revisions to section. 141.90 ...... All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(1), 141.90(a)(2), 141.90(a)(4), 141.90(a)(5), and 141.90(h).

Primacy State Program Revisions On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its submission or the effective date of the State primacy regulations at 40 CFR new or revised State regulation, States with primary enforcement 142.12 (EPA 1998d, 63 FR 23362). In whichever is later, and ends when EPA responsibility (‘‘primacy’’) under 40 accordance with these regulations, makes a final determination. However, CFR Part 142 subpart B must adopt, and States must adopt the LCRMR by this interim primacy authority is only submit to EPA for approval, a primacy January 14, 2002; however, under available to a State whose existing program revision to incorporate all new certain circumstances States may approved primacy program is current and revised EPA regulations into their receive an extension of up to two years. with respect to every existing NPDWR approved primacy program. As a These State primacy regulations also in effect when the new regulation is incorporate the new process identified condition of primacy, a State is required promulgated. As a result, States that in the 1996 SDWA amendments for to adopt, a State rule that is no less have primacy for every existing NPDWR granting primary enforcement authority stringent than EPA’s regulations. Table already in effect may obtain interim 2 identifies those provisions in today’s to States while their applications to modify their primacy programs are primacy for this rule, beginning on the action that States must adopt to retain date that the State submits its complete primacy. The requirements States must under review. The new process grants interim primary enforcement authority and final application for primacy for meet to receive primacy are listed in this rule to EPA, or the effective date of § 142.10 and requirements to revise an for a new or revised regulation during the period in which EPA is making a its revised regulations, whichever is approved primacy program are in determination with regard to primacy later. In addition, a State which wishes § 142.12. Special primacy requirements for that new or revised regulation. This to obtain interim primacy for future unique to specific regulations are in interim enforcement authority begins on NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this § 142.16. the date of the primacy application rule.

TABLE 2.ÐLCRM PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIMACY

CFR Section Revision

141.81 ...... All revisions to section except deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81(b)(3)(i). 141.82 ...... All revisions to section except compliance determinations under § 141.82(g). 141.84 ...... All revisions to section. 141.86 ...... Following revisions: • Requirement to use representative sites under §§ 141.86(a)(5) and (a)(7) when the system has insufficient tier 1, 2, or 3 sites; • Requirement that reduced monitoring must be representative and that States may specify sampling locations for re- duced monitoring under § 141.86(c); and • Requirement to notify the State of a change in treatment or additional of a new source for sysems on reduced moni- toring under § 141.86(d)(4)(vii). 141.88 ...... Resampling triggers for composite source water samples, if the State allows compositing 141.90 ...... All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(3), 141.90(f).

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Table of Contents (iii) Possible adverse health effects (E) Prior State approval associated with partial LSL replacement (iii) Today’s action List of Tables (iv) Resident notification of partial LSL i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions replacement copper tap water monitoring Used in This Document (v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling j. Requirements for systems subject to results to the State reduced monitoring that change A. Background (vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement treatment or source water 1. Reason for this rulemaking (vii) Other LSL comments (i) Proposed revision and background 2. Overview of public comments received c. Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis 3. Impacts on costs and benefits 4. Revisions to § 141.85 (iii) Today’s action B. Continued exclusion of transient non- a. Changes affecting content of written k. Sample invalidation community water systems materials (i) Proposed revision and background 1. Overview and summary of Agency (i) Proposed revision and background (ii) Comments and analysis position (ii) Comments and analysis (iii) Today’s action 2. Detailed discussion of rationale (iii) Today’s action l. Monitoring waivers for small systems a. Background b. Public education delivery requirements (i) Proposed revision and background b. Occurrence and exposure at transient (i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people (ii) Comments and analysis systems (A) Proposed revision and background (A) Materials specification c. Health effects of lead (B) Comments and analysis (B) Monitoring issues d. Objections to the exclusion (C) Today’s action (C) Changes potentially affecting C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, requirements for (ii) Timing and method of distribution monitoring waivers public water systems (A) Proposed revision and background (D) Waiver renewals 1. Revisions to § 141.81 (B) Comments and analysis (E) Partial waivers a. Clarification of the requirement to install (C) Today’s action (F) Pre-existing waivers and maintain operation of optimal c. Schedule for reporting completion of (iii) Today’s action corrosion control public education tasks 6. Revisions to § 141.87 (i) Proposed revision and background (i) Proposed revision and background a. Monitoring for optimal water quality (ii) Comments and analysis (ii) Comments and analysis parameters (iii) Today’s action (iii) Today’s action b. Use of representative sites for entry b. Water systems deemed to be optimized 5. Revisions to § 141.86 point water quality parameter pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2) a. Systems with an insufficient number of monitoring at ground water systems (i) Proposed revision and background tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites (i) Proposed revision and background (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background (ii) Comments and analysis (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis (iii) Today’s action c. Water systems deemed to have (iii) Today’s action c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for optimized corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3) b. Elimination of justification letters for use water quality parameters at the tap (i) Copper action level requirements of non-tier 1 sample sites and (i) Proposed revision and background (A) Proposed revision and background insufficient lead service line sample sites (ii) Comments and analysis (B) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background (iii) Today’s action (C) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis d. Summary of water quality monitoring (ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper (iii) Today’s action requirements at the tap c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to 7. Revisions to § 141.88 (A) Proposed revision and background provide first-draw samples a. Resampling triggers for composite source (B) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background water samples (C) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background (iii) State discretion to impose additional (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis requirements d. Minimum holding time for acidified (iii) Today’s action (A) Proposed revision and background lead and copper samples prior to b. Reduced source water monitoring for (B) Comments and analysis analysis systems without State-designated (C) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background maximum permissible source water (iv) Systems triggered into corrosion (ii) Comments and analysis levels control (iii) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background (A) Proposed revision and background e. Selection of sample sites under reduced (ii) Comments and analysis (B) Comments and analysis monitoring (iii) Today’s action (C) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background 8. Revisions to laboratory certification (v) Difference between source water lead (ii) Comments and analysis requirements in § 141.89 concentrations and 90th percentile lead (iii) Today’s action f. State determination a. Proposed revision and background levels of eligibility for reduced monitoring b. Comments and analysis (A) Proposed revision and background (i) Proposed revision and background c. Today’s action (B) Comments and analysis (ii) Comments and analysis 9. Revisions to system reporting (C) Today’s action (iii) Today’s action requirements in § 141.90 2. Revisions to § 141.82 g. Timing of sample collection under a. Timing of reporting of tap water a. Clarification of requirement to operate reduced monitoring monitoring for lead and copper and and maintain optimal corrosion control (i) Proposed revision and background water quality parameter monitoring b. Excursions from State-designated (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background optimal water quality parameter ranges (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis or values h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead (iii) Today’s action (i) Proposed revision and background and copper at the tap b. Elimination of certification requirements (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background pertaining to first-draw samples (iii) Today’s action (ii) Comments and analysis (i) Proposed revision and background 3. Revisions to § 141.84 (A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold (ii) Comments and analysis a. Proposed revision and background (B) Usefulness of proposed provision (iii) Today’s action b. Comments and analysis (C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for c. State calculation/reporting of 90th (i) Definition of ‘‘control’’ only one contaminant percentile levels (ii) Elimination of the rebuttable (D) Monitoring less frequently than (i) Proposed revision and background presumption triennially (ii) Comments and analysis

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1953

(iii) Today’s action Glossary of Abbreviations and CCT: Corrosion control treatment. 10. Revisions to § 141.43 Definitions Used in This Document CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. D. Revisions to requirements for States The following definitions are CWS: Community Water System. 1. Records kept by States DDBP: National Primary Drinking presented to assist the reader in 2. Reporting requirements for States Water Regulations—Disinfectants and understanding acronyms and other a. Proposed revision and background Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule (63 b. Comments and analysis short-hand phrases used in the FR 69389, Dec. 16, 1998). c. Today’s action preamble. DSC: Data Sharing Committee. 3. Special primacy considerations (b)(1) System: A small or medium-size EPA: Environmental Protection E. Burden reduction suggestions not adopted water system that is deemed to have Agency. 1. Reduced frequency of water quality optimized corrosion control pursuant to Excursion: A ‘‘daily value’’ parameter monitoring at entry points for 40 CFR 141.81(b)(1). systems subject to water quality (calculated pursuant to § 141.82(g)) for a (b)(2) System: A water system that is parameter monitoring requirements water quality parameter at a sampling deemed to have optimized corrosion a. Burden reduction suggestion and location that is below the minimum control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(2). background value or outside the range of values (b)(3) System: A water system that is b. Comments and analysis designated by the State under § 141.82(f) deemed to have optimized corrosion 2. Use of flushing/bottled water at as representing optimal corrosion NTNCWSs in lieu of corrosion control control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(3). control for the water system. treatment µg/D: Micrograms per day. FDA: Food and Drug Administration. a. Burden reduction suggestion and µg/L: Micrograms per liter. FR: Federal Register. background 1991 Rule: Maximum Contaminant IESWTR: National Primary Drinking b. Comments and analysis Level Goals and National Primary Water Regulations—Interim Enhanced 3. Requirement for water systems to justify Drinking Water Regulations for Lead corrosion control methods not Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule (63 and Copper as promulgated on June 7, recommended FR 69477, Dec. 16, 1998). a. Burden reduction suggestion and 1991 (56 FR 26460) and subsequently Large System: For purposes of the background modified by technical amendments Lead and Copper Rule only, a water b. Comments and analysis published on July 15, 1991 (56 FR system serving more than 50,000 4. Use of alternatives to tap samples to 32113), June 29, 1992 (57 FR 28786) and people. assess corrosion control effectiveness June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33860). LCR: Lead and Copper Rule. a. Burden reduction suggestion and 90th Percentile Value: The LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor background concentration of lead or copper in tap b. Comments and analysis Revisions. water exceeded by 10 percent of the LSL: Lead service line. 5. Reduced frequency for State reporting of sites sampled during a monitoring 90th percentile and milestone data MCLG: Maximum contaminant level a. Burden reduction suggestion and period. goal. background Action Level: The 90th percentile MDL: Method Detection Limit. b. Comments and analysis value for lead or copper in water that Medium-Size System: For purposes of F. Simultaneous compliance comments determines, in some cases, whether a the Lead and Copper Rule only, a water 1. Request for comments and background water system must install corrosion system serving from 3,301 to 50,000 2. Comments and analysis control treatment, monitor source water, people. 3. Today’s action replace lead service lines, and mg/L: Milligrams per liter. G. Administrative requirements undertake a public education program. NAS: National Academy of Sciences. 1. Executive Order 12866 April 1996 Proposal: Maximum NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act Contaminant Level Goals and National 3. Paperwork Reduction Act Water Regulations. Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act NRDC: National Resources Defense 5. Executive Orders on Federalism Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (61 FR Council. 6. Consultation with Indian tribal 16348, April 12, 1996) requesting public NSF: National Sanitation Foundation. governments comments on proposed minor revisions NTNCWS: Non-transient non- 7. Risk to children analysis to the 1991 Rule. community water system. 8. National Technology Transfer and April 1998 Notice: Maximum OCCT: Optimal corrosion control Advancement Act Contaminant Level Goals and National treatment. 9. Likely effect of compliance with the Primary Drinking Water Regulations for OMB: Office of Management and LCRMR on the technical, financial, and Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR Budget. managerial capacity of public water 20038, April 22, 1998) containing systems OWQP: Optimal water quality 10. Submission to Congress and the additional data and regulatory options parameter. General Accounting Office relating to the April 1996 Proposal and PE: Performance evaluation. H. References requesting public comment on these pH: Negative logarithm of the new data and options. effective hydrogen-ion concentration. List of Tables August 1998 Notice: Maximum Phase I Rule: National Primary Table 1—LCRMR provisions requiring State Contaminant Level Goals and National Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic adoption prior to implementation Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for Table 2—LCRMR provisions requiring State Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule adoption to maintain primacy 44214, August 18, 1998) requesting (52 FR 25690, Jul. 8, 1987). Table 3—Summary of monitoring public comment on a refinement of a Phase II Rule: National Revised requirements for water quality regulatory option discussed in the April Primary Drinking Water Regulations— parameters Table 4—Summary of changes to system 1998 Notice. Synthetic Organic Chemicals and reporting requirements ASDWA: Association of State Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Table 5—Net Effect of LCRMR on Average Drinking Water Administrators. Unregulated Contaminants; National Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting AWWA: American Water Works Primary Drinking Water Regulations Burden and Cost Association. Implementation; National Secondary

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Drinking Water Regulations (56 FR specific regulatory changes were quantifiable benefits, however, because 3526, Jan. 30, 1991). proposed. improved implementation should result Phase V Rule: National Primary and In an April 1998 Notice, the Agency in some health benefits being achieved Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; published, and made available for sooner. Synthetic Organic Chemicals and public review and comment, new data relating to two of the provisions B. Continued Exclusion of Transient Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule (57, FR Non-community Water Systems 31776, Jul. 17, 1992). discussed in the April 1996 proposal ppb: Part per billion. and several additional regulatory 1. Overview and summary of Agency PQL: Practical quantitation level. options that the Agency was considering position. In the preamble to the April PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act. (63 FR 20038, April 22, 1998). Finally, 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the PWS: Public water system. in August 1998, EPA requested Natural Resources Defense Council RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act. additional public comment on a (NRDC) had challenged the rule’s exclusion of transient non-community SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act. refinement of one of the options water systems (TNCWSs, also referred to SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water discussed in the April 1996 Notice (63 as ‘‘transient systems’’) on the grounds Information System. FR 44214, August 18, 1998). 2. Overview of public comments that persons served by these systems Small System: For purposes of the received. EPA received approximately may be at risk of non-carcinogenic Lead and Copper Rule only, a water 900 comments from 97 commenters in adverse effects. The court granted the system serving 3,300 or fewer people. response to the April 1996 Proposal. Agency’s request for a voluntary remand TNCWS: Transient non-community With the exception of the proposed so that the Agency could provide a more water system. definition of ‘‘control’’ as it applies to detailed justification of this exclusion.1 UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform lead service line (LSL) replacement, In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA Act. commenters generally supported the indicated that the Agency was collecting WQP: Water quality parameter. proposed minor revisions; however, additional information relevant to this A. Background many suggested possible refinements of issue and would make this new specific provisions. A few commenters information available for public review 1. Reason for this rulemaking. EPA also expressed frustration that the and comment prior to the promulgation promulgated maximum contaminant proposed changes were ‘‘too little’’ and of a final rule. EPA also requested level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for ‘‘too late’’ to benefit many systems. The public comment regarding the lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460, Agency received comments from 30 continued appropriateness of the June 7, 1991). The goal of the LCR is to commenters in response to the April exclusion, whether modification of the provide maximum human health 1998 Notice and 26 commenters current exclusion would be appropriate protection by reducing lead and copper responded to the August 1998 Notice. and, if so, what alternative approaches levels at consumers’ taps to as close to Most of the commenters to the 1998 are available for addressing those the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish Notices supported the additional systems. EPA included the new this goal, the LCR establishes regulatory options in concept, however, information in the April 1998 Notice requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs. were concerned with the draft rule and signaled its preliminary These systems must conduct periodic language discussed. conclusions that the new information monitoring and optimize corrosion The comments pertaining to topics does not resolve significant data gaps or control. In addition, these systems must addressed in these Notices and EPA’s present a compelling argument to perform public education when the response are summarized by topic in change the Agency’s policy of excluding level of lead at the tap exceeds the lead sections B through F of this preamble. TNCWSs from the provisions of the action level, treat source water if it is The verbatim comments and EPA’s LCR. found to contribute significantly to high responses to them are contained in Eighteen commenters submitted levels of lead or copper at the tap, and EPA’s Response to Comments on the comments on the appropriateness of the replace lead service lines in the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions continued exclusion in response to the distribution system if the level of lead (EPA, 1999e). April 1996 Proposal. All of the at the tap continues to exceed the lead 3. Impacts on costs and benefits. commenters supported the continued action level after optimal corrosion Today’s action does not affect the exclusion. No new data were submitted; control has been installed. treatment-related costs (e.g., capital however, most commenters cited In April 1996, EPA proposed a improvements) associated with the LCR. reasons for continuing the TNCWS number of minor revisions to the LCR The revisions affect costs associated exclusion. These reasons included: the (60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996). The with the monitoring and reporting absence of data suggesting there are proposed revisions do not affect the lead requirements of the LCR, however, and adverse health effects resulting from and copper MCLGs, action levels, or these estimated impacts have been short-term exposure to lead; the limited basic regulatory requirements. EPA calculated as part of the Information exposure that is likely to occur at proposed some of the minor revisions to Collection Request (EPA, 1999a) transient systems; the potential that streamline and reduce regulatory developed in support of today’s action. subjecting transient systems to the rule’s burden where such changes can be These impacts are discussed in section requirements will cause many of them made without jeopardizing the level of H.3. of this preamble. to close, with the possible unintended public health protection or protection of As discussed in the April 1996 consequence that consumers would the environment. The Agency proposed Proposal, the revisions in today’s action utilize other, less protected, sources of other minor changes to clarify are not expected to change the level of requirements and to improve the rule’s public health protection resulting from 1 This issue was one of several issues included in implementation. Finally, the Agency implementation of the lead and copper legal challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule addressed two issues that were the regulations. The Agency therefore has brought by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense subject of a judicial remand. The April not identified any quantifiable benefits Council (NRDC). (American Water Works 1996 Proposal also requested comment associated with today’s action. EPA Association, et al. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C.Cir., on several provisions for which no believes there should be some non- 1994).

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1955 drinking water (e.g., untreated lakes and basis (e.g., employees) would be at characterize potential exposure risks. Of streams in National Forests); concern health risk given the likely levels of lead 8,000 systems throughout the country that the rule’s monitoring and treatment to which they would be exposed. invited to receive free lead testing, 115 requirements were not appropriate for participated. The relatively small 2. Detailed discussion of rationale transient systems; and the tremendous number prevents conclusive analysis, added burden that would be placed on a. Background. A public water system although a fairly representative range of limited State resources. EPA received 18 is classified as a community water system types across the country is comments in response to the April 1998 system if it has at least 15 service included. Notice. Only one of these commenters connections used by year-round First draw (1-liter) and one-minute raised concerns with the exclusion. This residents or if it regularly serves at least purged (30 milliliters) samples were commenter recommended that 25 year-round residents. All other collected at each site. The median and TNCWSs, except those meeting the public water systems are non- average concentrations of the first draw materials criteria for monitoring waivers community water systems and are samples were relatively low (2.3 and 9.2 that EPA proposed in 1996,2 should be considered to be either ‘‘non-transient’’ ppb, respectively). Approximately 12 required to monitor tap and source or ‘‘transient’’ depending on the number percent of the sites (13) exceeded the water lead and copper levels at least of the same people regularly served over action level of 15 ppb. The average one- once every nine years. The commenter 6 months of the year. A non-community minute purged sample was 2.3 ppb, argued that transient systems, where the water system that does not regularly with a 90th percentile of 3.4 ppb. The difference between the source water and serve at least 25 of the same persons purged samples had much lower the tap water exceeds five (5) parts per over 6 months of the year is classified concentrations (75% lower on average) billion (ppb) lead, should not be as a transient non-community water and less variable readings than the first excluded from the Rule’s provisions. As system. Examples of transient systems draw samples. The maximum value discussed in the following paragraph, include highway rest stops, gas stations, reported from all sampling was 229 ppb. EPA disagrees with this commenter. and recreational facilities where fewer The flushed sample for this sampling After consideration of the additional than 25 of the same individuals site had a value of 0.7 ppb, raising the information collected by the Agency consume the water over an extended distinct possibility that the results of the and the public comments received, EPA period of time (i.e., at least six months first sample may have been the result of believes that it is appropriate to retain of the year). In addition, the vast sampling error such as contamination of the current exclusion. EPA believes that majority of people who consume water the sample. (EPA, 1995c). maintaining the longstanding exclusion from such systems (i.e., customers and While extensive information is not of transient systems from coverage of members of the public who are at the currently available, EPA believes that the NPDWR for lead is warranted in facility) generally consume small the results of the University of North light of the de minimis risk of adverse quantities over short periods of time. Carolina survey indicate generally that health effects cited by NRDC as EPA’s longstanding policy is to the levels of lead in transient systems justification for regulating these exclude transient systems from drinking are not dissimilar to the levels found in systems. Very high levels of lead have water regulations except for those non-transient systems. With both clinically evident effects on the brain contaminants, such as nitrate, that EPA transient and non-transient systems, it (acute encephalopathy). However, the believes have the potential to cause appears that the levels of lead are Agency was not able to identify any immediate adverse human health effects associated strongly with the length of studies that demonstrate critical resulting from short-term exposure. time that the water has been standing in neurochemical responses to short-term, These are known as ‘‘acute household plumbing prior to use. moderate lead exposures. The data on contaminants’’ because the adverse c. Health effects of lead. Lead is which the Agency based its health health effects may occur after limited considered a chronic contaminant that assessment for short term exposures to exposure. Other drinking water impairs and damages the nervous lead came from studies by Cools et al, contaminants are considered to be system and other systems or processes (1976), Schlegel and Kufner, (1979) and ‘‘chronic contaminants’’ because after extended periods of exposure. Lead Struik, (1974) which indicate that the adverse effects on human health toxicity is believed to be a function of most likely adverse effect of the generally have been associated with repeated exposures over time that result moderate levels of lead that might on extended periods of exposure. In the in a gradual accumulation of lead in the occasion be encountered at a TNCWS preamble to the final Phase I Rule, EPA soft tissues and the skeleton. Lead would be temporary suppression of one explained that the Agency does not moves from its storage sites to the blood of the enzymes responsible for the believe it necessary to regulate water resulting in adverse effects even after synthesis of hemoglobin, the oxygen systems that only serve transient exposures have diminished. carrying protein in the blood. However, populations for chronic contaminants The Agency decision to exclude the data suggest that there are no because exposure to these contaminants TNCWSs from the LCR is supported by clinical effects of the enzyme for only brief periods of time, such as toxicological data from studies in adults suppression unless it continues for a that which occurs at transient systems, which identified increased more extended exposure period than does not pose a long-term health risk (52 concentrations of erythrocyte would typically occur for persons who FR 25695, first column). For the reasons protoporphrine and depressed activity drink water at transient systems such as discussed in the following section, EPA of aminolevulinic acid dehydratase as rest stops, motels, gas stations and considers lead to be a chronic the critical effects from short-term lead restaurants, which serve customers for contaminant. exposures (Cools et al., 1976; Schlegel only short periods of time. Morever, b. Occurrence and exposure at and Kufner, 1979; Struik, 1974). These EPA does not believe that even those transient systems. In 1995, the effects are markers for inhibition of persons who may drink water from Environmental Quality Institute at the heme synthesis (ATSDR, 1998; transient systems on a more continuous University of North Carolina at Hindmarsh, 1986). Aminolevulinic acid Asheville conducted a survey to collect dehydratase is the key enzyme 2 See section C.5.l. of this preamble for a actual data on lead in drinking water regulating the rate of heme synthesis discussion of the monitoring waiver provisions. from transient systems in order to better and erythrocyte protoporphrine is a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations precursor to heme and, thus, a the average fully flushed sample was contamination consistent with biomarker for heme production. Heme is approximately 2 ppb. The 90th continued protection of public health.’’ the iron containing component of percentile value of first draw samples House Report 104–632, 104th Cong., 2d hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying was 20 ppb, and the 90th percentile Sess., at 8. For example, Congress was pigment in red blood cells. fully flushed sample was approximately concerned that the 1986 amendments to A study by Struik (1974) 3 ppb. Taking into account the available the Act required EPA to regulate 25 new demonstrated the effects of short-team data regarding acute exposures to lead at contaminants every three years, a lead exposure on heme synthesis in TNCWSs, EPA does not believe there is requirement that had ‘‘imposed adults. Two groups of 5 women and one any significant risk that exposures significant burdens at the State, local group of 5 men were orally through drinking water at the and Federal level, and have led to administered 1.4 or 2.1 mg/day lead in concentrations monitored would result questions about whether the Act is the form of lead acetate for three weeks. in adverse acute health effects among focused on the most significant risks to Suppression of the activity of users of transient systems, including public health.’’ Id. at 9. In numerous erythrocyte aminolevulinic acid infants and children. ways, the 1996 amendments reflected dehydratase became apparent by the d. Objections to the exclusion Congress’ desire for EPA to focus its third day of exposure. The degree of As noted above, all but one efforts taking into account risks to suppression increased until day 14 and commenter during this rulemaking then remained constant for the supported maintaining the exclusion of public health, as well as the benefits remainder of the study. Effects on transient systems. In its comments on and costs involved in setting standards erythrocyte protoporphrine were noted the original rule—and in subsequent under the Act. See, e.g., SDWA section in the women but not the men after 2 litigation—NRDC argued that EPA’s 1412(b)(1)(C) (directing EPA to weeks of exposure. Blood lead levels exclusion of transient systems from the prioritize selection of contaminants for had increased to 40 µg/dL or higher rule was both inconsistent with the regulation based on consideration of before effects on erythrocyte SDWA and not justified by the science. those ‘‘that present the greatest public protoporphrine were noted. The effects According to NRDC, the Act mandates health concern’’); sections 1412(b)(3) on aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and that NPDWRs apply to all PWSs without and (b)(6) (directing EPA to consider erythrocyte protoporphrine are exception, and therefore EPA lacks the information regarding the incremental reversible and do not persist after authority to fashion a de minimis costs and benefits in establishing exposure has ceased. A short term exclusion for transient systems. NRDC NPDWRs). While none of these deficit in heme production is not also argued that, even if EPA had the amendments addressed the precise immediately manifest in a decreased legal authority to exclude transient question of what PWSs must be covered supply of red blood cells. The average systems, lead causes acute adverse by NPDWRs, in light of Congress’ red cell remains in circulation for about health effects from short-term exposure, overall concern with encouraging 120 days and physiological controls on and that employees of transient systems flexibility and priority-setting in the their turnover insure that there is a would be at risk from longer term Act’s implementation, EPA does not continuous replacement of aging and exposures. believe it is logical or sensible to damaged cells (Montgomery et al., EPA first disagrees that the SDWA conclude that Congress intended to 1990). Therefore, a short term deficit in does not permit the Agency to fashion deprive EPA of its inherent heme production will not immediately an appropriate de minimis exclusion for administrative authority to fashion cause anemia or diminish the oxygen transient systems from regulation of appropriate de minimis exclusions from transporting properties of the blood. contaminants like lead. It is the the Act’s requirements where negligible Moreover, the lead levels used in this exceptional case in which an agency risks are present. Moreover, EPA’s study were several orders of magnitude does not possess such authority. In policy of excluding transient systems greater than the median lead levels Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d from NPDWRs for contaminants posing observed in TNCWSs in the University 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the D.C. Circuit chronic health risks has been in place of North Carolina study (EPA, 1995c). reviewed EPA’s decision to create a de for over a decade. At no time during this As discussed above, there is very minimis exclusion under the Clean Air period has Congress sought to modify limited information that can assist in Act. The court stated that, ‘‘[u]nless EPA’s approach. estimating the levels of lead that may be Congress has been extraordinarily rigid, of concern due to short-term exposures there is likely a basis for an implication NRDC has also contended that, even from drinking water. Because of the of de minimis authority to provide if EPA has the legal authority to create limited data EPA does not believe that exemption when the burdens of a de minimis exclusion, EPA’s decision it is possible to develop guidance at this regulation yield a gain of trivial or no was unlawful because lead does pose time. However, based on the data that value.’’ 636 F.2d at 360–361. EPA does non-carcinogenic adverse health effects are available, from the Struik study, not believe that the SDWA falls within from short-term, acute exposures. EPA EPA estimates that average, short-term, the very narrow class of statutes that believes that this contention is based on lead exposures would have to exceed precludes fashioning appropriate misunderstandings by NRDC of several 500 ppb for adults and 60 ppb for exclusions for activities with de factors. NRDC’s claim that lead is an infants or children and would have to minimis impact. acute contaminant was based on persist for an extended period of time to Congress has in numerous respects information from three reports: The cause even a transient effect on the accorded EPA substantial flexibility in National Academy of Sciences (NAS) oxygen carrying capacity of the blood focusing implementation on areas of report, Drinking Water and Health (EPA, 1998b). The value for infants is cognizable public health risks. Indeed, (1982), a study of lead exposure in lower than that for adults because such flexibility was a theme of the most infants, and EPA’s recommendation infants are able to absorb greater recent comprehensive amendments to regarding lead in school drinking water amounts of lead from the the Act in 1996. A major impetus for fountains. The Agency disagrees with gastrointestinal track. In the University this legislation was the ‘‘need for a more NRDC that these citations support of North Carolina study, the average first streamlined and flexible approach to classification of lead as an acute draw sample was less than 10 ppb, and controlling drinking water contaminant. The Agency’s conclusions

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1957 are discussed in the following service is to protect against acute health water in these systems, the vast majority paragraph. risks to young children. This is of water would consist of fully flushed NRDC’s reference to the NAS (1982) incorrect. The Agency developed that water. The median level of lead in report on Drinking Water and Health policy to protect children who are running water in transient systems focused on the ‘‘maximum daily exposed to lead in drinking water on a found by the University of North exposure recommendations for chronic, not acute, basis. Carolina (EPA, 1995c) survey was 0.7 children’’ cited in that report. The NAS NRDC has also argued that transient ppb, and the average level was report cites Mahaffey (1977) who systems should not be excluded from approximately 2 ppb. The median first recommended that lead intake for regulation because frequent users of flush level was approximately 2 ppb, children less than 6 months of age these systems, such as employees, could and the average level was 9 ppb, levels should be no more than 100 µg/day and be exposed to lead in the drinking water below those of health concern. Thus, the intake for children between 6 over an extended period of time. Such information collected by EPA strongly months and 2 years of age should be no persons could include pregnant women supports its conclusion that there are more than 150 µg/day. These values and children, who are particularly only de minimis risks in transient would translate to 100 ppb and 150 ppb, vulnerable to adverse effects of chronic systems from exposure to lead. assuming a daily water intake for lead exposure. While such users may Given the de minimis risks posed by children of 1 liter per day and no consume water from the same system lead in these systems, EPA continues to exposure from other sources. Mahaffey repeatedly, EPA does not share NRDC’s believe that excluding these systems (1977) concluded that water containing concern that such persons can from the lead NPDWR is appropriate. 50 ppb lead would not be a hazard to realistically be said to be at risk of EPA believes, in fact, that including infants and children when other lead adverse health effects from exposure to them within the regulation could even exposures were minimized. These lead. As explained in detail in EPA’s have the unintended effect of harming values were derived based on an 1991 rulemaking, levels of lead at the public health. In the face of monitoring assumption of chronic exposure, not tap correlate with the length of time that and treatment requirements for lead, short-term exposures similar to those water has been sitting motionless in EPA anticipates, based on the public that would occur at a TNCWS and, thus, plumbing materials containing lead. The comments received and other anecdotal are not relevant. In fact, NAS longer the water sits, the more likely data, that many transient systems will determined that there were ‘‘no lead will leach from lead-bearing opt to stop providing water rather than adequate data to derive health-based plumbing materials into the water. to assume the extra burden of the rule’s guidelines for acute exposures, i.e. a 24- Typically, the highest levels of lead in requirements. This would leave hour or a 7-day ‘Suggested No-Adverse the water are contained in the first liter consumers in the position of finding Response Level’.’’ from the tap after the water has been their own alternative source of drinking In its comments on EPA’s prior sitting for some time. In order to have water. In some cases, the alternative rulemaking, NRDC cited a study by the best understanding of the extent to source may be less protective of public Shannon and Graef (1992) which they which corrosivity of the water is causing health than the transient system. For claimed showed that for 15 percent of leaching of lead, the LCR requires that example, if National or State parks were the lead poisoned infants at one clinic, sampling be done with such ‘‘first to no longer provide drinking water, the primary source of the lead was flush’’ water after the tap has not been visitors may drink untreated water infant formula made with drinking used for at least six hours. This directly from nearby lakes, rivers and water. This is not quite what the authors sampling protocol was designed to streams. reported. Although formula preparation ensure that the water system had the with lead-contaminated water was the benefit of the best information regarding C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, apparent cause for elevated blood lead the extent to which water chemistry was Requirements for Public Water Systems levels in 9 of 50 children (18%), lead in interacting with lead-bearing materials 1. Revisions to § 141.81 unboiled, ‘‘first draw’’ water was the to cause leaching into drinking water, problem for only one case (2%). and also recognized that some users a. Clarification of the requirement to Excessive boiling of contaminated tap could, under some scenarios, repeatedly install and maintain operation of water for formula preparation was the drink first flush water. optimal corrosion control. (i) Proposed problem in 5 cases (10%) and use of a However, transient systems such as revision and background. In the April leaded vessel for the heating of the restaurants and gas stations by their 1998 Notice, EPA requested comment water (tap or spring) was the problem nature would serve a large number of on possible revisions to the regulatory for the other three cases (6%). In persons throughout the day. The vast language of § 141.81(b) and the first analysis of formula samples, lead majority of the users are, in fact, sentence of § 141.82(g) to clarify that all concentrations as high as 200,000 ppb ‘‘transient.’’ In addition, the nature of water systems are required to operate were detected, values far greater than these facilities would mean that taps are and maintain optimal corrosion control the levels observed at transient in fairly constant use, reducing the even if there are no specific Federal facilities. The blood lead levels of the likelihood of lead leaching into standing requirements for the system to monitor children exposed through formula were water. Also, given the types of for water quality parameters (WQPs). As similar to those children exposed populations served by transient systems, EPA explained in that Notice, there are through other routes (paint chips, we would anticipate that it would be several ‘‘pathways’’ by which systems household renovation), but hemoglobin extremely unlikely that the same may be considered to be optimized. and red cell volumes were lower persons would repeatedly be exposed to Many, but not all, require that corrosion indicating that the exposures had been the water that has been sitting for an control treatment (CCT) be physically chronic rather than acute. extended period of time. Data collected installed. The Agency is concerned that Finally, NRDC claims that the reason by EPA regarding occurrence of lead in some systems deemed to be optimized that the EPA recommends that any transient systems suggests that even pursuant to § 141.81(b) may school drinking water outlets that are frequent users are not at risk. Since it is misinterpret the absence of specific found to have more than 20 µg/L lead unlikely that the same persons would Federal controls in the regulatory in a 250 mL sample be removed from repeatedly be exposed to ‘‘first flush’’ language as meaning that they have

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations license to ‘‘turn off’’ or depart from to relieve such systems of the need to States to retain records of any optimal corrosion control treatment repeat those steps merely to comply conditions imposed by the State on (OCCT) between Federally-prescribed with the Rule’s milestones. Assuming a specific water systems deemed to be monitoring periods. water system had completed an optimized under § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) (ii) Comments and analysis. With one equivalent corrosion control study and to ensure the continued operation and exception, commenters supported the installed appropriate CCT prior to the maintenance of treatment in place. proposed clarification. The one effective date of the Rule, EPA believes These wording changes make clear commenter who objected to the the Rule is clear that additional the Agency’s intent in the 1991 Rule proposed clarification argued that it is treatment may not be warranted if the that all systems operate and maintain not necessary since his State already State believes the system’s CCT already optimal corrosion control. They do not had established such controls. EPA is optimized. For large water systems, add any new requirements. believes clarification is appropriate. The § 141.81(b)(2) does not eliminate the b. Water systems deemed to be Agency notes that while most States need to have any CCT in place, unless optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2). have reasonable process controls in the water system can demonstrate to the (i) Proposed revision and background. place to assure consistent and proper satisfaction of the State that such In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA operation of CCT, some do not. EPA treatment will have no effect on requested comment on a regulatory believes that it is appropriate to clarify reducing the levels of lead and copper option that would result in minor that all systems are expected to at the tap. Merely meeting the lead and wording changes to the language of maintain optimal corrosion control even copper action levels is not a sufficient § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify that systems if they are not subject to Federally- test for large systems since the Rule deemed to have optimized corrosion prescribed WQP monitoring. requires these systems to reduce control pursuant to that paragraph are Several commenters predicated their corrosion to the maximum extent required to continue WQP monitoring support on the presumption that States possible to be considered optimized. after State designation of optimal water would retain flexibility to determine the EPA expects few, if any, large water quality parameters (OWQPs). The specific nature of the process controls systems can make this demonstration Agency proposed this change to for (b)(1) and (b)(3) systems. EPA agrees without CCT. eliminate possible confusion about that such flexibility is appropriate. (iii) Today’s action. After considering monitoring requirements after the Today’s action, therefore, does not the comments received, the Agency has installation of CCT for these systems. prescribe specific operating decided to promulgate the revisions to (ii) Comments and analysis. EPA requirements for water systems to meet § 141.81(b) and the first sentence of received several comments on the the criteria of § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3). § 141.82(g) as follows. The introductory proposed clarification. None of the A few commenters expressed concern text of § 141.81(b) has been revised to commenters opposed the proposed that the proposed language changes read: ‘‘A system is deemed to have revision, however, one commenter would preclude a (b)(1) or a (b)(3) optimized corrosion control and is not raised concerns about how the system from ever changing its treatment required to complete the applicable requirement would be applied in those once it has been deemed to be corrosion control treatment steps instances where no treatment is optimized. EPA recognizes that water identified in this section if the system installed. The commenter also noted systems need to make treatment satisfies one of the criteria specified in that the requirement to monitor WQPs changes, on occasion, to react to paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this at every entry point could be onerous at changing circumstances (e.g., new section. Any such system deemed to such a system, particularly if it were a requirements, changes in source water have optimized corrosion control under ground water system with many wells. quality, and changes in the distribution this paragraph, and which has treatment EPA developed the § 141.81(b)(2) system). Nothing in today’s action is in place, shall continue to operate and optimization criteria to address those intended to prevent a State from maintain optimal corrosion control water systems that had both completed approving treatment changes when they treatment and meet any requirements a corrosion control study comparable to are warranted and appropriate. Rather, that the State determines appropriate to that required by the LCR and installed the intent of today’s action is to ensure ensure optimal corrosion control an appropriate CCT process prior to the that any such treatment changes are treatment is maintained.’’ The first Rule’s schedule. To be comparable, the consistent with the Rule’s goal of sentence (following the paragraph title) study would have had to include an minimizing levels of lead and copper at of § 141.82(g) has been revised to read: evaluation of the three corrosion control the tap to the maximum extent ‘‘All systems that have installed options—pH and alkalinity adjustment, practicable. The Agency believes the treatment optimizing corrosion control calcium hardness adjustment, and phrase ‘‘and meet any requirements that shall continue to operate and maintain inhibitor addition. This study also the State determines appropriate to optimal corrosion control treatment, would have had to use some of the ensure such treatment is maintained’’ including maintaining water quality testing methods specified in the Rule to provides States sufficient flexibility to parameters at or above minimum values evaluate the options. EPA believes that approve appropriate treatment changes or within ranges designated by the State studies that meet the § 141.81(b)(2) that may be warranted by emerging under paragraph (f) of this section, in requirements would indicate that the conditions at the water system. accordance with this paragraph for all installation of a CCT process was One commenter requested that EPA samples collected under §§ 141.87(d)– warranted and that it is therefore clarify in the rule language that (b)(2) (f).’’ appropriate to require (b)(2) systems systems are not required to have CCT This revision necessitates a change to deemed to be optimized pursuant to physically present. EPA disagrees that the State recordkeeping requirements in § 141.81(b)(2) to meet State-designated this is appropriate. Section 141.81(b)(2) Part 142. A requirement has been added OWQPs. applies only to those water systems that EPA recognizes that it may not be as a new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) 3 to require completed corrosion control steps necessary to install treatment at every equivalent to those specified in 3 As discussed in Section D.1. of this preamble, entry point, however, especially at § 141.81(d) or (e) before the effective today’s action renumbers existing paragraphs of ground water systems. As discussed in date of the LCR. The Agency’s intent is § 142.14(d)(8). section C.6.b. of this preamble, EPA also

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1959 is making a change to § 141.87(c)(3) that LCRMR is published in the Federal that have conducted at least one round will allow ground water systems to limit Register, (b)(3) systems that exceeded of monitoring in the past three years. entry point WQP sampling to those the copper action level during the initial (C) Today’s action. EPA has added entry points that are representative of rounds of monitoring have time to make provisions at § 141.81(b)(3)(ii) water quality and CCT throughout the changes to reduce copper levels before pertaining to the routine monitoring system. This provision means that a being triggered out of (b)(3) status. requirement in today’s action. The ground water system deemed to be (C) Today’s action. In addition to the proposed requirement that routine lead optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2) 1991 (b)(3) criteria, today’s action and copper tap water monitoring occur may be able to reduce—but not prevents systems that exceeded the at least once every three years has been eliminate entirely—the number of entry copper action level on or after July 12, retained. The Rule language has been point WQP samples that must be 2001, from being considered to be a clarified to indicate that those (b)(3) collected. (b)(3) system. This requirement is systems that have conducted a round of (iii) Today’s action. EPA therefore is specified at § 141.81(b)(3)(iv). standard or reduced monitoring after revising § 141.81(b)(2), as proposed, by (ii) Routine monitoring for lead and September 30, 1997, may continue inserting a sentence after the second copper at the tap. monitoring at the reduced number of sentence in § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify (A) Proposed revision and sites every three years based on the date WQP monitoring requirements for background. EPA proposed to correct of their most recent monitoring. All systems deemed to have optimized another oversight in the 1991 Rule by other (b)(3) systems must conduct a corrosion control. The inserted sentence requiring (b)(3) systems to continue round of tap water monitoring for lead reads: ‘‘Water systems deemed to have routine monitoring for lead and copper and copper no later than September 30, optimized corrosion control under this at the tap at least once every three 2000. paragraph shall operate in compliance calendar years (triennially) at the (iii) State discretion to impose with the State-designated optimal water reduced number of sites specified in additional requirements. quality control parameters in § 141.86(c). This proposed revision (A) Proposed revision and accordance with § 141.82(g) and included a start date for resumption of background. The April 1996 proposed continue to conduct lead and copper tap monitoring no later than the first full revision to § 141.81(b)(3) states: ‘‘The and water quality parameter sampling in summer (i.e., June through September State may require any system deemed to accordance with § 141.86(d)(3) and time frame) after the effective date of the have optimized corrosion control § 141.87(d), respectively.’’ revision. pursuant to this paragraph to conduct c. Water systems deemed to have (B) Comments and analysis. additional monitoring or to take other optimized corrosion control under Commenters generally supported the action the State deems appropriate to § 141.81(b)(3). reduced monitoring frequency; ensure that such systems maintain (i) Copper action level requirements. however, several preferred less frequent minimal levels of corrosion in the (A) Proposed revision and monitoring cycles, such as once every distribution system (e.g., if there is a background. In 1996, EPA proposed that six or nine years. EPA disagrees with change in treatment or a new source is water systems demonstrating, pursuant the commenters who advocate added).’’ EPA proposed this provision to to § 141.81(b)(3), that very little lead monitoring less frequently than once provide States sufficient flexibility to corrosion is occurring in the every three years for (b)(3) systems. require additional actions in those cases distribution system (i.e., (b)(3) systems) Large systems comprise most, if not all, where such actions are necessary to be required to meet the copper action of the (b)(3) systems because most small ensure the system maintains minimal level. The Agency proposed such a and medium-size systems that satisfy corrosion in the distribution system. requirement to correct an oversight in § 141.81(b)(3) criteria can also meet the (B) Comments and analysis. Several the 1991 Rule. less onerous criteria of § 141.81(b)(1) commenters raised concern that this (B) Comments and analysis. EPA that do not require source water provision could require (b)(3) systems to received mixed comments on this monitoring. Since (b)(3) systems are not conduct lead and copper tap sampling proposed change. Several commenters required to monitor their corrosion whenever treatment changes or a new viewed the revision as a new control process using WQPs, lead and source is added. The decision to require requirement that could lead to treatment copper tap monitoring is the only additional monitoring will be made by modifications in some systems. In the mechanism for determining whether the State only after considering the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA levels of lead and copper at the tap impact of the treatment change or acknowledged that a few systems may remain low. For this reason, EPA does addition of a new source on the be triggered into CCT because of the not believe that monitoring should be corrosion control process. The rule does requirement that (b)(3) systems meet the less frequent than once every 3 years for not, and is not intended to categorically copper action level. EPA agrees that these systems. require monitoring when treatment there will be additional costs incurred EPA also received comments on the changes are made. The additional by the systems if installation/ proposed deadline for the resumption of monitoring is not limited to lead and modification of CCT processes are monitoring. As proposed, (b)(3) systems copper monitoring. The State could necessary. The goal of the LCR, would have been required to resume require WQP monitoring and/or source however, is to minimize the risk from monitoring the first full June through water monitoring instead of, or in both lead and copper. EPA believes that September after publication of the addition to, lead and copper tap this change is appropriate to better LCRMR. This requirement would apply monitoring. conform with the stated goal of the LCR. only to those (b)(3) systems that had not (C) Today’s action. EPA has included The copper action level is equivalent to monitored during the three years the following provision at the copper MCLG, so adverse health immediately preceding promulgation of § 141.81(b)(3)(iii). ‘‘Any water system effects from copper should be avoided if the LCRMR. Several commenters did deemed to have optimized corrosion systems meet the action level. Since not realize that the schedule for the control pursuant to this paragraph shall (b)(3) systems that do not meet the resumption of monitoring would not notify the State in writing pursuant to copper action level are not triggered into apply to those (b)(3) systems that § 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment CCT processes until 18 months after the already are monitoring regularly and or the addition of a new source. The

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

State may require any such system to system with very low 90th percentile § 141.82(g) if the results of any WQP conduct additional monitoring or to take lead levels and undetectable source sample were below the minimum value other action the State deems appropriate water lead levels may be precluded from or outside the range of values to ensure that such systems maintain becoming a (b)(3) system. designated by the State under minimal levels of corrosion in the (B) Comments and analysis. EPA § 141.82(f). Systems could take a distribution system’’. EPA also has agrees with the commenter. Section confirmation sample within three days added a corresponding State 141.89(a)(3) requires that all of the original sample, however. If such recordkeeping requirement in a new measurements below the Method a confirmation sample were taken, the § 142.14(d)(8)(ix). Detection Limit (MDL) be reported as results of the original sample and the Section C.5.j. of this preamble zero, whereas measurements between confirmation sample were to be describes the reporting requirement, and the MDL and the PQL of 0.005 mg/L averaged to determine compliance. EPA’s rationale for adding it, in more may be reported as one-half the PQL Several commenters responding to detail. While the proposed revised (0.0025 mg/L). A system with source issues raised in the 1996 Proposal § 141.81(b)(3) rule language did not water lead levels just below an MDL of expressed concern about this method of explicitly require (b)(3) systems to 0.001 mg/L and a 90th percentile tap determining compliance. These notify the State when a new source is level of 0.005 mg/L would not be commenters, while advocating frequent added or changes in water treatment deemed to be optimized using the 1991 WQP sampling, noted that the Rule’s occur, the requirement was implicit in (b)(3) criteria which requires the approach for determining compliance the proposed reporting requirement for difference to be less than 0.005 mg/L. In creates a significant disincentive for any system subject to a reduced lead this example, the difference would be sampling more frequently than required, and copper tap water monitoring 0.005 mg/L (i.e., 0.005 mg/L¥0mg/ since the more frequently measurements frequency. Today’s action clarifies that L=0.005 mg/L). On the other hand, are taken, the greater the potential that (b)(3) systems are included in this assuming a lead MDL of 0.001 mg/L, a some of the results will be outside the category. system with source water lead levels of State-specified limits. These (iv) Systems triggered into corrosion 0.0011 mg/L and a 90th percentile of commenters urged EPA to adopt a control. 0.006 mg/L would be considered to be percentage-based approach to (A) Proposed revision and optimized under the 1991 (b)(3) criteria determining compliance. background. Because it would no longer since the source water levels could be The April 1998 Notice contained a be possible for large water systems reported as 0.0025 mg/L. In this regulatory option that would replace the newly triggered into CCT requirements example, the difference would be 0.0035 confirmation-sample concept with a to meet the date-specific milestones of mg/L (i.e., 0.006 mg/L¥0.0025 mg/ repeat-sample concept. Under the the 1991 Rule, EPA proposed in 1996 L=0.0035 mg/L). repeat-sample concept, a water system that any system triggered into CCT steps (C) Today’s action. Therefore, EPA is whose initial monitoring results were because it no longer meets the making a slight revision to § 141.81(b)(3) below the minimum value or outside § 141.81(b)(3) criteria comply with the to address the problem. The following the range of values designated by the treatment step and deadline provision has been added as State could take a repeat sample within requirements of § 141.81(e) with any § 141.81(b)(3)(i): ‘‘Those systems having three days of the original sample. If such large system adhering to the source water lead levels below the taken, the results of the repeat sample schedule specified in that paragraph for Method Detection Limit may also be would be used to determine compliance medium-size systems. deemed to have optimized corrosion under § 141.82(g); otherwise, the results (B) Comments and analysis. EPA did control under this paragraph if the 90th of the original sample would be used. not receive any comments objecting to percentile tap water lead level is less In the August 1998 Notice, EPA this provision. than or equal to the Practical sought public comment on a refinement (C) Today’s action. Section Quantitation Level for lead for two of the repeat-sample concept in order to 141.81(b)(3) has been revised to add a consecutive 6-month monitoring better address issues associated with provision at § 141.81(b)(3)(v) requiring periods.’’ measuring WQPs more frequently than any system triggered into CCT steps once a day. Under the refined option, because it no longer meets the 2. Revisions to § 141.82 compliance with § 141.82(g) would be § 141.81(b)(3) criteria to comply with a. Clarification of requirement to determined quarterly. To be in the treatment steps and deadline operate and maintain optimal corrosion compliance for the quarter, a water requirements in § 141.81(e). Any such control. As discussed in section C.1.a., system would need to be in compliance large system shall adhere to the EPA is revising the first sentence of for each applicable WQP at each schedule specified in that paragraph for § 141.82(g) to clarify that all systems sampling location at which that WQP is medium-size systems. deemed to have optimized corrosion measured during the quarter. The (v) Difference between source water control pursuant to § 141.81(b) are method of determining compliance for a lead concentrations and 90th percentile required to continuously operate and WQP at a sampling location would lead levels. maintain any installed CCT properly. depend on the frequency with which (A) Proposed revision and b. Excursions from State-designated that parameter is measured at that background. The April 1996 Proposal optimal water quality parameter ranges sampling location during the quarter. did not include any changes to the 1991 or values. Where the measurements are taken once criterion that allowed water systems to (i) Proposed revision and background. a day or less often, compliance would demonstrate that the difference between In the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested be determined using a repeat-sample the highest source water lead public comment on a regulatory option approach similar to the one described in concentration and the 90th percentile that would revise the way in which the April 1998 Notice. That is, if the lead tap level is less than the Practical compliance with State-designated result of any measurement is below the Quantitation Level (PQL) for lead. OWQPs is determined under minimum value or outside the range Nevertheless, one commenter suggested § 141.82(g). Under the 1991 Rule, a designated by the State under that EPA modify the lead criterion of water system would be out of § 141.82(f), the system may take a repeat § 141.81(b)(3) because, as written, a compliance with the requirements of sample within 72 hours of the original

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1961 sample; if a repeat sample is taken, the State-specified OWQP limits. A few several times a day at the same location, those results would be used to commenters suggested that EPA allow the daily value for the purposes of determine compliance, otherwise the States the flexibility to determine the determining compliance with results of the original sample would be percent of samples that must be within § 141.82(g) will be calculated by used. For sampling locations where the acceptable levels. averaging all results collected during the parameter is measured more frequently EPA believes setting the performance day unless EPA has approved an than once a day, a system would be in measure at 95 percent is appropriate. alternative formula under compliance with the requirements of Today’s action adopts a percent-of-time § 142.16(d)(1)(ii) in the State’s § 141.82(g) so long as at least 95 percent approach to determining compliance. If application for a primacy revision. of the measurements taken for the the performance measure were set at 90 A few commenters also disagreed parameter at the sampling location percent, for example, a water system with the approach outlined in the during the quarter are within the State- could be out of compliance with WQP August 1998 Notice that would require designated limits and no single requirements for more than 18 days in each sampling location to be in excursion lasts more than 72 hours. In a six-month period or 36 days in a compliance in order for the system to be those instances where monitoring is twelve-month period. The Agency does considered in compliance. The Agency continuous, systems would be required not believe that allowing this much disagrees that aggregating the results to record the results at least every four deviation from OWQPs provides from all sampling locations before hours and to use the recorded results for adequate levels of public health determining whether or not an determining compliance. Finally, the protection. Since States will have the excursion has occurred provides August 1998 option also would revise results of the two 6-month rounds of sufficient health protection. Aggregating the reporting requirements at follow-up monitoring after the the results from multiple locations § 141.90(a)(1) to clarify that systems installation of corrosion control before could mask a problem that affects only would be required to report to the State designating OWQPs, the Agency a part of the system. EPA has therefore on a quarterly basis, all water quality believes it is reasonable for States to set retained the requirement that excursions parameter results collected during the OWQPs that water systems should be be determined for each WQP and quarter, unless the State specified a able to maintain at least 95 percent of sampling location. more frequent reporting schedule. the time. The Agency also believes that Some commenters raised concern (ii) Comments and analysis. While determination of OWQP compliance over the requirement that repeat commenters responding to the April (intended to demonstrate proper samples be collected within 72 hours of 1998 Notice thought the repeat-sample operation and maintenance of a the original sample. These commenters approach represented an improvement treatment process) is not sufficiently noted that it might not be possible to over the confirmation-sample approach, analogous to determination of action make necessary adjustments within 72 most expressed concern that the repeat- level exceedances (intended to indicate hours, particularly if the problem occurs sample approach did not eliminate the a need for treatment) to justify the use just before a weekend or holiday and the disincentives for frequent monitoring or of the same percentage for both just to system is unable to obtain a necessary the problems in determining maintain consistency in the part for several days or if several days compliance that would occur when calculations. are necessary before the effects of WQPs were measured more frequently No commenter objected to using a treatment changes are apparent at than once a day. These commenters percentage-based approach for water distribution system monitoring sites. continued to urge EPA to allow a systems that measure WQPs more than EPA believes the modified approach for percentage-based approach, at least in once per day. Many commenters determining compliance in today’s those instances where WQPs are advocated use of the percentage action will provide some relief to those measured frequently. approach for systems that collect daily systems that need several days to effect Most commenters to the refined samples and some advocated using the necessary repairs. At the same time, the approach discussed in the August 1998 percentage approach across-the-board Agency believes it is essential to Notice expressed support for a for the sake of simplicity. EPA agrees minimize excursion durations to the percentage-based approach; however, that it is reasonable for a single maximum extent possible. One study, many disagreed with some of the approach to be used when determining for example, suggests that disruptions of specific provisions proposed. Several compliance, as long as the approach can four to five days in CCT may potentially commenters, for example, advocated accommodate large variations in affect levels of lead at the tap adversely using a lower percentage than that sampling frequency. To maintain (Colling, et al., 1992). The Agency has proposed by the Agency as the basis for reasonable fairness between systems no data that suggest the impact on determining compliance with the that collect entry point measurements copper levels would be any different. requirements of § 141.82(g). A number biweekly and those that collect entry The Agency believes it is appropriate, of commenters suggested that 90 percent point measurements several times a day, therefore, for those systems with would be more appropriate since lead the Agency has adopted the suggestion chronic equipment problems to develop and copper action level exceedances are made by several commenters to shift and implement appropriate sampling determined based on the 90th percentile from a percent-of samples calculation to schedules and contingency plans to lead and copper tap water values. Other a percent-of-time calculation. EPA also minimize possible ‘‘down’’ time. Since commenters supported the use of 90 has revised the compliance- the LCR does not require frequent percent because of system-specific or determination period from quarterly to sampling at distribution system tap uncontrollable factors that may affect every six months. To remain in locations, the Agency believes systems water quality. They argued that, if 10 compliance, a water system may have should have sufficient flexibility to percent, or more, of the water quality no more than nine days during a six- avoid sample collection at these measurements were allowed to be month monitoring period when any locations during times of known outside OWQP limits, the State would excursions occur (or persist). This equipment problems or other factors not tend to set narrower OWQP ranges than corresponds to having no excursions representative of normal operations. in those instances where 95 percent of approximately 95 percent of the time. Today’s action eliminates the repeat- the results were required to be within Where a system measures a parameter sample approach and makes no

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations distinction for compliance purposes a sample (or the results of a sample calculated based on the frequency of between samples collected at entry averaged with the results of a sampling for the parameter at the points and those collected from confirmation sample taken within three sampling location. If measurements for distribution system taps. The duration days of the original sample) were below the parameter are collected at the of an excursion for a WQP measured the minimum value or outside the range sampling location more frequently than less frequently than daily at a sampling of values designated by the State under once a day, the daily value will be location is the number of days between § 141.82(f). A system could thus incur a calculated by averaging all of the results the excursion and the day a subsequent violation as frequently as every two measured at the sampling location for sample taken for the same parameter at weeks. Under the revisions proposed in the parameter during the day (regardless the same sampling location is within the the August 1998 Notice, a water system of whether the results are measured State-specified limits. The day on which would incur no more than one OWQP through continuous monitoring, grab the daily value is outside the State- violation a quarter. Nevertheless, the samples, or both) unless EPA has specified limits is the first day of the Agency agrees that determining approved an alternative formula under excursion. The day preceding the day compliance with OWQPs once every six § 142.16 as a part of the State’s that a subsequent sample taken for the months, instead of once every three application for a primacy revision same parameter at the same sampling months, is more consistent with other submitted pursuant to § 142.12. If location is again within the State- monitoring frequencies in the LCR. For measurements for the parameter are specified limits is the last day of the these reasons, today’s action requires collected only once a day at a sampling excursion. Thus, if a distribution system OWQP compliance to be determined location, the daily value will be the tap location has an excursion (e.g., on a every six months. daily measurement. If measurements for Monday) and the system collects Finally, a few commenters responded the parameter are collected less another sample three days later (e.g., on that they did not believe the proposed frequently than once a day at the Thursday) that is within the limits, the modifications made clear the sampling point, the daily value will be system has had an excursion of with a circumstances that would remove a the most recent measurement taken, duration of 3 days and will remain in system’s eligibility for reduced even if that measurement was collected compliance if it does not have more monitoring under §§ 141.86 and 141.87. during a previous monitoring period. than six other days in the six-month Today’s action includes some additional Under this calculation, there is no period during which an excursion changes to the language of §§ 141.86 and distinction between a measurement occurs at any sampling location. 141.87 to clarify that failure to comply taken at an entry point and one The August 1998 Notice proposed with the requirements of § 141.82(g) collected from a distribution system tap. that where a water system is conducting removes a system’s eligibility for The Agency recognizes that systems continuous monitoring, the results be reduced monitoring for lead and copper subject to reduced monitoring for WQPs recorded every four hours for the at the tap as well as reduced WQP at the tap may not collect samples from purpose of determining compliance monitoring within the distribution every site during each six-month period. with § 141.82(g). Some commenters system. Systems that lose this eligibility In such cases, where the system does expressed concern that this requirement must requalify in accordance with the not collect any samples for a could be burdensome for some systems. requirements of § 141.86(d)(4) in order distribution system tap sampling One State noted that such a requirement to resume reduced monitoring for lead location during the six-month period, would necessitate a change to State and copper at the tap and must requalify the sampling location would have no reporting forms which currently only in accordance with the requirements of excursions if the most recent have room for the system to record a § 141.87(e) in order to resume reduced measurements at that site were within daily value for each WQP. Other monitoring for WQPs at the tap. the State-specified limits. If, on the commenters noted that the proposed (iii) Today’s action. After considering other hand, the system’s most recent provisions did not address those the comments received, EPA has measurements were taken at the instances where continuous monitoring modified the OWQP compliance distribution system tap sampling equipment is not working properly. EPA requirements of § 141.82(g) as follows: location during the previous monitoring has dropped the requirement to record • Compliance will be calculated for period and were outside the State- continuous monitoring results every each 6-month period specified in specified limits, the system would be four hours. States have the discretion to § 141.87(d) during which the water out of compliance with § 141.82(g) and specify the frequency of recording system is required to conduct WQP would therefore be triggered back into continuous monitoring results. Today’s monitoring, regardless of the frequency standard WQP monitoring. action makes no distinction between of WQP monitoring. The first six-month Corresponding revisions have been continuous monitoring results and grab period begins on the date the State made to the language of §§ 141.86, sample results. If both are collected on specifies the OWQPs under § 141.82(f). 141.87, and 141.90. EPA has revised the the same day, both must be included in A water system with excursions (see language of §§ 141.86(d)(4)(v)— the calculation of the daily value. following paragraph) occurring/ redesignated as § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)—and Several commenters objected to the persisting on more than nine (9) days 141.87(e)(4) to clarify that any water proposed requirement that OWQP during the six-month period would be system that is out of compliance with compliance be determined quarterly and out of compliance. The 9 days need not the requirements of § 141.82(g) is suggested that a more appropriate be consecutive, but may be. ineligible to conduct reduced frequency would be annual or every six • An excursion is defined as a ‘‘daily monitoring for lead and copper at the months. A few of these commenters value’’ for a parameter that is below the tap and for WQPs within the expressed the opinion that a quarterly minimum value or outside the range of distribution system. Systems that lose compliance determination would be values designated by the State under their eligibility for reduced monitoring more stringent than the 1991 § 141.82(f) as representing optimal cannot resume reduced monitoring for requirements. EPA disagrees with this corrosion control. lead and copper at the tap or for WQPs interpretation. Under the 1991 • ‘‘Daily values’’ will be determined within the distribution system until requirements, a water system could for each parameter at each sampling they have completed two consecutive incur a violation any time the results of location. The daily values are to be six-month rounds of monitoring that

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1963 meet the requirements of §§ 141.86(d)(4) ‘‘control’’ that would include the the resident(s) within 3 days of the and 141.87(e), respectively. portion of the line the water system system’s receipt of the results; and (4) Section 141.87(d) has been revised to owns as well as any additional portion adding flexibility in the method of define the six-month periods for the over which it has the authority to resident notification. purpose of WQP monitoring once the replace. The Agency explained that it b. Comments and analysis. State has designated OWQPs under was concerned that the LSL replacement (i) Definition of ‘‘control.’’ In the April § 141.82(f). The first such period shall requirements in the 1991 LCR, which 1996 Proposal, the Agency solicited begin on the date the State specifies the obligated systems to also replace the comments, specifically regarding the OWQPs. For small and medium-size privately-owned portion of the line degree to which systems may have the systems conducting reduced monitoring where the system had the authority to authority to replace the privately-owned for lead and copper at the tap that are replace, repair, or maintain the line, or portions of LSLs. In addition, EPA triggered into WQP monitoring pursuant had other forms of authority over the solicited comments regarding the option to § 141.87(d), the end of the six-month line, could result in confusion and delay of only requiring replacement of the period for monitoring under § 141.87(d) in implementation of the Rule. portion of the line owned by the water shall be synchronized with the end of Confusion could result from different system, explaining that such an the reduced monitoring period under perceptions of the precise scope of the approach would further simplify § 141.86(d)(4) during which the action system’s legal authority, and resolution implementation of the rule because the level exceedance occurred. The wording of such disputes could require the division in ownership between the of § 141.87(d) has been streamlined by intervention of the State in a potentially system and the user would be clear to referencing, but not repeating, the time-consuming process. EPA also all parties. compliance requirements specified in proposed to remove the rebuttable Three commenters supported the § 141.82(g). The Agency has revised the presumption in § 141.84(e) that the definition of control that EPA proposed, requirements of § 141.90(a)(1) to require water system controls the entire length that is water systems must replace the that the WQP monitoring results be of the LSL. portion that they own as well as the provided to the State no less frequently EPA is aware of some information portion over which they have the than ten days after the end of each six- indicating that partial replacement of authority to replace. All other month monitoring period, unless the LSLs may result in transitory increases commenters supported the more limited State has specified a more frequent in levels of lead at the tap immediately definition that equates control with reporting requirement. following replacement (see 56 FR 26505, ownership. Commenters felt that it is Finally, today’s action revises the middle of second column, Jun. 7, 1991). appropriate to hold the water system provisions of § 142.16(d)(1) to add an The Agency believes that the entire responsible only for the portion of the optional special primacy condition for length of the service line should be service line the system owns. In States that want to use a formula, other replaced wherever such replacement is addition, the commenters felt that than that specified in § 141.82(g), to possible. For this reason, the 1996 defining control as ownership would calculate the daily value when multiple proposed revision to § 141.84(d) did not avoid confusion and ambiguities about measurements are taken on the same include any changes to the requirement the scope of the water system’s day for a water quality parameter at the that water systems offer to replace the authority to replace LSLs. These same sampling location. privately-owned portion of the LSL (at commenters opposed the idea of also requiring a water system to replace any 3. Revisions to § 141.84 the building owner’s expense) and, if requested by the resident(s), collect a additional portion of the line that it a. Proposed revision and background. post-partial replacement sample and does not own but for which it has the Section 141.84 requires systems that fail report the results to the resident(s) authority to replace. Their reasons for to meet the lead action level after within 14 days of the partial LSL opposing the proposed definition installing CCT and/or source water replacement. included: lack of legal authority; treatment to replace lead service lines In light of commenter concerns about difficulty obtaining permission to (LSLs). As promulgated in 1991, the retention of partial LSL replacement replace LSLs on private property; § 141.84(d) required a water system to requirements in the April 1996 concern about using public funds to do replace the entire LSL, up to the Proposal, EPA included a request for work on private property; and potential building inlet, unless the system comment in the April 1998 Notice on conflicts/lawsuits involving utilities, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the additional changes to the LSL homeowners and independent State that it controlled less than the requirements. Specifically, EPA contractors. Some commenters argued entire service line. EPA promulgated a requested comment on the following: (1) that EPA does not have the statutory definition of ‘‘control’’ that was Clarifying that a system should make authority to require LSL replacement by subsequently vacated and remanded to the offer to replace the privately-owned the water supplier on private property. EPA as a result of a judicial challenge portion of the LSL to the owner, rather After consideration of these to this aspect of the Rule to the extent than the user; (2) adding a requirement comments, the Agency agrees that the the definition of control applied to that the system notify the resident(s) of broader definition of ‘‘control’’ (that is, portions of the line beyond a water the building(s) served by the LSL at the water system would be required to system’s ownership.4 The court in that least 45 days prior to partial LSL replace the portion of the LSL that it case ruled that EPA did not provide an replacement and provide guidance on owns plus any additional portion of the opportunity for the public to comment possible short-term lead level increases line that it has the authority to replace) on the Agency’s expansive definition of and preventive measures consumers can could result in unintended delays and control. The court did not address the take to minimize exposure; (3) replacing other complications. For this reason, question of whether the definition was the 1991 LCR requirement for a EPA believes it is appropriate to equate within EPA’s authority under SDWA. In resident-requested follow-up sample ‘‘control’’ with ‘‘ownership’’ in order to the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested within 14 days of partial LSL eliminate potential legal confusion and comment on a revised definition of replacement with a requirement to delays in implementing the Rule. collect a sample within 24 hours of (ii) Elimination of the rebuttable 4 AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994). partial LSL replacement, and to notify presumption. Most commenters did not

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations explicitly address EPA’s proposal to control has been fully implemented and although lead levels at the tap will in remove the rebuttable presumption that optimized as required by the Rule. some instances increase immediately the water system controls the entire Four case studies were examined to after partial replacement of the LSL, length of the LSL. Those who did assess the impact of partial LSL over the long run, lead levels will address the issue supported the replacement (EPA, 1998c). Only two of decrease below the before replacement Agency’s proposal. EPA is eliminating the case studies have adequate data to levels. the rebuttable presumption as proposed, assess the impact on lead levels at the The EPA study was designed to since it is no longer needed now that the tap, relative to time elapsed after observe the effects of partial LSL definition of ‘‘control’’ equals replacement. The first study was replacement. First-draw samples and ownership under today’s rule. conducted in Scotland. Lead levels were service line samples were taken before (iii) Possible adverse health effects observed at a residence after partial LSL and after replacement of LSLs at four associated with partial LSL replacement over a four-month period sites in Oakwood, Ohio. One limitation replacement. A number of commenters (Britton and Richards, 1981). The other of this study is that the lead levels to the April 1996 Proposal and the April study was conducted by EPA at several before replacement were below the 1998 Notice expressed concern about homes in Oakwood, Ohio and lead trigger of 0.015 mg/L. LSL replacement the possible adverse health effects levels were recorded for several weeks would not be required for these sites associated with partial replacement of after replacement (EPA, 1991b). under the LCR. Another limitation is the The study by Britton and Richards LSLs. These concerns were similar to duration of sampling. A complete set of showed a temporary rise in lead levels post-replacement samples was not taken those expressed by commenters to the at the tap. There were four monitoring at every site making it difficult to fully 1988 proposed LCR. The commenters periods in this case study: before examine the impact of time on post- felt that replacing only part of the replacement, one week after replacement lead levels. The third service line could actually increase the replacement, two months after limitation is that the date of the partial lead levels at the tap because of galvanic replacement, and four months after LSL replacement for each of the four action, the disruption of the protective replacement. During each period, 10 sites is not recorded in the summary. coating on the inside of the pipe and the first-draw and 10 random daytime The results from the first round of entry of particulate lead to the supplied samples were collected daily over a two- post-replacement samples are very water. Some of the commenters on the week period. First-draw samples were similar to the pre-replacement results. April 1996 Proposal referred to the case taken in the morning before any other The averages of the pre- and post- studies (Britton and Richards, 1981; water in the household had been run. replacement samples for three of the EPA, 1991b; Pocock, 1980) cited by the The random daytime samples were sites were within 3 ‘‘µ/L of one another, Agency in the preamble to the 1991 taken later that day without running any and all were at or below 10 µ/L. The LCR. EPA stated in the preamble that water to waste before sampling. average service line lead level almost the Agency thought partial LSL The elevated lead levels produced by doubled at one site and exceeded the replacement could increase lead levels, partial LSL replacement were a short- action level of 15 µ/L after replacement. but that EPA believed increased levels, term phenomenon. The average However, the average for the three if they occur, will be temporary and will concentrations for the first-draw and service line samples taken at this site decrease over time. A number of random daytime samples taken ‘‘four the following week was dramatically commenters argued that these studies months after replacement’’ are lower lower. The averages for the service line show increased lead levels from partial than the average concentrations of the samples taken at the other two sites LSL replacement and that the levels do ‘‘before replacement’’ samples. In during this sampling period were also not necessarily decrease. EPA has addition, the first-draw and random lower than the averages for the first after reanalyzed the three case studies to daytime samples were averaged for each replacement sampling period. The better assess the lead level increases sampling period to better assess the results from the second round of post- resulting from partial LSL replacement impact of partial LSL replacement on replacement monitoring showed a (EPA, 1998c). This reanalysis confirmed lead levels at the site. The averages of significant decrease in lead levels when that lead levels at the tap, will in some all samples taken ‘‘four months after compared to the pre-replacement instances, increase immediately after replacement’’ is 25 percent lower than averages. The post-replacement averages partial replacement of the LSL. The the averages of all samples taken ‘‘before from the second monitoring period results of the same studies also revealed replacement.’’ The percentage reduction showed approximately a 50 percent that subsequently, over the long run, is even larger when the average of the reduction from the pre-replacement lead levels will decrease below the pre- first-draw samples are compared. The averages. The data from the third round replacement levels after partial LSL data on the range of concentrations and of post-replacement monitoring only replacement. The commenters on both the percentages of samples above 0.100 showed a slight additional decrease in the 1996 and 1998 proposals also stated mg/L and 0.050 mg/L also support the lead levels. The levels are below 5 µ/L, that several water systems which began benefits of partial LSL replacement. The so further significant reductions would voluntary programs to replace their highest concentration in the first-draw be unlikely. These data do not support portion of the LSL observed increased samples taken ‘‘four months after the commenter’s contentions that lead lead levels after replacement. However, replacement’’ is less than half the levels are elevated after partial LSL no new data were submitted to the highest concentration taken in the first- replacement and that lead levels do not Agency for analysis. The Agency draw samples taken ‘‘before necessarily decrease. These data do believes that the temporary rise in lead replacement.’’ In addition, the appear to indicate that requiring levels indicates not only the presence of percentages of samples with replacement of lines where tap levels lead materials in the distribution system concentrations above 0.100 mg/L and are already low (i.e., below 0.015 mg/1) (i.e., service lines, probably lead pipe), 0.050 mg/L are lower in the data taken might not result in dramatic but also poor corrosion control. It is ‘‘four months after replacement.’’ This improvements in lead levels. expected that potential for temporary trend is observed in both the first-draw In practice, EPA believes that many increases in lead levels will be minimal and the random daytime samples. This systems required to replace LSLs will for those systems where corrosion study supports EPA’s contention that receive consent to remove any privately-

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1965 owned portions since it is in the billing unit residents and suggested this samples if every unit requested one. The homeowners’ interest to completely should be the responsibility of the follow-up sampling that would be remove this source of lead in their building owner. Finally, several required by the changes to § 141.84(d) drinking water. In those cases where the commenters expressed concern about discussed in the April 1998 Notice is PWS cannot obtain permission to the requirement for a post-replacement intended to show the ‘‘worst-case’’ remove the entire line, EPA still sample taken within 24 hours of the effects of partial LSL replacement and is believes there are benefits to partial replacement. The concerns included not intended to be used in 90th replacement. Partial removal of a LSL timing problems associated with percentile calculations or for will reduce the likelihood of exposure weekends and holidays, the likelihood determining compliance with optimal to lead from drinking water because that such a sample would not be corrosion control or source water there will be a smaller volume of water representative of the lead levels after treatment requirements. Under the in contact with the LSL. Consumers are stabilization, and the added cost and revised requirement, the water system is more likely to consume water with burden associated with the requirement. required to collect only one sample for elevated lead levels from longer lines To minimize the risk that residents each partially-replaced LSL. EPA because a larger volume of water will will incur increased exposure because therefore does not believe that a large have elevated lead levels. As previously of partial line replacement, EPA is number of samples is required. explained in detail in the 1991 LCR, including the requirement that water EPA is including the requirement that data collected by Pocock (1980) from systems provide a notice of the partial the water system collect a tap water over 2,000 homes in the United replacement to the residents at least 45 sample representative of the water in Kingdom support the view that the days before commencing with the the service line for analysis of lead likelihood of elevated lead levels varies partial LSL replacement, inform content as prescribed in § 141.86(b)(3) in relation to the length of the LSL. residents that they may experience a and provide the results to the residents These findings are also consistent with temporary increase of lead levels in quickly. Prior to collecting the follow- Kuch and Wagner’s (1983) mass transfer their drinking water, and provide up sample, water must remain sitting in modeling, which predicted the residents with guidance about the the pipe for at least 6 hours following dependence of lead levels on the length measures they can take to minimize partial LSL replacement. The Agency is and diameter of a lead pipe (i.e., higher their exposure to lead. The Agency feels sensitive to commenter concerns that lead levels with longer lead pipe). that 45 days is a sufficient amount of collecting such a sample within 24 The Agency believes the water system time for the recipients to study the hours of the partial replacement may should replace the entire length of the guidance provided by the water cause additional burden. In those cases line wherever possible. Today’s action supplier, to familiarize themselves with where the partial replacement is therefore retains a requirement for the the potential ramifications associated completed on a Friday or just before a water supplier to offer to replace the with the partial LSL replacement, and to holiday, staff may not be available privately-owned portion of the line. plan and implement appropriate outside of normal working hours to This requirement has been revised to measures to avoid exposure to lead. The collect such a sample. For these reasons, exclude those instances where doing so Agency agrees with commenters, EPA agrees with commenters that is precluded by State, local or common however, that a 45-day lead time is not extending the time frame for collecting law. There is no requirement for the practicable in those instances when the follow-up sample from 24 hours to system to bear the cost of replacing the replacement is being done in privately-owned portion of the line. conjunction with emergency repairs. 72 hours is reasonable and the Agency Thus, if the property owner does not EPA has therefore included provisions has done so in the final rule language. want to pay for removal of the privately- giving States the discretion to allow for In response to commenter suggestions, owned portion of the line, the system is notification of less than 45 days in such the Agency also is clarifying in the rule only required to replace the portion it instances. States will need to review language that the water system is owns. The Agency believes that the such requests on a case-by-case basis expected to pay for this sampling. EPA requirement for systems to offer unless they adopt appropriate State does not believe that the follow-up assistance with replacement of regulations to allow notification of less sampling and notification constitute a privately-controlled service lines is an than 45 days in conjunction with significant burden to the system efficient and effective means of emergency repairs. compared with the cost of the partial maximizing the public health benefits As an additional precautionary LSL replacement. achieved by the rule. measure, the water system is required to The Agency believes that the affected (iv) Resident notification of partial collect a follow-up LSL sample, to parties should be provided with the test LSL replacement. In response to the determine whether the partial LSL results as quickly as possible so they April 1998 Notice, no commenter replacement caused an increase of lead can implement appropriate measures, objected to requiring the system to levels in the drinking water, and to commensurate with the findings, as contact the ‘‘owner’’ rather than the provide the results to residents. The soon as they can to minimize their ‘‘user’’ when offering to replace the 1991 LCR required the water supplier to exposure to lead. In addition, privately-owned portion of the service inform residents served by partially- unnecessary expenses and further line. Several commenters expressed replaced LSLs that they were entitled to concerns on the part of consumers could concern that requiring notification to have a tap water sample drawn and be alleviated in instances where the residents 45 days in advance of the analyzed within 14 days of the analytical results indicate little or no partial replacement would present a completion of the partial replacement. increase in lead levels, or an immediate hardship in instances where the system Upon further consideration, the Agency decrease in lead levels, resulting from is replacing the line in conjunction with believes the requirement, as codified in the partial removal of the LSL. EPA making emergency repairs. A few 1991, could place an undue burden on therefore is retaining the requirement commenters objected to the requirement the water system in those instances that water systems provide the results of that the water system be responsible for where a line serves a large multi-family this post-replacement sample to providing notification to residents of residence because the system could be consumers within three days of multi-family buildings and other non- required to take a large number of receiving the results. The Agency has

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations clarified the rule language to reflect that did EPA ask for comment on those line for analysis of lead content in the three days are business days. requirements or otherwise reopen that accordance with the procedures While EPA is sensitive to the issue. specified in § 141.86(b)(3). The system difficulties associated with providing (vii) Other LSL comments. Some shall report the results of the analysis to notification to residents of non-billing commenters raised issues with the basic the owner and the resident(s) served by units (for example, apartment buildings LSL replacement requirements of the the line within 3 business days of and other rental units), the Agency rule, such as the requirement to replace receiving the results. Mailed notices believes it is important that the water or sample 7 percent of lines each year post-marked within 3 business days of system take pro-active measures to and the basic reasonableness of receiving the results shall be considered notify these residents. The Agency requiring systems to replace some ‘‘on time.’’ therefore is including the requirement portion of the line when levels at the tap • For the purpose of satisfying the that the water system provide the pre- are above 15 ppb. These comments are notification requirements of § 141.84(d), partial LSL replacement information outside the scope of this rulemaking the water system shall provide the and the post-replacement sample results because EPA did not propose revisions information to the residents of to these residents as well as to the to, or otherwise reopen, the basic LSL individual dwellings by mail or by other residents of billing units. In the case of replacement requirements in this methods approved by the State. In single family residences, this notice proceeding. Rather, the only aspects of instances where multi-family dwellings must be made by mail unless another the 1991 Rule addressed here are the are served by the line, the water system mechanism is approved by the State. To definition of ‘‘control’’ for purposes of shall have the option to post the avoid problems arising from delivery determining the portion of the service information at a conspicuous location. delays beyond the system’s control, line the system is required to replace, Today’s action also makes three other notifications which are postmarked and sampling and notification changes in § 141.84. Section 141.84(e) within the required time will be requirements that relate to the potential has been deleted, since the rebuttable considered acceptable. In the case of for partial LSL replacement. presumption is no longer appropriate. multi-family residences, the regulation c. Today’s action. EPA has eliminated Sections 141.84(f) through (h) have been gives the water supplier the option to the ‘‘control’’ terminology from the redesignated as §§ 141.84(e) through (g). post the information in a conspicuous Rule. Today’s action revises § 141.84(d) The Agency also has made a slight place. to require the water system to replace modification to § 141.84(b) to explicitly (v) Reporting of post-replacement only the portion of the LSL that it owns. require the system to document, in sampling results to the State. Most Water systems subject to LSL system files, the portion(s) of the LSL(s) commenters supported the proposed replacement requirements continue to owned by the system. The third requirement that water systems provide be required to offer to replace the sentence of § 141.84(b) has been revised the State a copy of the results of samples privately-owned portion of the line, to read as follows: ‘‘The system shall collected immediately following partial however, § 141.84(d) has been revised to identify the initial number of lead LSL replacement within the first ten clarify that the offer must be made to the service lines in its distribution system, days of the month following the month owner of the property, or the owner’s including an identification of the in which the results are received from authorized agent, rather than the user. portion(s) owned by the system, based the laboratory. Two commenters, Today’s action also revises the on a materials evaluation, including the however, suggested that EPA provide requirements in § 141.84(d) that a water evaluation required under § 141.86(a) States flexibility in the manner, format, system must satisfy when replacing only and relevant legal authorities (e.g., and timing of reporting; three other a portion of the LSL. The requirement contracts, local ordinances) regarding commenters opposed the requirement that a water system offer to take a post- the portion owned by the system.’’ EPA altogether. After consideration of these replacement sample within 14 days of does not intend that systems provide comments, EPA has retained the the partial replacement has been this information to the State; however, reporting requirement but has given replaced with the following the Agency thinks it is important for a States the flexibility to modify or requirements. record to exist that documents the eliminate it. Even if the State does not • At least 45 days prior to the partial baseline. These records should be require these results to be reported, replacement, the water system must available for inspection at the system water systems are required to maintain notify all residents of the building upon request. records of the sampling results in served by the line that the partial The reporting requirement at accordance with § 141.91. replacement will occur, alert them that § 141.90(e)(4), to submit documentation (vi) Financial impacts of LSL they may experience a temporary if the system believes it does not control replacement. Some commenters were increase of lead levels in their drinking the entire length of the line, has been concerned about the financial impacts water, provide them with guidance on replaced with a requirement that the associated with LSL replacement. They measures they can take to minimize water system report the results of the felt that compliance with the regulation their exposure to lead, and inform them post-partial replacement sampling to the will be particularly burdensome for that the water system will collect a State within the first ten days of the some cities that have a high percentage follow-up sample within 72 hours of month following the month in which of LSLs. One commenter stated the completing the partial replacement, and the system receives the laboratory belief that EPA’s 1991 LCR estimate of notify them of the results of that sample. results, unless otherwise specified by the average removal cost per line was The State has the discretion to allow the State. States, at their discretion, may extremely conservative when made and less than a 45-day advance notice in eliminate this reporting requirement. is now outdated, and actual costs could those instances where the partial Systems shall also report additional be significantly higher and submitted replacement is being performed in information as specified by the State, supporting data. The cost of the original conjunction with emergency repairs. and in a time and manner prescribed by LSL replacement requirements is • Within 72 hours of completing the the State, to verify that all partial LSL outside the scope of this rulemaking. partial LSL replacement, the water replacement activities have taken place. EPA did not propose any changes to the system shall collect a tap water sample Finally, these changes to § 141.84 basic LSL replacement requirements nor representative of the water in the service necessitate conforming changes to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1967

§ 141.85(a) and Part 142. EPA has concerns of EPA Regions and States that education language need to request revised the language of § 141.85(a) the mandatory language specified in the State approval. slightly to remove references to LSL 1991 LCR may not be appropriate for (iii) Today’s action. EPA has made the control. The phrase ‘‘each lead service NTNCWSs or certain small CWSs (such following revisions to § 141.85 to reflect line that we control’’ in § 141.85(a)(1)(i) as prisons and hospitals) that primarily the changes discussed above. The (as redesignated) has been revised to serve confined populations. In order to Agency has redesignated paragraph (a), read ‘‘the portion of each lead service incorporate these changes into the LCR, except for the phrase, ‘‘Content of line that we own.’’ The discussion of EPA proposed to renumber § 141.85(a) written public education materials,’’ as LSL replacement in as § 141.85(a)(1) and to incorporate the paragraph (a)(1) and titled it as § 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) (as redesignated) NTNCWS language at § 141.85(a)(2). ‘‘Community water systems.’’ The has been revised to reflect the EPA also proposed to add a paragraph subordinate paragraphs have been notification and post-partial (c)(7) to § 141.85. This new paragraph redesignated accordingly. The replacement sampling requirements in would identify the types of CWSs who introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) has today’s action. Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii), might be eligible to use the NTNCWS been expanded to allow CWSs, with requiring States to maintain records of language. As proposed, CWSs would State approval, to delete information their determination that a water system need State approval to use the NTNCWS pertaining to lead service lines if no does not control the entire length of the language, however, EPA also solicited lead service lines exist anywhere in the LSL, has been deleted; however, two public comment on the necessity of this water system service area. As discussed new State recordkeeping requirements up-front approval. in section C.3.c. of this preamble, EPA have been added. Section (ii) Comments and analysis. While all has replaced the phrase ‘‘each lead 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) requires States to commenters supported the proposed service line that we control’’ in maintain records of any system-specific revisions, some offered additional paragraph (a)(1) with the phrase ‘‘the determinations regarding the suggestions for consideration by EPA. portion of each lead service line that we submission of information, including For example, suggestions were made to own.’’ Section 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) also post partial replacement test results, to allow CWSs to delete references to LSLs has been revised to reflect that a water demonstrate compliance with partial where none exist, and to delete system is only required to replace the lead service line replacement references to building permit records portion of the lead service line that it requirements. Section 142.14(d)(10)(ii) where the records are unavailable. owns and to reflect the notification and has been added to include a Another suggestion was to allow post-partial-replacement sampling requirement that States maintain NTNCWSs with internal e-mail systems requirements contained in § 141.84(d) of records related to system compliance to distribute the required public today’s action. Systems, however, may with partial lead service line education information electronically in continue to use pre-printed materials replacement requirements. Section lieu of printed format. EPA agrees with with the old language, if they so choose. 142.16(d)(3) has been revised to these suggestions, and has incorporated The language of § 141.85(a)(1) also has eliminate the requirement that States language which gives States the been expanded to allow systems to describe in their primacy program flexibility to approve these minor modify, with State approval, the revision application how they plan to changes to the public education language at (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and make determinations that a water language. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) regarding building permit system does not control the entire Some commenters suggested that EPA record availability and consumer access length of the LSL. It has been replaced allow systems additional flexibility to to these records if such information is with a requirement that States describe tailor public education language. The not available. in their primacy program revision how they will verify that all partial LSL public education language specified in EPA has added new paragraphs at replacement activities have been the regulations is a mandatory (a)(2) to specify alternative mandatory completed properly. minimum. The mandatory language language for use by NTNCWSs. These specified in the regulations was systems have the discretion to use either 4. Revisions to § 141.85 developed to provide consistent, the language in § 141.85(a)(1) or the a. Changes affecting content of written beneficial information to consumers language in § 141.85(a)(2). The materials. regarding lead in their water supply. introductory text of § 141.85(c)(4) also (i) Proposed revision and background. Systems may request approval from has been revised to update the In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA States to include additional language, to paragraph references applicable to requested comment on a revision that provide consumers with information repeat public education tasks. would provide separate mandatory specific to a particular system. EPA EPA also has added a paragraph (7) to public education language for use by believes the LCR, as revised by today’s § 141.85(c). This paragraph specifies the NTNCWSs and certain CWSs, such as action, provides sufficient flexibility to characteristics of CWSs that may be prisons and hospitals, which is more address system-specific circumstances. eligible to use the NTNCWS language appropriate for these systems. The EPA received mixed comments on and provides flexibility for eligible proposed NTNCWS language would whether up-front State approval for CWSs to substitute posting and eliminate references to ‘‘homes in the CWSs to use the NTNCWS public distribution of informational pamphlets/ community’’ and some suggestions for education language should be required brochures in lieu of meeting the CWS reducing lead exposure which may be for CWSs that meet the specified criteria public education distribution beyond the control of consumers served in the proposed § 141.85(c)(7). After requirements. CWSs delivering public by such water systems. As a part of this considering these comments, EPA education as if they were a NTNCWS provision, the Agency proposed that the believes that the issue of whether to would be required to repeat public CWSs approved to use the NTNCWS require up-front approval should be education tasks only once per calendar language also be permitted to deliver decided by the States. The language at year in which the system exceeds the their public education program as if § 141.85(c)(7) has been modified to lead action level. States have the they were a NTNCWS. The Agency allow States to decide whether systems flexibility to waive the requirement for proposed these changes to address that qualify to use the alternative public prior State approval for these special-

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations case CWSs to deliver public education system and ‘‘only those locations Several commenters recommended as if they are NTNCWSs. outside the system’s service area that are that EPA also allow CWSs serving 501 In addition, EPA has revised regularly visited by the system’s to 3,300 people to forego newspaper § 141.85(c)(4)(ii) to permit a NTNCWS consumers.’’ This latter requirement, to notification and broad distribution of to utilize electronic transmission in lieu provide informational materials to pamphlets and brochures to facilities of or combined with printed materials facilities and organizations not served and organizations that are visited as long as it achieves at least the same by the system, was not included in the frequently by pregnant women and coverage. proposed rule language. Several children. These commenters believe that Finally, EPA has added provisions in commenters expressed concern that the problems associated with newspaper a new § 142.14(d)(8)(x) that require including such a requirement would notification and broad distribution of States to maintain records pertaining to result in the same confusion and informational pamphlets and brochures any system-specific decisions made unintended consequences as the affect most small systems. EPA concurs under § 141.85 regarding the content of original requirements. EPA agrees that that many systems serving between 501 written public education materials and/ limiting the distribution of materials to and 3,300 people may be on the fringe or the distribution of these materials. facilities/organizations within the of an urban or suburban area and that b. Public education delivery service area is appropriate and the final distribution of broad-based public requirements. rule language has been revised education for these systems may have (i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer accordingly. unintended consequences. The Agency people. The second discrepancy between the believes, however, that allowing these (A) Proposed revision and 1996 preamble and proposed rule systems to automatically limit background. The April 1996 Proposal language involves the question of what, distribution of public education included a provision to allow CWSs if anything, the water system would be materials is inappropriate. Such serving 500 or fewer people to forego required to do in lieu of newspaper and systems, for example, are more likely to the newspaper and electronic media electronic notification. In the preamble, be served by local newspapers in which notifications required as a part of public EPA indicated that the Agency was it may be appropriate to include education because these systems rarely proposing to require CWSs, that serve information about the system’s lead are served by general circulation 500 or fewer people and that desire to levels. EPA believes that States are in newspapers and radio/television omit tasks requiring submission of the best position to determine the extent stations that have audiences limited to information to newspapers and radio to which CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 the public water system’s service area. and television stations, to mail or hand people should limit distribution of The Agency explained that it believes deliver lead public education materials public education materials. The final such a revision is necessary to minimize to all other regular consumers (e.g., rule therefore gives States the authority, the unintended burden resulting from a tenants of multi-family residences either through State regulations or by system needing to respond to numerous whose water is included in their rent), case-by-case written approval, to allow inquiries from individuals it does not in addition to mailing these materials to CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to serve. For the same reason, EPA also all billing units (60 FR 16355, top of omit the newspaper notification proposed to allow systems serving 500 third column). EPA inadvertently requirements and to limit the or fewer people to limit the distribution omitted this requirement from the distribution of materials to appropriate of informational brochures to facilities proposed rule language. Even though facilities and organizations served by and organizations likely to be several commenters expressed concern the system. frequented by pregnant women and that such an alternative requirement Finally, one commenter suggested children. Finally, EPA requested public would be as burdensome as the original that the alternate delivery allowed for comment on a burden reduction requirements, the Agency believes that NTNCWSs and some small CWSs suggestion to allow CWSs serving 501 to such a requirement is appropriate when (institutions) should be extended to 3,300 people to forego the public service newspaper notification and/or broad mobile home parks, housing projects, announcement requirements contained distribution of pamphlets/brochures subdivisions and apartments. The in § 141.85(c)(2)(iv) since the major does not occur. The purpose of these commenter believes such systems serve radio/television stations usually activities is to ensure that as many a more or less confined population that broadcast to a much broader area than individuals served by the system as is readily accessible through a central that served by the water system. possible receive timely public education mail area and/or laundry area that (B) Comments and analysis. Most of materials. For systems serving 500 and makes hand delivery much easier and the commenters supported the proposed fewer people, the Agency does not more effective. EPA believes that the revision pertaining to the delivery of believe that mailing or hand delivering revisions discussed below provide public education by CWSs serving 500 these materials to all households served sufficient flexibility for the delivery of or fewer people. Several commenters by the system, in lieu of these activities, public education by CWSs. EPA noted discrepancies between the constitutes an undue burden. The therefore has no plans at this time to preamble discussion and the rule revised provisions allow these systems make further changes to the public language, however, and expressed the flexibility to select the least education language requirements concern that the rule language, as burdensome among the allowable beyond those contained in today’s proposed, would not accomplish the delivery mechanisms. The Agency has action. intended objectives. therefore incorporated this requirement (C) Today’s action. EPA has revised One of the discrepancies involves the into the final rule language. the rule to add a new paragraph at distribution of informational pamphlets The comments received also § 141.85(c)(8) to allow any CWS serving or brochures to facilities and supported the burden reduction less than or equal to 3,300 people to organizations visited frequently by suggestion to eliminate the public omit the public service announcement pregnant women and children. In the service announcement requirement for requirements of § 141.85(c)(2)(iv). Such preamble, EPA stated the Agency’s CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people. EPA systems are not required to obtain prior intent that these materials be distributed agrees and today’s action revises the State approval to omit these to appropriate facilities served by the rule language accordingly. announcements, nor are they required to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1969 substitute any other tasks, in lieu of with the materials to minimize the risk the system continues to exceed the lead public service announcements, as part that they would be discarded as ‘‘junk action level. There is nothing in the of meeting the public education mail.’’ The Agency proposed these regulation, however, that precludes requirements. changes to minimize the unintended such a system from mailing the In addition to omitting the public additional burden associated with materials sooner than 12 months after service announcement task for small making changes in a water system’s the initial mailing, in order to CWSs, the new § 141.85(c)(8) provides billing cycle and/or process to synchronize the repeat mailing with its some flexibility for small CWSs to omit accommodate the rule’s public billing cycle. the newspaper notification required by education requirements. (C) Today’s action. EPA is revising § 141.85(c)(2)(ii) and to limit the (B) Comments and analysis. § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow a CWS the distribution of informational pamphlets Commenters generally were supportive option of using a separate mailing when under § 141.85(c)(2)(iii) to appropriate of these proposed changes, except for the system’s billing cycle does not facilities and organizations served by one State which disagreed with include a mailing within 60 days of the water system. In addition to mailing allowing systems up to six months to exceeding the action level or where the lead public education materials to deliver the public education materials system cannot insert information with billing units, systems electing to limit/ because of the potential health risks, the water utility bill without making omit these activities must also mail or especially for pregnant women, if major changes in its billing system. The hand deliver the required public customers are not informed in a timely separate mailing must occur within 60 education materials to all other regular manner. After further consideration of days of exceeding the lead action level customers of the system (i.e., the public health issues, EPA has and the system must include an alert in households that are not billing units). decided to retain the current the package or on the outside of the CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people must requirement that all systems exceeding envelope containing the following receive prior written approval from the the lead action level distribute public message, in large print: SOME HOMES State. State approval is not required for education materials within 60 days of IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, the exceedance. The decision to retain ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR however, § 141.85(c)(8)(i)(A) gives the 60-day requirement is based on DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE States the authority to require such a these considerations: (1) Extending the A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR system to distribute to facilities and time period to distribute public HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE organizations not served by the system education materials could lessen public ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER in those instances where the State health protection. Pregnant women, in INFORMATION. believes that a broader distribution is particular, might not receive timely EPA also is revising the introductory appropriate. As discussed above, today’s notice if the system were allowed up to text of §§ 141.85(c)(2) and 141.85(c)(4) action also adds the corresponding State six months after becoming aware of an to clarify that the requirement to deliver recordkeeping requirements at a new exceedance to provide the public public education within 60 days of a § 142.14(d)(8)(x). education materials. (2) Allowing lead action level exceedance applies Finally, § 141.85(c)(8)(ii) clarifies that different time requirements based on only in the following instances: small CWSs that omit the public service non-risk-related factors such as billing • The first time the water system announcement tasks are required to cycles could provide unequal health exceeds the lead action level; or repeat public education tasks only once protection. (3) State administrative costs • The first time the water system during each calendar year until such would increase since the State would again exceeds the lead action level after time as the results of lead and copper need to be aware of a system’s billing one (or more) round(s) of tap water tap water monitoring indicate that they cycle in order to determine compliance monitoring for lead and copper where no longer exceed the lead action level. with this requirement. the system did not exceed the lead (ii) Timing and method of EPA agrees with commenters, action level. distribution. however, that the mailing of public c. Schedule for Reporting Completion (A) Proposed revision and education materials separately from the of Public Education Tasks. background. In the April 1996 Proposal, water bill is appropriate in many (i) Proposed revision and background. EPA sought comment on proposed instances and is revising the public The April 1996 Proposal included a changes pertaining to the mailing and education requirements accordingly. change in the deadline for a PWS to timing of public education materials by The Agency believes that this change report completion of public education CWSs that exceed the lead action level. will provide sufficient flexibility for tasks to the State. Under the 1991 Rule, Specifically, the Agency proposed two systems to meet the public education the deadline for reporting was December modifications to § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to: (a) requirements without incurring the 31 of each year in which the system was Allow a CWS having a billing cycle that added burden of making substantial subject to the Rule’s public education does not include a billing within 60 changes to their billing processes. requirements. EPA proposed to replace days of exceeding the lead action level One commenter seems to have the December 31 deadline with a to mail the materials on the same misunderstood the requirements requirement for the water system to schedule as the system’s billing cycle as pertaining to the timing of public report completion of public education long as the mailing occurs within six education if a CWS is required to repeat tasks to the State within 10 days after months after the exceedance; and (b) public education tasks pursuant to the date by which the system is required allow a CWS that cannot insert § 141.85(c)(3). It is not EPA’s intention to perform any such tasks. EPA information in the water utility bill, that such a system provide public proposed this revision because the without making major changes to its education materials within 60 days of Agency believes that the schedule for billing system, to use a separate mailing any subsequent exceedance as well as water systems to report completion of to deliver the public education materials repeat mailing of these materials every public education tasks by December 31 as long as the information is delivered 12 months based on the initial of each year (in which the system is within the required time frame. EPA exceedance. Rather, the Agency intends required to conduct any public also proposed to require CWSs utilizing that public education materials be education task) fails to provide the a separate mailing to include an alert mailed every 12 months for as long as States and EPA with information in a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations manner timely enough to oversee States to determine whether all their sampling pools with representative systems’ compliance with the public appropriate actions have been taken. sites throughout the distribution system education program requirements. Today’s action does not alter the if they are unable to locate a sufficient (ii) Comments and analysis. requirement that the demonstration be number of sample sites that meet the Commenters were mixed in their supported with appropriate tiering criteria specified in § 141.86(a). support for this revision. Those documentation. The Agency agrees that EPA proposed this revision to clarify opposing it believe this will it may relieve some reporting burden for that all systems are required to collect unnecessarily increase burden. Of those systems if they are not required to samples from a minimum number of supporting the revision, some support it submit the same information more than sites in accordance with § 141.86(c), as written and some support it with once. On the other hand, EPA even if a sufficient number of high-risk changes. Two of those supporting it recognizes that eliminating the sites are not available. with changes wanted the reporting time requirement to submit the supporting (ii) Comments and analysis. Most to increase from 10 days to 30 days, and materials each time may increase the commenters agreed with the proposed one supporting it with changes State burden to determine compliance new language. However, one commenter expressed concern about submitting a since all of the information may not be suggested that EPA provide a clear full packet of information each reporting readily available at the time compliance definition or understanding of what period. is assessed. For this reason, the Agency constitutes a ‘‘representative site’’. The Several commenters who opposed believes it is most appropriate to leave Agency believes that a ‘‘representative this revision wanted to retain the annual the decision to the State about the need site,’’ in this context, is a site in which reporting requirement. EPA recognizes for repetitious submission of the same the plumbing materials used at that site that this revision will require those information. If the State elects to would be commonly found at other sites CWSs that must deliver public service eliminate these repetitious submissions, served by the water system. This announcements to radio and television however, EPA believes it is appropriate definition for ‘‘representative site’’ is stations every six months to submit two to require the water system to certify specific to these two paragraphs and has letters to the State during a calendar that there have been no changes in the been added to the regulatory language at year instead of the single letter initially supporting documentation. Regardless § 141.86(a)(5) and § 141.86(a)(7). required. However, EPA believes that of the State’s decision on this matter, One commenter suggested that, rather accelerating the public education § 142.14(d)(9) requires the State to than requiring a water system to identify reporting requirement will improve maintain records of system submittals representative sites to complete its compliance because, in addition to which should contain the initial and sampling pool if it cannot identify a making the requirements easier to any subsequent public education sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sites enforce, it also will encourage water information sent to the State. This (if it is a CWS) or a sufficient number systems that exceed the lead action level requirement is not affected by today’s of tier 1 or 2 sites (if it is a NTNCWS), to deliver the public education program action. a CWS should be allowed to collect in a more timely manner. (iii) Today’s action. EPA is revising samples from only those sites meeting EPA also believes it is appropriate to § 141.90(f) to require any water system, the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria, and a require reporting within 10 days after a subject to the public education NTNCWS should be allowed to collect public education task is scheduled to be requirements of § 141.85, to report its samples from only those sites meeting completed. The 10 days allows systems completion of all required public the tier 1 or 2 criteria, if they provide time to assemble records and notify the education tasks to the State within 10 written justification, even if it means State. Such a requirement is consistent days after the date by which the system collecting fewer than the minimum with the time frame allowed in other is required to complete semi-annual/ number of required samples. reporting requirements, which allow 10 annual public education tasks. The EPA believes that if a water system days for reporting to the State after an Agency also is adding language to collects fewer than the required number action or the end of a reporting period. § 141.90(f) that eliminates the need for of samples, the water system will not be Very few systems should be required to systems to submit supporting able to accurately characterize a lead or conduct public education tasks more documentation that has been submitted copper problem, if it exists. The number than once per year, since today’s action previously unless there is a change in of samples specified for initial also eliminates public service the information or the State requires monitoring, follow-up monitoring and announcements for small CWSs. In that the documentation be included reduced monitoring was established to addition, since it is expected that not with each submission. Systems that do sufficiently account for variability of many systems will continue to exceed not submit supporting documentation lead and copper at taps while at the the lead action level after installation of must certify that there have been no same time being reasonable for a system OCCT (EPA, 1999b), EPA believes that changes to the information. A new to implement. Since there can be this new requirement will not increase § 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) requires States to variability in lead and copper levels at burden for most systems. maintain records of any system-specific different taps within the same building As stated previously, one commenter decisions made under § 141.90(f) and even at the same tap at different suggested that, for ongoing public regarding the resubmission of detailed points in time, EPA believes that education, it should not be necessary for documentation to demonstrate systems that do not have the requisite a water system to submit the full packet completion of public education tasks. number of sites must sample at multiple of information to the State for each taps used to provide drinking water for subsequent public education task to 5. Revisions to § 141.86 human consumption within available verify that all appropriate actions have a. Systems with an insufficient buildings. Systems with too few taps been taken, as long as the State receives number of tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites. must collect multiple samples from a letter indicating that the information (i) Proposed revision and background. available taps used to provide drinking has been sent out and the letter includes The April 1996 Proposal included new water on different days during the any changes to the original information. language at § 141.86(a)(5) and monitoring period to meet the The 1991 Rule requires that systems § 141.86(a)(7) which instructs CWSs and monitoring requirements. The Agency provide sufficient documentation for NTNCWSs, respectively, to complete therefore is not revising the minimum

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1971 site requirement to allow fewer samples of sampling sites served by a LSL for its deleted. Section 141.86(a)(9) has been to be collected. sampling pool, send a letter to the State redesignated as § 141.86(a)(8) and (iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised demonstrating why it is unable to do so. revised to eliminate reference to the the language of § 141.86(a)(5) to require EPA explained that the original intent of reporting requirement that a water that a CWS complete its sampling pool these requirements was to help ensure system with LSLs that does not have with representative sites throughout the that systems collect samples from high- sufficient sites served by LSLs available distribution system if it does not have risk sites. The Agency expected these to comprise 50 percent of the sampling a sufficient number of tier 1, 2, and 3 justification letters to be completed pool send a letter to the State justifying sampling sites available. Likewise, the prior to the start of initial monitoring. why it cannot do so. Section Agency has revised the language of Water systems are having to adjust their 141.90(a)(4), which contained the § 141.86(a)(7) to require that a NTNCWS sampling pools much more frequently corresponding reporting requirement, complete its sampling pool with than EPA anticipated because of the has been replaced with a new reporting representative sites throughout the difficulty they are experiencing in requirement pertaining to small system distribution system if it does not have obtaining continued access to the same waivers (see section C.5.l. of this a sufficient number of tier 1 and tier 2 sites. The requirement of constantly preamble). Although the regulatory sites available. The revised language of justifying the adjustments to the requirement to send these sample site both provisions includes the definition sampling pool is adding an unintended justifications to the State has been of a ‘‘representative site,’’ discussed extra burden on systems, however, and eliminated, the Agency encourages above, that applies to these provisions. the Agency believes that other systems to provide this information to While today’s action provides systems appropriate tools available to States, the State as a courtesy. the flexibility to use any representative such as periodic on-site inspections and c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to site, EPA strongly encourages CWSs that file reviews, can be used to ensure that provide first-draw samples. are unable to locate a sufficient number systems are routinely sampling at (i) Proposed revision and background. of tier 1, 2, or 3 sample sites and appropriate sites. One of the provisions that EPA NTNCWSs that are unable to locate a (ii) Comments and analysis. proposed in April 1996 would allow sufficient number of tier 1 and 2 sample Commenters were supportive of these NTNCWSs that do not have enough taps sites to add to their sampling pool those proposed changes. One commenter, where the water will have stood in the sites with copper plumbing installed however, objected to the basic plumbing for at least six hours to ask the subsequent to local implementation of requirement in § 141.86(a)(9) State, in writing, for approval to sample the lead ban (typically 1988 or 1989), (redesignated by today’s action as from taps where the water will have provided these sites can be considered § 141.86(a)(8)) that requires that a stood for less than six hours. These ‘‘representative’’. Sample sites meeting system with LSLs collect 50 percent of systems would be required to collect the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria have a greater the samples each monitoring period first-draw samples from as many taps likelihood of experiencing high lead from taps served by LSLs. EPA did not having at least a six-hour standing time levels than sample sites not meeting the propose to revise this requirement. The as possible. For the remaining samples, tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria because these sites commenter noted that requiring the systems would be required to identify typically contain the newest lead collection of samples at all sites and report to the State, sampling times plumbing materials in a community or identified in the sampling plan is and locations that would likely result in a facility. (Newer lead has a greater lead unrealistic, as not all homeowners the longest standing time. Systems leaching potential than older lead.) identified in the sampling plan are would then be required to sample at These same sample sites, however, may willing to participate. EPA recognizes times and locations approved by the actually have a lesser likelihood of that there may be times when the State. EPA also requested comment on experiencing high copper levels than system may be denied access to targeted an alternative that would give the States sample sites not meeting these criteria sites. In those instances, where there is flexibility to eliminate the requirement because these sites may not contain the an insufficient number of tier 1 sample for up-front State approval of the newest copper plumbing materials in a sites or an insufficient number of sampling plan. Under this scenario, community or a facility. Including sites willing participants served by lead NTNCWSs would still be required to in the sample pool that have copper service lines to constitute 50 percent of sample from taps with the longest plumbing installed more recently than the sampling pool, the system is standing times possible, however, States 1988 or 1989 may allow a water system expected to collect samples from all would not need to approve these sites to identify copper corrosion problems such sites that it can. The system must prior to monitoring. In the preamble to not apparent by sampling sites meeting then choose other sample sites from the April 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria. which to collect the remaining number States would retain discretion to verify, b. Elimination of justification letters of samples. Sites where the homeowner at any time, that the proper sampling for use of non-tier 1 sample sites and refuses access are no longer available for was done. insufficient lead service line sample inclusion in the sampling pool and the EPA proposed this provision to sites. water system should document the address the problem many NTNCWSs (i) Proposed revision and background. reason the site was not sampled in its that provide drinking water 24 hours a One of the burden reduction measures files. EPA believes this issue is best day (e.g., a factory operating on a 3-shift that EPA proposed in April 1996 was to clarified through guidance rather than a basis) face in complying with the LCR’s eliminate the requirement at change in rule language. requirements. Such systems may not §§ 141.86(a)(8) and 141.90(a)(2)–(3) that (iii) Today’s action. After considering have periods of normal operation during a system unable to locate a sufficient the comments received, EPA is revising which the water will have stood number of tier 1 sites send a letter to the the provisions of §§ 141.86(a)(8)–(9) and motionless in the plumbing for at least State justifying the selection of non-tier 141.90(a)(2)–(4) as proposed in April six hours prior to collecting tap water 1 sites. EPA also proposed to eliminate 1996. Specifically, §§ 141.86(a)(8) and lead and copper samples. The Agency the requirement at §§ 141.86(a)(9) and 141.90(a)(2)–(3), requiring the system to believes that it is unnecessary to require 141.90(a)(4) that a system with LSLs, send a letter to the State justifying the such systems to shut down operations that cannot identify a sufficient number use of non-tier 1 sites, have been in order to achieve a standing time that

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1972 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations does normally exist. The proposed approval but suggested that the system where the water will have stood for less provision would allow these systems to should be free to proceed without than six hours. sample at times and locations that are specific written concurrence from the (iii) Today’s action. EPA has added most likely to be representative of these State if the State did not respond within provisions at § 141.86(b)(5) that require systems’ worst case scenarios. a reasonable period. Several a NTNCWS which does not have (ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters supported substitution of enough taps that can supply first-draw commenters supported allowing these samples without prior State approval; samples to collect as many first-draw NTNCWSs to substitute non-first-draw however, some supported such samples from appropriate sample taps samples for first-draw samples if they flexibility only if States were allowed to as possible and to complete the do not have enough taps that can conduct verification inspections. sampling pool with locations that would achieve the required six-hour standing In consideration of these comments, likely result in the longest standing time time. A few of these commenters, today’s action gives States discretion to for the remaining samples. These however, suggested that it is not always decide whether or not to require prior provisions also apply to special-case practical to try to determine which State approval of sampling plans. CWSs. Special-case CWSs are those tap(s) have the longest standing times. Systems in States not requiring prior specified in §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) Others suggested that repeat sampling, State approval must submit where the system is a facility, such as on separate days, at the tap(s) that meet documentation of their sampling plan to a prison or hospital, where the the six-hour standing time requirement the State, when they submit their population served is not capable of or is be permitted, rather than substituting sampling results. This documentation prevented from making improvements samples that do not meet the six-hour must include identification of the to plumbing or installing point-of-use standing time requirement. substitute sample sites and the length of treatment devices and where the system EPA believes that if a system cannot standing time for each substitute provides water as part of the cost of locate the requisite number of taps that sample. services provided and does not satisfy the six-hour standing time Some commenters also used this separately charge for water requirement, it must make the effort to opportunity to propose that NTNCWSs consumption. identify the taps having the longest that have fewer than five sample taps States have discretion to decide standing times and collect substitute where five samples are required, or whether or not prior State approval is samples from these sites. Sampling at fewer than ten sample taps where ten required before a system can substitute sites that have the longest standing time samples are required, be permitted to non-first-draw samples. EPA has added will assist the system in determining the collect only as many samples as there provisions at § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) for States maximum potential level of lead and are sample taps. EPA believes that it is to maintain records of any system- copper exposure from drinking water. inappropriate to reduce the minimum specific decisions made regarding use of EPA also believes that it is more number of samples required. The LCR non-first draw samples. Where prior important to collect samples from the requires all water systems to collect a State approval is not required, systems required number of sites (as long as minimum number of samples must submit documentation with the these are sites that are typically used to (dependent on size of population served sampling results that identify each site provide drinking water) than it is to by the system) as per § 141.86(c). As that does not meet the six-hour collect samples that have stood in the stated previously, the number of minimum standing time and the length tap for six hours if a six-hour standing samples specified for initial, follow-up, of standing time for the sample(s) time is not typical at that NTNCWS and reduced monitoring has been collected from that site. Nothing in the because it is operating 24 hours per day. established to sufficiently account for rule language precludes verification The minimum number of samples for variability of lead and copper at taps inspections by the State. A State initial, follow-up, and reduced while at the same time being reasonable conducting a water system inspection monitoring has been established to for a system to implement. There is also for any purpose can also use that sufficiently account for the variability of some variability in concentrations opportunity to review the sampling plan lead and copper at different taps while across multiple samples from the same that should be available on-site. (Water at the same time being reasonable for a tap collected at different points in time. systems are required to retain all records system to implement. Collecting the EPA believes that absent a sufficient for at least 12 years, as per § 141.91.) required number of samples, but from number of appropriate taps, the States opting to allow systems to fewer sample sites, does not address the variability in lead levels from samples proceed with sampling without variability issue as well, especially if the collected from the same tap at different requesting prior approval from the State system has other taps that are typically times warrants retaining the used and that can be sampled. For these requirement for the minimum number should inform the systems, before the reasons, today’s action retains the of samples to be collected. Water start of the monitoring period, that up- requirement to collect at least the systems with fewer sample taps than front approval is not required. Today’s action also modifies the minimum number of samples specified required should thus contact the State to language at § 141.90(a)(2) 5 in § 141.86(c). discuss an appropriate sampling plan to add the Many of the commenters supporting that would include collecting the corresponding reporting requirement. If the substitution of non-first-draw required number of samples at the the State requires prior State approval, samples did not address the issue of up- available sample taps. the system must provide written front State approval. Commenters who Finally, one commenter noted that documentation to the State identifying did address this issue were mixed in there also are some CWSs (e.g., prisons, sampling times and locations of the their support. While most commenters nursing homes) that have similar non-first-draw samples which the who supported up-front approval did characteristics to NTNCWSs. EPA system proposes to use to complete its not explain why they did so, one agrees. Today’s action therefore also sampling pool prior to sampling. If the commenter suggested that up-front allows special-case CWSs, such as 5 As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the notification and approval may be easier prisons and hospitals, that do not have requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(2) for for States to implement and control. a sufficient number of taps to provide a CWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sampling sites Another commenter supported up-front first-draw samples to sample from taps has been eliminated.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1973

State does not require prior State maintain consistency with the analytical reduced monitoring without any approval, the modified language at methods for other metals. Another restrictions, might be tempted to select § 141.90(a)(2) requires the system to commenter opposed the proposed only those sites that had the lowest identify each site that did not meet the revision on the basis that it would analytical results during the initial 6-hour minimum standing time and the decrease the amount of time available monitoring, thereby skewing the 90th length of standing time for that for sample analysis, thereby increasing percentile calculations downward. particular sample, and submit this the potential for laboratory error (ii) Comments and analysis. In their information at the same time that it resulting in the need to collect comments, some water systems raised submits its lead and copper tap sample additional samples. This commenter concern that States might require them results. apparently interpreted the acidification to select only those sites with the Finally, today’s action makes a holding time as the maximum time that highest analytical results during the conforming revision to the language at can elapse between acidification and initial monitoring, which would skew § 141.86(b)(2) to require non-first-draw analysis. In fact, the acidification the 90th percentile calculation upward. samples collected pursuant to holding time is the minimum time that EPA does not want either of these § 141.86(b)(5) to be one liter in volume must elapse after acidification before the extremes to be used in the selection of and to be collected at an interior tap sample is analyzed. By reducing this sites under reduced monitoring and is from which water is typically drawn for time, EPA believes that, if anything, the therefore revising § 141.86(c) to require consumption. This changed language potential for laboratory error will that the sample sites selected under provides coverage for those NTNCWSs decrease, as the amount of time reduced monitoring be representative of and special-case CWSs that must available for sample analysis will those selected initially. complete their sampling pool with non- increase. Of the 18 comments received, only 1 first-draw samples and is consistent One commenter who supported the commenter directly disagreed with the with the requirement that first-draw revision noted that EPA also needs to proposal. That commenter felt the samples be one liter in volume and be revise the laboratory licensure proposal displayed a lack of trust in drawn from taps that are routinely used requirements in the CFR to reflect this water systems and increased the burden to provide drinking water. change. Laboratory certification on the States. EPA believes that the d. Minimum holding time for acidified requirements are defined in the revised wording in today’s action lead and copper samples prior to ‘‘Manual for the Certification of should not be construed as indicating a analysis. Drinking Water Laboratories’’, not in the lack of trust in all water system (i) Proposed revision and background. CFR. EPA has revised this manual to decisions. The intent of the revised In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA sought conform with the revised holding times wording is to allow most water systems comment on a revision to § 141.86(b)(2) specified at § 141.86(b)(2). to make their own decisions, but to also to make the minimum length of time (iii) Today’s action. Today’s action allow a State the option of specifying that a lead and copper sample must revises the next to last sentence of the sampling sites under reduced stand in the original container after § 141.86(b)(2), as proposed, to read: monitoring, if it believes that a system acidification consistent with the ‘‘After acidification to resolubilize the needs assistance in identifying which of analytical methods for other metals. metals, the sample must stand in the the sample sites in the system’s Rather than explicitly specifying the original container for the time specified sampling pool are truly representative of holding time in subpart I, the proposed in the approved EPA method before the the sampling pool. EPA expects that revision would require these samples to sample can be analyzed.’’ States will allow most water systems to stand in the original container ‘‘for the e. Selection of sample sites under specify reduced monitoring sample site time specified in the approved EPA reduced monitoring. locations without State involvement. method,’’ eliminating the need to revise (i) Proposed revision and background. However, if the State feels the need to the LCR in the future to reflect methods The LCR specifies the number, location, intervene, the Rule now clearly gives changes. The Rule, as promulgated in and timing of samples to be collected for them the authority to do so. 1991, requires that a sample stand in the standard monitoring of lead and copper Three commenters questioned the original container for at least 28 hours at the tap. At a minimum, systems must requirement to draw 50 percent of the after acidification before sample conduct standard monitoring initially tap samples from sites served by a LSL analysis can occur. The analytical and as a follow-up to installing CCT. during reduced monitoring. These method requiring this minimum holding The Rule also allows a reduced number commenters believe that water systems time was revised in 1994 to allow and frequency of samples for certain should be permitted to sample from any laboratories to analyze samples for water systems once corrosion control of the original tap sites during reduced metals other than lead and copper 16 has been optimized. However, the rule monitoring. Two of these commenters hours after acidification, instead of language promulgated in 1991 failed to also believe that for a water system with having to wait 28 hours before this specify which of the previously tested only a few LSLs, the requirement to analysis can occur (59 FR 62456, sampling sites should be included in the collect samples from all of the sites with December 5, 1994). EPA believes the reduced sampling pool. To correct this LSLs will provide a misleading revision to § 141.86(b)(2) relieves omission, in 1996, EPA proposed to characterization of the sampling pool laboratories of the burden to have require reduced monitoring sites to be and the distribution system in general. separate acidification holding times for representative of the sites required for The sampling scheme promulgated in lead and copper and increases the standard monitoring. EPA also proposed 1991 was not established to characterize number of samples that can be analyzed to allow States the discretion to specify lead and copper levels throughout the in a day. which sites a system subject to reduced entire water system. Rather, it was (ii) Comments and analysis. Two monitoring should use if, in the established to ensure that systems commenters had concerns about the judgment of the State, such an action is collect samples from residences most proposed change. One requested warranted. likely to experience elevated levels of clarification as to why the change was EPA proposed this language because lead in tap water due to corrosion (i.e., needed. As explained above, EPA of the concern that some water systems, high-risk sites). EPA believes that these believes this revision is appropriate to if allowed to select sample sites under high-risk locations should be accounted

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1974 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations for in a monitoring plan to better ensure f. State determination of eligibility for maintains the range of values for the that high levels of lead are detected and reduced monitoring. WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the that the system institutes treatment that (i) Proposed revision and background. State under § 141.82(f) to reduce the provides uniform and adequate levels of Under the 1991 Rule, systems subject to frequency of monitoring to once per public health protection throughout the water quality parameter monitoring after year or once every three years, entire distribution system. EPA feels the installation of corrosion control respectively, if the system meets the that the reasoning that led to the treatment must explicitly request State other conditions specified in requirement that 50 percent of the tap approval to begin reduced monitoring §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) or (d)(4)(iii), samples be drawn from sites served by for lead and copper at the tap. In 1996, respectively, and receives written a LSL during initial monitoring is just EPA proposed to eliminate the notification from the State that it can as valid for reduced monitoring and has requirement for these systems to request reduce the frequency of monitoring. The thus not revised this requirement. In State approval. However, such systems system reporting requirement at addition, just as for initial monitoring, would still be required to receive § 141.90(a)(5) for systems to request systems with LSLs, which do not have written approval from the State before approval for reduced monitoring has enough sample sites with LSLs to reducing the frequency of monitoring. been eliminated. comprise 50 percent of their sampling EPA proposed this provision as a g. Timing of sample collection under pool, must collect samples during burden reduction measure. Since most reduced monitoring. reduced monitoring at as many homes States routinely review eligibility for (i) Proposed revision and background. with LSLs as they have access to. reduced monitoring at the time they The 1991 Rule language required water One commenter thought that EPA’s review monitoring results and notify systems subject to reduced monitoring language in § 141.86(c) could be those systems that have become eligible to conduct that monitoring during the months of June, July, August, and/or interpreted to mean that a water system to reduce monitoring, the requirement September. EPA imposed this is required to collect only one sample in that systems explicitly request the State requirement because the Agency a round of monitoring (although that to determine eligibility is an believed that the highest levels of lead sample would have to represent the unnecessary administrative burden. (ii) Comments and analysis. Most at the tap were most likely to occur required number of sites, possibly by commenters agreed with EPA’s during warm weather months. This being a composite sample or possibly by proposal. Some, however, expressed requirement, however, has had the being taken randomly from one of the concern that systems may become unintended consequence of forcing sites) and suggested a revision to the confused as to what their monitoring seasonal NTNCWSs that do not operate wording that would require at least one requirements are; others expressed during the summer months to collect sample be collected from each of the concern that States might not routinely samples during periods that are not number of sites specified. EPA believes provide timely notification unless representative of normal operations. To that the vast majority of water systems prompted by a request from the system. correct this problem, in 1996, EPA have been interpreting EPA’s intent These commenters suggested that EPA proposed to allow a seasonal NTNCWS correctly and are collecting one sample at least provide States flexibility to that does not operate during the months per site during reduced monitoring. In retain the current requirement. The of June, July, August, or September, to addition, the Agency believes that the Agency does not believe that such collect samples, under reduced commenter’s suggested wording change, flexibility needs to be written into the monitoring, during the system’s that systems conducting reduced rule language. Nothing in the Federal warmest month(s) of operation. monitoring collect at least one sample regulations precludes systems from (ii) Comments and analysis. Most from ‘‘each of the number of sites continuing to request State approval if commenters supported this proposed specified,’’ might confuse those they believe that such a request will revision. A few commenters expressed NTNCWSs that have fewer sites (i.e., ensure timely State notification. concern, however, that it would be faucets) available than the number of Some commenters also raised the difficult to determine alternate samples they are required to collect in question of whether the proposed ‘‘warmest month(s) of operation’’ or that a monitoring period. Those systems change effectively reduces burden or the revised requirement would create a must collect multiple samples from merely shifts it from the system to the hardship for laboratories by forcing all some sites in order to collect the State. The Agency believes that this monitoring into a single month. These required number of samples. The provision will reduce burden. EPA commenters suggested that EPA give commenter’s wording could be estimates that the current requirement States the authority to designate the interpreted to mean that the system imposes both a system burden alternative month(s) of sampling or need only collect as many samples as (requesting approval for reduced retain the current requirements. Two there are sample sites. Since this is not monitoring) and a State burden commenters stated their belief that there EPA’s intent, the wording has not been (reviewing the request and relevant is no justification for requiring any revised as suggested by the commenter. monitoring and treatment data and system to limit reduced monitoring to (iii) Today’s action. For the reasons providing written notification to the warm weather months and suggested discussed above, EPA has revised the system). The Agency estimates that the EPA remove this requirement across the wording of § 141.86(c), as proposed, to system burden will be eliminated with board. clarify that the reduced monitoring sites the revised provision and that no EPA has reviewed recently published must be representative of the sites increase in State burden will occur data and analyses pertaining to the required for standard monitoring and to because the State will determine a effect of temperature on lead and copper give States discretionary authority to system’s eligibility for reduced leaching. The Agency provided notice of specify the reduced monitoring sites. A monitoring as part of its routine the availability of these data and corresponding State recordkeeping determination of compliance with the requested public comment in the April requirement, to maintain records LCR monitoring requirements. 1998 Notice on a regulatory option that pertaining to any State designations of (iii) Today’s action. Sections would allow systems conducting reduced monitoring sites, has been 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii) have been reduced tap water monitoring for lead added as § 142.14(d)(8)(xii). revised to allow any water system that and copper to collect samples during

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1975 months of normal operation when lead monitoring schedule, that want to take of sampling. Systems on a triennial levels are likely to be the highest, or as advantage of the greater flexibility in the schedule must collect their first round otherwise designated by the State. revised regulation. Most of the of samples during the alternate months Although there is no definitive data, commenters who addressed this during a time period that ends no later there are several factors which might question strongly supported including than 45 months after the previous round explain why metal levels could provisions for a transition period in the of sampling. Thereafter, these systems frequently be higher in cold weather rule language. EPA agrees that it is must revert to an annual or triennial months, various combinations of which appropriate to define a transition schedule based on the alternate months may be simultaneously present in a period. It is not the Agency’s intent that of sampling. given water system. These factors systems already on reduced monitoring This transition period allows systems include: be locked into the months of June conducting annual or triennial • The intrinsic net solubility of many through September for sample monitoring an extra nine months in minerals, especially carbonates, collection. Nor is it the Agency’s intent which to make the transition without increases as the temperature decreases. that such systems be penalized by being sampling significantly early or incurring • Corrosion inhibitors, especially forced into scheduling a subsequent a monitoring and reporting violation. orthophosphate, may react more slowly round of monitoring significantly earlier For systems transitioning to an alternate at lower temperatures, so passivating than otherwise would be necessary just sampling period that includes the film formation is less effective in colder to change the allowable months for period of March, April, or May, EPA water. sample collection. EPA has therefore believes it is not unreasonable that the • Corrosion inhibitors and other included provisions for a transition first round of samples under the treatment chemicals may be more period in today’s action. alternate months be collected slightly viscous at lower temperatures. (iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised earlier than would otherwise be Therefore, the chemical feed rates may the language of § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to required. For similar reasons, the be lower when cold. require that systems subject to reduced Agency does not believe it is necessary • Many pipes are near heating monitoring collect samples during the to specify a transition period for small systems, and in the winter the operation months of June, July, August, or water systems with monitoring waivers of the heating systems causes the pipes September unless the State has granted under § 141.86(g). The revised to be hotter. Plus, the change in approved a different sampling period. § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) therefore requires that temperature could also disrupt the The alternate sampling period must be the first round of monitoring using the existing protective films in the pipes no longer than four consecutive months alternate months be completed within 9 built up over the earlier months of more and represent a time of normal years of the previous round of stable temperatures. operation where the highest levels of monitoring for systems with waivers. • Dissolved oxygen levels are often lead are most likely to occur. EPA Finally, today’s action makes two higher in colder waters, resulting in recognizes that in many cases it will be conforming changes to Part 142. EPA increased concentrations of oxidants difficult to predict when the highest has added a State recordkeeping (e.g., oxygen, free chlorine, chloramines) lead values might occur given a system’s requirement at § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii). in the water. This causes more rapid water chemistry coupled with other States must maintain records pertaining increases in metal levels through influencing physical factors. There may to any system-specific determinations to enhanced oxidation during short be instances, however, where alternative sample collection periods for standing times (less than 16 hours). monitoring data from similar systems or systems subject to reduced monitoring. Only one commenter opposed such a prior monitoring or survey experience at EPA also has added a special primacy revision, on the basis that such a change a particular system is available to the condition at § 141.16(d)(4) for States to might be disruptive to utilities and States that would suggest when the most describe how they plan to determine the laboratories. EPA disagrees. Since the appropriate monitoring time(s) will months when the lead levels are likely revised language allows States to retain occur. If the State is unable to identify to be the highest at community water the requirement to conduct reduced an alternate monitoring period for a systems subject to reduced monitoring monitoring during the months of June system where the highest levels of lead where tap water lead and copper through September, the Agency believes are most likely to occur, then the system samples will be collected in months the regulatory language provides must continue monitoring during the other than June, July, August and/or sufficient flexibility to accommodate the months of June, July, August, or September. scheduling issues raised by the September. However, if the system is a h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for commenter. NTNCWS that does not operate during lead and copper at the tap. Based on a review of the current the months of June through September, (i) Proposed revision and background. science and comments received in the final rule allows these systems to Under the provisions of response to the April 1996 Proposal and monitor during a period designated by § 141.86(d)(4)(iii), a small or medium- the April 1998 Notice, EPA believes that the State that represents a time of size water system may reduce the the requirement to limit reduced normal operation for the system. frequency of lead and copper tap water monitoring to warm weather months is For systems already on reduced monitoring to once every three years if no longer justified. Today’s action monitoring that have been collecting it does not exceed either action level therefore revises § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to samples during the June through during three consecutive years of annual provide States some flexibility to September time frame, the revision to monitoring. The regulations also allow specify an alternative time for the § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) specifies the deadline any water system that maintains the collection of samples under reduced for completing the first round of range of values for the water quality monitoring. monitoring using the alternate period. control parameters reflecting OCCT In the April 1998 Notice, EPA also Systems on an annual monitoring specified by the State during three requested public comment on the need schedule must collect their first round consecutive years of monitoring to for the rule language to explicitly allow of samples during the alternate months reduce the frequency of lead and copper a transition period for those water during a time period that ends no later tap water monitoring to once every three systems, already on a reduced than 21 months after the previous round years, if approved by the State. In the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1976 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

April 1996 Proposal, in an effort to help those levels most protective of public percentile lead and copper levels meet water systems avoid significant health. This is explained as follows. The the criteria for accelerated reduced unnecessary monitoring costs and MCLG is the level at which no known monitoring after conducting the minimize the inconvenience to or anticipated adverse effect on the required two rounds of follow-up homeowners in the sampling pool, EPA health of persons would occur and sampling subsequent to the installation proposed that systems with very low which allows an adequate margin of of OCCT. It will also be available for levels of lead and copper at the tap safety. EPA must regulate contaminants systems that are triggered into a new set during two consecutive six-month in drinking water to a level as close to of two six-month rounds of full tap rounds of monitoring be allowed to the MCLG as is feasible. The action level sampling due to changes in treatment or immediately reduce the frequency of for copper is set at the MCLG of 1.3 mg/ source water. For these reasons, the lead and copper tap water monitoring to L, thus there is no health concern at Agency still believes it is appropriate to once every three calendar years without copper levels equal to the action level add provisions for accelerated reduced having to conduct the required rounds or, subsequently, at one-half the action monitoring to the LCR. of annual monitoring first. In the level (0.65 mg/L). In addition, EPA (C) Accelerated reduced monitoring proposal, the thresholds for ‘‘very low believes that it is highly unlikely that a for only one contaminant. Two levels of lead and copper at the tap’’ water system having a 90th percentile commenters suggested that States be were defined as ‘‘less than or equal to copper level equal to one-half the action given the option to authorize the PQL for lead specified in level might exceed the copper action accelerated reduced monitoring for § 141.89(a)(1)(ii),’’ which is 0.005 mg/L, level during subsequent monitoring. In either lead or copper if a system is only and ‘‘less than or equal to one-half the contrast to copper, the action level for able to meet the 90th percentile copper action level specified in lead is set at 0.015 mg/L, which is threshold for one of the contaminants § 141.80(c)(2),’’ which is 0.65 mg/L. higher than its MCLG of zero. Since it but not the other. While EPA wishes to (ii) Comments and analysis. While is unreasonable to expect that most reduce monitoring burdens where one commenter specifically disagreed systems can achieve a 90th percentile possible, EPA meant for this provision with the proposal, the vast majority of lead level of zero, EPA established a to be applicable only to those systems commenters either agreed fully or lead action level which the Agency where there is little likelihood of agreed while raising one or more of the believes is achievable and sufficiently discovering elevated levels of either issues which EPA is addressing below. protective of public health. However, lead or copper at the tap during (A) Using the PQL as the lead because there are health concerns for subsequent monitoring periods. EPA threshold. A number of commenters any lead level above zero, EPA believes believes that there is less of a risk that suggested that it is inconsistent to use that setting the threshold level for lead there may be an undetected problem if the PQL as the threshold for lead while for accelerated reduced monitoring at both lead and copper levels are below using one-half the action level as the the PQL (0.005 mg/L) is more protective the threshold levels than if only one of threshold for copper. Some commenters of public health than setting the level at the contaminant levels is less than the suggested that using the PQL for lead is one-half the lead action level (0.0075 threshold level and that there is more too restrictive and that one-half the lead mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it uncertainty in the case where one of the action level should be used instead. In is less likely that a system whose 90th contaminant levels is higher than the the preamble to the April 1996 Proposal, percentile lead level is equal to or less threshold level. To avoid this potential EPA indicated that accelerated reduced than the PQL would exceed the lead risk, the Agency has decided to not monitoring would apply only to those action level during a subsequent round allow accelerated reduced monitoring systems whose 90th percentile lead and of monitoring than it is for a system for one contaminant when the other copper levels fall significantly below the whose 90th percentile lead level is one- contaminant has a 90th percentile level lead and copper action levels during half the action level. above the specified threshold level. two consecutive six-month monitoring A few commenters expressed concern (D) Monitoring less frequently than periods. The Agency’s intent was to that the PQL is hard to measure triennially. Another commenter allow for a burden reduction but still accurately and therefore should not be suggested changing the frequency of provide adequate public health used as a threshold. EPA disagrees. reduced monitoring to once every nine protection. Because of the high degree of Performance evaluation (PE) studies years (provided that there is no change variability in lead and copper levels at have confirmed that at least 75 percent in treatment or new source introduced) household taps, EPA believes it is of EPA, State, and commercial and suggested that this would be important to establish criteria that laboratories can analyze lead at 0.005 consistent with the ‘‘reliably and minimize the risk of allowing systems mg/L within ±30%. EPA believes that consistently’’ waivers allowed under the that may have elevated levels of lead or specifying the PQL for lead as the Phase II and Phase V rules. The age copper at the tap during subsequent threshold for identifying very low levels range for the population at risk for lead monitoring periods to be eligible for is appropriate on the basis of laboratory is prenatal up to about six years of age. accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA capability. For systems that contain lead and believes that the criteria that minimize (B) Usefulness of proposed provision. copper materials, a nine-year risk are the PQL for lead and one-half Several commenters, including the monitoring cycle would allow large the action level for copper. commenter who specifically disagreed groups of the sensitive subpopulations EPA disagrees with those commenters with the proposal, mentioned that it is to be exposed to water that was never who believe there is an inconsistency too late for this provision to have any tested during their highest risk years. between using the PQL for lead and one- effect for existing systems. EPA agrees EPA believes it is inappropriate to half the action level for copper when that this provision will be of no benefit reduce the monitoring to a frequency consideration is given to the to those systems that are already where some children would not receive relationship between the action level conducting monitoring on a triennial the benefit of such monitoring. The and the MCLG for each. Consistency lies basis. This provision may benefit new Agency considers a 9-year monitoring in the fact that the minimized risk levels systems, however, in addition to those cycle appropriate only for systems that (i.e., the threshold levels for allowing water systems that are in the process of have no lead or copper materials present accelerated reduced monitoring) are installing CCT and whose 90th and that meet the criteria for a

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1977 monitoring waiver pursuant to j. Requirements for systems subject to monitoring that either adds a new § 141.86(g). reduced monitoring that change source of water or changes any water (E) Prior State approval. One treatment or source water. treatment to inform the State in writing commenter suggested that written (i) Proposed revision and background. no later than 60 days after making the approval by the State should be required In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA change or addition, unless the State before a system is permitted to requested comment on a provision that requires earlier notification. The State accelerate reduced monitoring. would require water systems operating has the authority to require the system Elsewhere in § 141.86(d), written under reduced monitoring to report any to take appropriate steps to ensure that authorization by the State to reduce lead changes in treatment or changes in optimal treatment is maintained. The and copper tap monitoring is required source water to the State within 60 days. corresponding system reporting only when the basis for the reduction is If the State believes the change merits requirements have been added as a new compliance with optimal water quality additional monitoring, the State may § 141.90(a)(3).6 Corresponding State control parameters for two consecutive require the system to resume standard recordkeeping requirements have been 6-month monitoring periods or three monitoring, increase WQP monitoring, included as a part of the consecutive years. Those cases are more or re-evaluate its corrosion control and/ § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) provisions. complex and require greater State or source water treatment given the k. Sample invalidation. oversight. The basis for a system being potentially different water quality (i) Proposed revision and background. able to accelerate reduced monitoring is considerations. EPA proposed this The April 1996 Proposal included straightforward and EPA does not requirement to help ensure that timely provisions which defined four believe it is necessary to mandate prior and appropriate action is taken to conditions under which States could State approval in this case. Nothing in maintain optimal corrosion control invalidate tap water lead and copper the rule language, however, prevents a when events occur that could samples: State from requiring such approval. significantly affect water quality. • If the laboratory establishes that (iii) Today’s action. After careful (ii) Comments and analysis. Most improper sample analysis caused consideration of all comments commenters supported the proposed erroneous results; pertaining to this issue, EPA has change. Several commenters thought the • If the State determines that the decided to promulgate the provisions proposed rule was too general and sample was taken from a site that does for accelerated reduced monitoring as should include more information not meet the site selection criteria of proposed in April 1996. EPA is adding describing a reportable treatment § 141.86; these provisions to § 141.86(d)(4) by change. These commenters provided • If the sample container is damaged redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as language to limit reportable treatment in transit; or (d)(4)(vi) and adding a new paragraph changes to those that affect the WQPs or • If the State has substantial reason to (d)(4)(v). This new paragraph allows any interfere with the efficacy of the believe that the sample was subject to water system that demonstrates for two corrosion control strategy. EPA tampering. consecutive six-month monitoring disagrees with these commenters. EPA The proposed provisions also periods that the 90th percentile lead does not believe that all systems specified documentation requirements level is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/ understand the potential impacts of and provided a window for replacement L and the 90th percentile copper level other treatments on corrosivity and, samples to be taken, if needed, to avoid is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L to thus, is requiring that systems report all a monitoring and reporting violation. reduce the frequency of sampling to treatment changes to the State to avoid EPA believes sample invalidation under once every three calendar years. situations where systems could any of the above-mentioned conditions i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead potentially overlook factors that is appropriate to avoid the use of sample and copper tap water monitoring. As influence corrosivity. The State will results that may not represent the tap discussed in section C.2.b. of this then review the treatment change and water levels of lead and copper taken preamble, today’s action contains a determine if additional monitoring or from the water system’s high risk sites. conforming change to the requirements other action is necessary. EPA does (ii) Comments and analysis. Several of the newly designated agree, however, that it should not be States, PWSs, and water utility trade § 141.86(d)(4)(vi) to clarify that a system necessary for the system to notify the associations commented on the subject to reduced monitoring that also State every time the system makes proposed sample invalidation is subject to the WQP monitoring changes among approved sources of provisions. None of the commenters requirements of § 141.87(d) or (e) loses water. For this reason, today’s action objected to the four conditions its eligibility for reduced monitoring for limits the reportable source water proposed; however, several advocated lead and copper at the tap (until such changes to those involving the addition providing States even more flexibility time when it may again qualify) if it of a new source of water. fails to meet the compliance The only other major concern relayed than proposed. A few commenters, for requirements of § 141.82(g). Today’s by commenters is that some believe that example, recommended that EPA allow action also corrects an error in this water systems may be required to States to invalidate any samples they paragraph. The first sentence has been conduct unnecessary monitoring every believe are inappropriate. Other corrected to read: ‘‘A small or medium- time treatment is changed. EPA has commenters suggested adding a fifth size water system * * * shall resume addressed this issue in section C.1.c. of condition, such as allowing for sample sampling in accordance with paragraph today’s preamble as a part of the invalidation when improper sample (d)(3) of this section and collect the discussion pertaining to water systems collection procedures are used or when number of samples specified for deemed to have optimized corrosion the water has been standing in the pipes standard monitoring under paragraph control in accordance with for longer than the six-hour standing (c) of this section.’’ The paragraph § 141.81(b)(3). time required by the Rule. EPA believes previously read: ‘‘ * * * collect the (iii) Today’s action. EPA has revised 6 As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the number of samples specified for the LCR by adding a provision at requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(3), standard monitoring under paragraph § 141.86(d)(4)(vii) requiring any water for a NTNCWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sites, (d) of this section.’’ system subject to reduced tap has been eliminated.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations that the conditions proposed in April four circumstances, described above, invest limited resources on frequent 1996 will allow sufficient flexibility to under which the State may invalidate a monitoring where sources of lead and ensure that samples can be invalidated sample. A water system requesting copper contamination appear to be non- where appropriate. Sample invalidation sample invalidation must submit existent. provisions are not intended to replace appropriate documentation to the State (ii) Comments and analysis. While all the need for proper guidance in the along with the results of all samples commenters supported this monitoring collection of samples. The Agency collected, pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2). The waiver concept, many commenters took believes that proper education is a more requirement for States to document all issue with how § 141.86(g) and the appropriate method to address incorrect decisions in writing and provide the preamble were worded. Section sample collection procedures. rationale for the decision is contained in 141.86(g) has been reworded in today’s Although the 1996 Proposal did not § 141.86(f)(3). This paragraph also action to address these comments. address the provision that prohibits a prohibits States from invalidating a These changes should remove the system from challenging the results of sample solely because a follow-up ambiguity of the proposed rule and samples collected by residents, several sample has a higher or lower clarify requirements that were unclear commenters objected to its retention. concentration than the original sample. in the proposal. The major comments Those comments are outside the scope Section 141.86(f)(4) requires that any received are discussed below. of this rulemaking because EPA did not replacement samples for samples (A) Materials specification. reopen that provision in the 1991 Rule invalidated pursuant to § 141.86(f) be Commenters raised several concerns or otherwise solicit comment on that taken as soon as possible, either within with the language that addressed the provision. 20 days of the date the State invalidates materials requirements. Several of these One commenter requested that EPA the sample or by the end of the commenters objected to the use of the clarify the rule language to specify that applicable monitoring period, terminology ‘‘all plastic system.’’ These only one of the four conditions needs to whichever is later. Replacement commenters felt that EPA’s use of such be met for a sample to be invalidated. samples are necessary only in those terminology would send a message that EPA agrees that clarification would be instances where there otherwise would EPA considers other plumbing materials useful and has made this correction in be too few samples, due to the unacceptable. They pointed out that today’s action. Another commenter invalidation of one or more of the there are other plumbing materials that recommended that systems be allowed original samples, to meet minimum pose no concern from the standpoint of to proceed with follow-up samples and sampling requirements. Replacement then submit all results including follow- lead and copper contamination and samples taken after the end of the identified the many benefits of metallic up results with detailed documentation applicable monitoring period may not to the request for sample invalidation. plumbing, including copper pipes. One also be used to meet the monitoring commenter noted that copper from The Agency believes States have requirements of a subsequent copper pipes contributes to meeting the sufficient flexibility to decide whether monitoring period. This paragraph also essential nutrient requirements for to allow this without expressly adding requires that any replacement sample be humans. Commenters also noted that this provision to the Rule. EPA also taken at the same location as the many manufacturers of brass and bronze encourages water systems to collect invalidated sample or, if that is not fittings and fixtures (i.e., endpoint more than the minimum number of possible, then at a location other than devices) are attempting to meet the required samples to minimize the need one already used for sampling during standard established by National to collect replacement samples in the the monitoring period. first place. Today’s action also includes a Sanitation Foundation (NSF) The preamble to the April 1996 revision to the system reporting International for lead leaching for Proposal stated the Agency’s intent that requirements in § 141.90. As proposed, faucets and other drinking water States be prohibited from invalidating a EPA is adding the requirement for a plumbing components that contain low sample solely on the grounds that the system requesting sample invalidation levels of lead or are completely free of lead or copper concentration found in a to submit the appropriate lead-containing materials. follow-up sample is higher or lower documentation to the State at EPA, in utilizing the terminology ‘‘all than the lead or copper concentration § 141.90(a)(1)(ii). Corresponding State plastic system,’’ did not intend to found in the original sample. EPA recordkeeping requirements have been advocate the use of one particular type inadvertently omitted this prohibition added at § 142.14(d)(10)(iii). of plumbing over any other. The in the proposed rule language for l. Monitoring waivers for small proposed rule used the phrase ‘‘all § 141.86(f)(3). Although a few systems. plastic system’’ as short-hand for commenters objected to this prohibition, (i) Proposed revision and background. systems that are free of lead-containing the Agency believes it is appropriate. A The April 1996 Proposal included a new and copper-containing materials that number of factors may cause the levels provision at § 141.86(g) that would have the potential to adversely affect of lead and copper at the tap to vary at allow States to grant monitoring waivers levels of lead and copper at the tap. The times and the existence of an elevated to small systems that satisfy specific Agency recognizes the benefits of many result may be an indicator that 90th percentile lead and copper levels different types of plumbing materials. additional treatment is warranted. The and meet certain materials EPA recognizes the confusion that the mere fact that the level in the follow-up requirements. The intent of the ‘‘all plastic system’’ terminology has sample has changed would not alone be proposed provision was to provide caused and agrees that the wording in an indicator that the sample is invalid, monitoring relief to small systems that the proposal could be interpreted to especially because lead levels can be so provide substantive documentation or preclude the granting of a waiver to a variable at the tap. EPA has therefore equivalent evidence that they are free of water system even if none of the inserted this language in the final rule. sources of lead and copper buildings connected to the system have (iii) Today’s action. EPA is contamination. EPA believes that any ‘‘lead-containing’’ or ‘‘copper- promulgating sample invalidation monitoring relief is appropriate for these containing’’ materials. EPA has dropped provisions, as proposed, in a new systems because there is no value in the use of the ‘‘all plastic system’’ § 141.86(f). Section 141.86(f)(1) defines requiring States and water systems to terminology in today’s action.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1979

The language in today’s action is dispensers, drinking fountains, water apply for a waiver once it had specific as to what materials are coolers, glass fillers, residential completed one six-month round of considered lead-containing and copper- refrigerator ice makers, supply stops and standard tap monitoring for lead and containing. Lead-containing materials endpoint control valves. Today’s action copper subsequent to becoming free of include: Plastic pipes and service lines does not incorporate specific reference materials containing lead and copper. which contain lead plasticizers; lead to the NSF standard, however, in case To qualify for the waiver, the system’s service lines; lead pipes; lead-soldered other standards that meet the 90th percentile lead and copper levels pipe joints; and leaded brass or bronze requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d) could not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead or alloy fittings and fixtures that do not and (e) are established in the future. 0.65 mg/L for copper. Systems with meet the specifications of any lead- Notification of additional third-party waivers would be required to complete leaching standard established pursuant standards that meet these specifications at least one round of monitoring, at the to section 1417(e) of the SDWA will be published in future Federal reduced number of sites specified in Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g– Registers as appropriate. § 141.86(c) at least once every nine 6(e)). While the proposed rule did not The rule language remains silent on years. specify the exclusion of plastic pipes the materials composition of in-line One commenter requested that the and service lines which contain lead devices, such as valves and meters. EPA language be modified to require ‘‘at plasticizers, this exclusion can be has no data that suggest that in-line least’’ one six-month round of standard inferred from the proposed regulatory devices will contribute lead or copper at tap water monitoring to provide States language since this kind of plastic pipe levels that will leach these materials in some flexibility and authority to require is a ‘‘lead-containing material.’’ 7 The excess of the action levels. Thus, water additional testing if the State believes language pertaining to plastic pipes and systems with in-line devices containing these additional data are needed to service lines which contain lead lead or copper components may apply make the waiver decision. EPA agrees plasticizers has been added to the final for a waiver, if they meet the other that this is appropriate and has rule for the purpose of clarification. eligibility requirements. incorporated this modification into Copper-containing materials include Some commenters pointed out that today’s action. copper pipes and copper service lines. the language in the proposed rule could A few commenters questioned the EPA agrees that copper in drinking preclude the issuance of any monitoring rationale for establishing the lead PQL water can contribute to meeting dietary waivers because it would have required (0.005 mg/L) as the lead threshold for requirements. However, humans have that all ‘‘buildings’’ (rather than waiver eligibility and suggested that the limited tolerance to copper. Although ‘‘plumbing’’) connected to the system be threshold be set at one-half the action low levels of exposure (below the free of materials containing lead and level, as proposed for copper. EPA does MCLG) are beneficial, higher levels, copper. Commenters interpreted this to not believe that setting the lead especially when present in water or mean that water systems with buildings threshold for waivers at one-half the containing materials such as copper lead action level is as protective of beverages, can cause nausea, vomiting 8 and/or diarrhea. The MCLG for copper wiring, brass screws, or any copper- public health as setting it at the PQL. in potable water was established to containing or lead-containing materials In addition, since systems receiving a protect humans from these adverse in building wastewater systems, would monitoring waiver will be required to effects. Thus, because changing be ineligible to receive a waiver. monitor lead and copper levels only Today’s action clarifies that the circumstances at systems with copper- once every 9 years, the Agency believes materials requirement applies only to it is essential to minimize the risk that containing materials could result in the drinking water distribution or these systems will have elevated levels copper levels above the MCLG, EPA service lines and the drinking water of lead at the tap. Requiring a lower believes it would be inappropriate to supply plumbing (including plumbing 90th percentile lead level for allowing allow such systems to monitor for conveying drinking water within all waivers will help to minimize this risk. copper less frequently than once every residences and buildings connected to Today’s action, therefore, retains using three years. Today’s action does not preclude the system). the lead PQL, for determining if a Other commenters suggested that only small water systems with leaded brass system may qualify for a waiver. a limited number of CWSs would be Another commenter disagreed with or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that able to qualify for a waiver, either setting the lead level for States to meet the ‘‘lead free’’ criteria defined because it would be difficult for most consider waivers at 0.005 mg/L because, under sections 1417(d) and (e) of the water systems to identify all the under this requirement, source water SDWA from qualifying for a monitoring plumbing materials used in all buildings with lead levels at or slightly above this waiver. On August 22, 1997, EPA or because few water systems, when level could exclude a system from published a Federal Register Notice examining all the buildings connected qualifying for a waiver. EPA believes recognizing NSF Standard 61, Section 9, to the water system, would actually be that if a system’s 90th percentile lead as meeting the requirements for a able to meet the materials requirement. level is above 0.005 mg/L, no matter voluntary lead-leaching standard (62 FR EPA recognizes that it may be quite what the reason, tap water lead levels 44686). This standard, developed with difficult for CWSs to identify all the should not go unchecked for as long as the assistance of EPA, the plumbing plumbing materials used in all buildings nine years. industry, numerous State and local connected to the system and that it is One commenter suggested that EPA regulatory officials, water utilities, possible that very few systems may be rethink and expand the waiver option independent health consultants, and the able to meet the materials requirement. included in the April 1996 Proposal to academic community covers endpoint The Agency believes that some systems allow any system that ‘‘reliably and devices including kitchen and bar will qualify, however, and is including consistently’’ meets the action levels for faucets, lavatory faucets, water the waiver provisions in today’s action 8 Section C.5.h. of this preamble provides EPA’s 7 to benefit those systems. Information regarding the suitability of different (B) Monitoring issues. Under the rationale for utilizing the PQL for lead instead of plastic materials may be obtained by investigating one-half the action level when establishing a compliance with third-party standards such as NSF provisions proposed in 1996, a system threshold lead level for implementing accelerated Standard 61. meeting the materials criteria could reduced monitoring.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1980 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations lead and copper to reduce its containing faucets used within the (C) Changes potentially affecting monitoring to once every nine years. homes and buildings served by this new monitoring waivers. The April 1996 The commenter also pointed out that public water supply. Many faucets proposed rule language included a this concept would tie in to most of the purchased in the last ten years, although requirement for a water system subject existing State waiver programs. The labeled ‘‘lead free,’’ may contain up to to a monitoring waiver to notify the Agency believes that a ‘‘reliably and 8 percent lead, which had been allowed State within 60 days of the addition of consistently’’ waiver is appropriate for under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act a new source of water or any change in many inorganic and organic Amendments, and thus may leach high water treatment. EPA proposed to give contaminants regulated under the Phase levels of lead. Prior to August 6, 1998, the State discretion to require additional II and Phase V rules because source States may have approved the use of the monitoring or other appropriate action, water levels of these contaminants are aforementioned ‘‘lead-free’’ faucets if the State believes such action is not highly variable. Lead and copper (although they may have required warranted in these cases, to ensure that levels, which are measured at the tap, warning labels on these faucets). low levels of tap water lead and copper can be highly variable. Tap water lead In addition, all States allow the use of are maintained. The proposed language and copper levels can vary from day to copper pipes in distribution systems also required a water system to revert to day and even hour to hour at the same and/or interior building plumbing. New monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) if, sample site. Because of this high copper pipes frequently leach high as a result of new construction or variability, EPA does not believe a levels of copper until the pipes stabilize. repairs, the system could no longer waiver program based solely on lead Additionally, copper in source water certify it was free of lead-containing and and copper analytical values is can still be a concern in systems with copper-containing materials. Finally, sufficiently protective of public health no lead in the source water. While the the proposed language would have because there is a risk that such an 1996 SDWA Amendments require all given States the discretion to require a approach would allow a system with an faucets introduced into commerce after system to revert to more frequent undetected lead or copper problem to August 6, 1998, to meet the monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(3) or reduce monitoring to a point where the specifications of an approved lead- (4) and/or to take other appropriate population most at risk (children) leaching standard which will lessen the action if the system’s 90th percentile would not receive the benefit of such amount of lead that can leach from a lead levels exceeded 0.005 mg/L and/or monitoring if it occurred only once tap, there is still the potential for some the 90th percentile copper levels every nine years. The Agency has lead to leach from some taps. With this exceeded 0.65 mg/L during a therefore coupled very low tap water continued potential for lead leaching, subsequent round of monitoring. No lead and copper levels with the copper leaching, and copper in source commenters addressed these provisions materials criteria to further reduce this water, EPA disagrees with the specifically; however, upon further risk. commenter’s contention that there is consideration, the Agency believes a A few other commenters proposed little reason for conducting lead and few modifications to these provisions that a system not be required to monitor copper monitoring if new systems are are appropriate. at all once it meets the materials properly installed under State The requirement for a water system requirements and demonstrates that its specification and approval, if approved subject to a monitoring waiver to notify 90th percentile lead level is less than or plumbing materials are used, and if the State if the system adds a new equal to 0.005 mg/L and its 90th there is no lead in the source water. percentile copper level is less than or EPA also disagrees with the source of water or makes a change in equal to 0.65 mg/L. EPA has not commenter’s statement that the standard water treatment has been revised incorporated this suggestion into the number of sample sites is excessive for slightly to keep it consistent with the final rule. The Agency believes that the new systems. Such systems have yet to comparable requirement for (b)(3) risks from ingesting copper and lead are confirm that their water supply is systems and other systems subject to too much of a health hazard to totally minimally corrosive. The number of reduced monitoring. Today’s action ignore. Tap water monitoring (even if samples required for initial monitoring clarifies that the notification must occur conducted only once every nine years) was established to sufficiently account no later than 60 days after the change is could point out use of lead-containing for variability of lead and copper at taps made, unless the State requires earlier plumbing fixtures or copper pipes that while at the same time being reasonable notification. The LCR does not require have been installed unbeknownst to the for a system to implement. Assuming prior State approval of these changes; system owner/operator in the years these systems do not otherwise qualify however, it may be required by other following receipt of a waiver. for a monitoring waiver, if testing does drinking water regulations or by the One commenter stated that if new confirm that these new systems are very State. In those cases where prior State systems are properly installed under low in lead and copper (i.e., the approval is not required, EPA State specification and approval, if system’s 90th percentile lead level is nevertheless encourages water systems approved plumbing materials are used, less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the to notify the State before making the and if there is no lead in the source system’s 90th percentile copper level is change to minimize the risk that the water, there is little reason for less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L) during change will result in unanticipated conducting lead and copper monitoring. two consecutive six-month monitoring adverse effects on tap water lead and The commenter also stated that the periods, today’s action allows these copper levels. Today’s action does not standard number of sites to be sampled systems to reduce sampling to once prescribe that additional tap water is excessive for these systems even if every three years and allows systems monitoring for lead and copper occur as some confirmatory monitoring is that collected 10 samples or more a part of these changes; however, States performed. during initial monitoring to reduce the have the authority to require additional EPA believes that monitoring for lead number of sample sites by half.9 round(s) of monitoring and/or other and copper is still necessary in these appropriate action, if the State thinks circumstances. Even if a system is 9 See section C.5.h. in this preamble for such action(s) are warranted to ensure ‘‘properly installed,’’ the water may be discussion pertaining to ‘‘accelerated reduced that the water system continues to meet corrosive to copper pipes and lead- monitoring.’’ waiver eligibility criteria.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1981

Today’s action also clarifies that a system could meet the copper-related system. EPA has incorporated these water system that becomes aware that it waiver criteria. Similarly, a lead waiver provisions into today’s action. can no longer certify that it is free of should be available to those systems In some cases, however, States may lead-containing or copper-containing that meet the waiver criteria with have issued waivers without requiring materials must notify the State within respect to lead but not with respect to any prior tap water lead and copper 60 days of becoming aware of this copper. These commenters suggested monitoring. Although such waivers situation. Such systems no longer are that this would allow additional were not precluded by the 1995 eligible for a monitoring waiver. reductions in monitoring and reporting guidance memo, they are inconsistent Likewise, a system loses its waiver for such systems and would allow the with the provisions of today’s action eligibility if it has a 90th percentile lead States to focus more of their limited that make clear the requirement that all level greater than 0.005 mg/L or a 90th resources elsewhere. EPA has community and non-transient non- percentile copper level greater than 0.65 considered these suggestions. While the community water systems conduct some mg/L subsequent to receiving the Agency questions whether such monitoring to verify that they do not waiver. Assuming a system that loses its provisions will significantly reduce have undetected lead or copper waiver eligibility has not exceeded burden, today’s action gives States the problems. Today’s action, therefore, either action level, it must revert to a discretion to grant a waiver for either requires water systems with waivers triennial monitoring frequency.10 Such lead or copper, if the system meets all issued prior to April 11, 2000 that have systems may be able to take action to the criteria relevant to that contaminant. not conducted at least one round of tap identify and remove source(s) of lead The Agency is adding this provision water monitoring consistent with the and/or copper before they are due to because some water systems, if granted requirements of § 141.86(g)(2) to collect samples again and may reapply a waiver for either lead or copper, complete a round of monitoring for a waiver. Systems exceeding an although still required to collect tap pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) no later than action level, however, must begin water samples every three years (or September 30, 2000. Assuming such a implementation of CCT in accordance more often) for the non-waived system continues to meet the waiver with the deadlines in § 141.81(e). EPA contaminant, may be able to benefit eligibility criteria, the next round of believes these rule language from reduced analytical costs due to the monitoring under the waiver would be modifications are consistent with the fact that the tap water samples will only due no later than nine years later. intent of the monitoring waiver program have to be analyzed for one of the (iii) Today’s action. After considering which only allows a system to monitor contaminants in two of the three the comments received and other factors once every nine years if it can provide monitoring periods (assuming the non- as discussed above, today’s action an acceptable materials certification and waived contaminant is on a triennial includes new provisions at § 141.86(g) demonstrate acceptable 90th percentile schedule) that constitute the nine-year that allow States to grant monitoring lead and copper levels. waiver period. waivers to small water systems if (D) Waiver renewals. The proposed On the other hand, the Agency also specified conditions are met. In order to rule language neglected to specifically recognizes that the issuance of partial qualify for a full waiver, a small water address what happens with a waiver if waivers may add administrative burden system must meet all of the materials the system continues to satisfy the to States who would now be required to criteria specified in § 141.86(g)(1) and waiver requirements. Some commenters track additional monitoring schedules. the monitoring criteria specified in suggested that systems be required to re- For this reason, EPA is leaving the § 141.86(g)(2). Specifically, the system certify periodically that they remain free decision whether, or not, to issue partial must certify, with appropriate of lead-containing and copper- waivers up to the State. supporting documentation, that the containing materials. EPA agrees that (F) Pre-existing waivers. EPA is aware distribution system and service lines periodic re-certification is appropriate that several States already may have and all drinking water supply plumbing, and has therefore included a issued monitoring waivers for small including plumbing conveying drinking requirement in today’s action for the systems based on guidance provided to water within all residences and water system to submit the re- the EPA Regions in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). buildings connected to the system, are certification every nine years, along In some cases, the State’s free of lead-containing and copper- with its lead and copper tap water implementation of waiver provisions is containing materials. A system is results and 90th percentile calculations. very similar to those contained in considered to be free of lead-containing States may require re-certification today’s rule. That is, in addition to materials if it contains no plastic pipes sooner, for example, if the system adds requiring that the system demonstrate it with lead plasticizers or plastic service a new source of water, modifies water is free of lead-containing and copper- lines with lead plasticizers and if it is treatment, or undergoes new containing materials, the State required free of lead service lines, lead pipes, construction. Any system that loses that the system demonstrate, through at lead soldered pipe joints, and leaded eligibility for a monitoring waiver must least one round of standard tap water brass or bronze fittings and fixtures, revert to more frequent monitoring and/ monitoring, that the 90th percentile lead unless such fittings and fixtures meet or implement CCT as discussed above. level does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and the specifications of any lead-leaching (E) Partial waivers. A few commenters the 90th percentile copper level does standard established pursuant to 42 suggested that a copper waiver should not exceed 0.65 mg/L. EPA believes that U.S.C. 300g–6(e) (SDWA section be available to those systems that are monitoring waivers issued prior to April 1417(e)). Systems are considered free of unable to meet the rule’s lead waiver 11, 2000 should remain in effect as long copper-containing materials if they criteria because of lead-containing as the water system meets the ongoing contain no copper pipes or copper components within the system, if the waiver monitoring requirements and service lines. Systems also must have continues to meet the waiver eligibility completed at least one 6-month round of 10 EPA does not believe it is necessary that these requirements. The next round of standard tap water monitoring for lead systems monitor more frequently than once every monitoring for such systems should and copper, subsequent to becoming three years since they would have been on a triennial schedule already if the waiver had not occur no later than nine years after the free of lead-containing and copper- been issued and they had reduced monitoring in date of the most recent lead and copper containing materials, at sites approved accordance with the schedule in § 141.86(d)(4). tap water monitoring conducted by the by the State and from the number of

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations sites required for standard monitoring monitoring), if it deems such additional the system has monitored for lead and under § 141.86(c) that demonstrates that conditions are necessary to assess and/ copper at the tap. If, on the other hand, the 90th percentile levels of lead and or address treatment or source water the pre-existing waiver was issued to a copper at the tap do not exceed 0.005 changes at the system. A system with a small system that met the materials mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper. full or partial waiver also must notify criteria in § 141.86(g)(1) but was not If permitted by State regulation, the State within 60 days of becoming required to conduct any tap water § 141.86(g) also permits a small system aware that it is no longer free of lead- monitoring and/or to meet the lead and that meets the lead-related criteria of containing and/or copper-containing copper threshold levels specified in §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2), but not the materials. § 141.86(g)(2), the waiver will remain in copper-related criteria, to apply for a As long as the water system is in effect only if the system continues to partial waiver for lead only (i.e., a lead compliance with the requirements of meet the eligibility requirements of waiver). Likewise, a small system that § 141.86(g)(4), continues to meet the § 141.86(g)(5) and completes a round of meets the copper-related criteria of appropriate eligibility materials criteria standard monitoring for lead and copper §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2), but not the lead- of § 141.86(g)(1), and maintains 90th at the tap by September 30, 2000 in related criteria, may apply for a partial percentile lead levels that do not exceed which the 90th percentile lead and waiver for copper only (i.e., a copper 0.005 mg/L (unless the system has a copper levels do not exceed 0.005 mg/ waiver). copper waiver) and 90th percentile L and 0.65 mg/L, respectively (i.e., meet Section 141.86(g)(3) requires the State copper levels that do not exceed 0.65 the eligibility criteria of § 141.86(g)(2)). to notify the system, in writing, of its mg/L (unless the system has a lead After completing this round of waiver determination, setting forth the waiver), § 141.86(g)(5) specifies that the monitoring, the system must continue basis for the decision and any waiver will be renewed automatically monitoring at a frequency of once every conditions of the waiver. States have the unless the State notifies the system nine years. authority to impose conditions such as otherwise, in writing, setting forth the Today’s action also makes two requiring limited monitoring in addition basis of its decision. Systems with changes to the provisions of § 141.90(a) to the once every nine year monitoring waivers that have been revoked may re- to reflect system reporting requirements required by § 141.86(g)(4) and/or apply for a full or partial waiver, as associated with small system waivers. requiring the system to provide periodic appropriate, at such time as it again As discussed previously,12 § 141.90(a)(3) outreach to consumers to remind them meets the eligibility criteria of now specifies the reporting requirement to avoid installation of materials that §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2). for a water system monitoring for lead might void the waiver. A system cannot Systems whose waivers have been and copper at the tap less frequently reduce to a nine-year tap water revoked must complete appropriate CCT than every six months to report, in monitoring frequency before it receives and/or lead and copper tap water writing, the addition of a new source or the written waiver approval from the monitoring requirements. This a change in water treatment to the State State. provision is specified in § 141.86(g)(6). no later than 60 days after the change Routine tap water monitoring In other words, if the system’s waiver is has occurred, unless the State requires requirements and requirements for revoked because the system has earlier notification. Section 141.90(a)(4) reporting certain system changes exceeded the lead or copper action contains the reporting requirements between tap water monitoring events are level, the system must implement CCT associated with applying for a waiver specified in § 141.86(g)(4). Systems with in accordance with the deadlines and submitting appropriate waivers must conduct a round of specified in § 141.81(e). If the system’s documentation demonstrating whether monitoring for the waived waiver is revoked for other reasons, and or not the system continues to meet the contaminant(s) at least once every nine the system meets both action levels, the continuing waiver eligibility criteria. years at the reduced number of sites system must monitor for lead and Finally, two new changes in State specified in § 141.86(c) and provide copper at the tap no less frequently than recordkeeping requirements have been appropriate materials re-certification to once every three years using the made to § 142.14. A new the State along with the monitoring reduced number of sample sites § 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) contains the results. Systems with partial waivers specified in § 141.86(c). requirement for States to maintain must continue to monitor for the non- Section 141.86(g)(7) addresses what, if records pertaining to monitoring waiver waived contaminant in accordance with anything, a system with a full waiver 11 determinations, waiver recertifications, the provisions of § 141.86(d)(1), (d)(3), granted prior to April 11, 2000 must do and waiver revocations. As previously or (d)(4), as appropriate. Systems with for the waiver to remain in effect. Pre- discussed, § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) contains waivers must notify the State no later existing waivers issued to a small the State recordkeeping requirements than 60 days after the addition of a new system that have previously met the pertaining to systems monitoring less source of water or any changes in water eligibility requirements of both frequently than every six months that treatment. As discussed above, systems §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2) remain in change treatment or add a new source may be required by other Federal effect so long as the system continues to of water. drinking water regulations or State meet the waiver eligibility criteria of 6. Revisions to § 141.87 regulations to receive prior State § 141.86(g)(5). The first round of tap approval before making any of these water monitoring conducted pursuant to a. Monitoring for optimal water changes. Where prior State approval is § 141.86(g)(4) must be completed no quality parameters. As discussed in not required, EPA encourages systems to later than nine years after the last time section C.2.b. of this preamble, today’s notify the State before making the action revises the way in which change to minimize the risk it will 11 Waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 would compliance with OWQPs is determined result in an unanticipated adverse effect have reflected guidance provided in a policy memo under § 141.82(g). Corresponding on tap water lead and copper levels. issued by EPA in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). That memo changes have been made to §§ 141.87(d) States have the authority to impose addressed systems that were free of both lead- and (e)(4). The language of § 141.87(d) containing and copper-containing materials. EPA additional waiver conditions (e.g., therefore does not believe that there should be any has been streamlined to refer to, but not requiring a materials re-certification systems with partial waivers issued prior to the and/or requiring additional rounds(s) of effective date of the LCRMR. 12 See section C.5.j. of this preamble.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1983 repeat, the compliance requirements of that entry point monitoring for WQPs at identity, well flow rates and total § 141.82(g). The language of least once every two weeks is volumes per day into the distribution § 141.87(e)(4) has been revised to clarify appropriate for large non-(b)(3) water system, observed chemical dosages per that a system subject to the reduced systems after the installation of CCT and unit of flow and usage rates that are frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the for those small and medium-size demonstrated to be the same as those at tap must revert to standard WQP systems that continue to exceed an the ‘‘equivalent’’ entry point(s). The monitoring if it fails to comply with the action level after the installation of CCT. documentation supporting the selection requirements of § 141.82(g). The regulations, as revised by today’s of these representative sites must be b. Use of representative sites for entry action, provide sufficient flexibility for submitted to the State prior to the start point water quality parameter systems to meet this requirement of any routine WQP monitoring monitoring at ground water systems. without imposing an unreasonable pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). EPA is (i) Proposed revision and background. monitoring burden where it is not adding the corresponding system The April 1996 Proposal included a warranted. reporting requirement at provision that would allow ground (iii) Today’s action. The Agency § 141.90(a)(5).13 EPA also is adding water systems to limit entry point WQP therefore is making the following § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) to require States to monitoring to those locations that are regulatory changes. First, EPA is maintain records of any determinations representative of the water quality revising the wording of §§ 141.87(a)(2) made pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). conditions throughout the system. As and (c)(2), slightly, to indicate that the c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for explained in the 1996 preamble, some § 141.87(c)(2) requirements apply to water quality parameters at the tap. ground water systems, especially in the entry point monitoring ‘‘except as (i) Proposed revision and background. western States, can have dozens or even provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this The April 1996 Proposal also included more than a hundred wells and it can section’’ (which contains the provisions new language at § 141.87(e)(2) that be difficult and expensive to conduct pertaining to ground water systems). would allow water systems meeting the biweekly monitoring at each entry EPA also has revised § 141.87(c)(2) to criteria for accelerated reduced point. The Agency believes that clarify that once every two weeks monitoring for lead and copper at the monitoring at each entry point for large (biweekly) is the minimum sampling tap to also accelerate reduced ground water systems may not be frequency for routine entry point WQP monitoring for WQPs at the tap to once necessary in all cases. Ground water monitoring. The Agency has replaced every three years, more rapidly than systems can limit entry point sampling the phrase, ‘‘one sample every two previously allowed. This revision to those entry points that are weeks (biweekly),’’ with the phrase, ‘‘at applies primarily to large, non-(b)(3), representative of water quality and least one sample no less frequently than systems but could apply to any system treatment conditions throughout the every two weeks (biweekly).’’ Since subject to the monitoring requirements system. If water from untreated ground many systems are monitoring WQPs of § 141.87(d) or (e). As EPA explained water sources mixes with water from more frequently than biweekly, EPA in the preamble to the April 1996 treated ground water sources, the believes this change is appropriate to Proposal, this revision would not affect system must monitor for WQPs both at clarify that entry point monitoring is to the requirement that systems subject to representative entry points receiving be conducted no less frequently than WQP monitoring after the installation of treatment and representative entry every two weeks. CCT collect WQP samples at entry points receiving no treatment. For EPA is adding a new paragraph (c)(3) points no less frequently than once example, a ground water system with to § 141.87 to allow ground water every two weeks, as specified in seven entry points may draw water from systems subject to WQP monitoring § 141.87(c)(2). a distinct hydraulic zone (i.e., where requirements after the installation of (ii) Comments and analysis. In water from the zone does not mix with CCT to limit their entry point general, commenters supported the water from any other zone). If the monitoring to those locations that are proposed accelerated reduced system can demonstrate to the representative of water quality monitoring of WQPs at the tap. Only satisfaction of the State that all seven conditions throughout the system. At a two commenters opposed the provisions entry points drawing water from the minimum, these systems must monitor allowing accelerated reduced same distinct hydraulic zone have for WQPs both at some points receiving monitoring for WQPs at the tap. Of similar water quality characteristics, treatment and at some points receiving these, one advocated retaining the taking seasonal variability into account, no CCT if the water from those points current monitoring frequency; the other the State can allow the system to mixes with other source water in the suggested EPA require daily monitoring. conduct biweekly entry point system that is treated. Systems taking These commenters may have monitoring at one or two of the entry advantage of this provision are required misunderstood the intent of the points instead of all seven. However, if to provide sufficient documentation to proposed revision and thought that EPA CCT is applied at one of the seven entry the State to demonstrate that the was proposing to also reduce the points and not at the other six entry locations monitored are, in fact, frequency of entry point WQP points, then a representative sample or representative of water quality monitoring. As explained in section E.1. samples would need to be taken for the throughout the system. The specific of this preamble, EPA is retaining the six entry points and a sample would documentation to be provided may vary requirement that water systems subject also need to be taken at the entry point depending on the system’s to water quality parameter monitoring where the CCT is applied. characteristics and State reporting requirements after the installation of (ii) Comments and analysis. requirements. For locations that are not CCT continue to monitor WQPs at entry Commenters generally supported this treated, for example, such points no less frequently than once proposed revision. Two commenters documentation might include complete every two weeks. The Agency agrees expressed concern that the proposed water analyses from the different wells changes still would require extensive over time, or taken for the purpose of 13 The reporting requirement associated with monitoring for large water systems determining equivalence. For wells systems requesting approval for reduced monitoring, previously codified at § 141.90(a)(5), relying on ground water sources, even receiving treatment, documentation has been eliminated. See section C.5.f. of this when no CCT is required. EPA believes might include records of chemical preamble.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations that this monitoring is essential for good level is discussed in section C.5.h. of frequency with which it collects tap process control and encourages water this preamble. samples for applicable WQPs specified systems to conduct such monitoring Another commenter pointed out a in § 141.87(e)(1) to every three years if even more frequently than once every discrepancy between the April 1996 the system demonstrates during two two weeks. The LCR already permits preamble and the proposed revised rule consecutive monitoring periods that its systems to reduce the frequency of language. The proposed rule language tap water lead level at the 90th water quality parameter monitoring would have required lead and copper percentile is less than or equal to the within the distribution system to levels to be ‘‘ less than’’ the lead PQL PQL for lead specified in triennial. The proposed revision would and one-half the copper action level, § 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap water allow this to occur more rapidly. EPA respectively; the preamble stated that copper level at the 90th percentile is also encourages systems to perform this systems with lead and copper levels less than or equal to one-half the action monitoring more frequently but has not ‘‘less than or equal to’’ the lead PQL and level for copper (0.65 mg/L) in made it a regulatory requirement one-half the copper action level, § 141.80(c)(2), and that it also has respectively, would be eligible for because of the potential burden maintained the range of values for the reduced monitoring. The preamble involved. WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the language reflected EPA’s intent and the State under § 141.82(f). Two commenters who supported the Agency has corrected this error in idea of accelerated reduced WQP today’s action. d. Summary of water quality monitoring at the tap suggested (iii) Today’s action. EPA is monitoring requirements. The table alternative eligibility criteria. One promulgating the following revisions to shown below summarizes the WQP recommended the copper threshold be § 141.87(e)(2). The existing paragraph monitoring requirements, and reflects set at one-half the copper PQL instead § 141.87(e)(2) has been redesignated as the clarification that entry point of one-half the copper action level. § 141.87(e)(2)(i). A new paragraph, monitoring after the installation of CCT EPA’s rationale for setting the copper § 141.87(e)(2)(ii) has been added to must occur no less frequently than every threshold at one half the copper action allow a water system to reduce the two weeks.

TABLE 3.ÐSUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1

Monitoring period Parameters 2 Location Frequency

Initial Monitoring ...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps and at entry point(s) to dis- Every 6 months. silica 3, calcium, conductivity, tribution system. temperature. After Installation of Corrosion Con- pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. trol. silica 3, calcium 4. pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than every two concentration (if alkalinity ad- tem 6. weeks. justed as part of corrosion con- trol), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. After State Specifies Parameter pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. Values for Optimal Corrosion silica 3, calcium 4. Control. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than every two concentration (if alkalinity ad- tem 6. weeks. justed as part of corrosion con- trol), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. Reduced Monitoring ...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months, annually 7 or silica 3, calcium 4. every 3 years 8; reduced num- ber of sites. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than every two concentration (if alkalinity ad- tem 6. weeks. justed as part of corrosion con- trol), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor residual 5. 1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements. 2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for WQPs only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level. 3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used. 4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control. 5 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used. 6 Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system. 7 Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring. 8 Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have main- tained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for WQPs at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of WQPs designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing opti- mal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1985

7. Revisions to § 141.88 0.001 mg/L and copper levels greater the same schedule as systems that are a. Resampling triggers for composite than 0.160 mg/L to lead levels greater treating their source water and source water samples. than or equal to 0.001 mg/L and copper complying with the State-specified (i) Proposed revision and background. levels greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/ maximum permissible source water EPA proposed to revise § 141.88(a) to L. levels. EPA proposed that the systems delete the reference to § 141.23, which In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA exceeding an action level after the State pertains to inorganic chemical sampling requested public comment on whether has determined that source water requirements, and to spell out the compositing should be allowed in light treatment is not required be allowed to specific requirements for lead and of the fact that the resampling trigger for reduce the frequency of source water copper source water monitoring in composited lead source water samples monitoring if the source water lead § 141.88(a). The Agency explained that is the detection limit and therefore, half concentrations are less than 0.005 mg/ it believed it would be less confusing to the samples whose true value is at the L and the source water copper specify the requirements regarding lead MDL could be reported as false concentrations are less than 0.8 mg/L. and copper in Subpart I, where all other negatives. While no commenters EPA proposed these levels since Agency lead and copper sampling is addressed. suggested eliminating compositing due guidance suggests these are the levels In addition, the Agency proposed to to the above-mentioned concern, several above which source water treatment retain the resampling trigger for commenters wanted compositing to be may be appropriate (EPA, 1992c). eliminated because of a concern about (ii) Comments and analysis. Several composite source water samples for lead the ability of laboratories to successfully commenters suggested refinements to at the detection limit of 0.001 mg/L and analyze samples near the detection the rule language to make it more to change the resampling trigger for limit. The Agency does not believe that consistent with other parts of the rule. composite source water samples for it is appropriate to eliminate flexibility One of these commenters suggested that copper from the detection limits of and potential cost savings for some reduced source water monitoring be 0.001 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L to 0.160 mg/ utilities because some laboratories may allowed if source water levels are ‘‘less L.14 EPA also proposed adding rule not be able to meet the criteria to than or equal to’’ (instead of ‘‘less than’’) language to clarify that compositing of perform compositing. Therefore, 0.005 mg/L lead and 0.8 mg/L copper. samples must be done by certified compositing is being retained in today’s EPA agrees that the lead and copper laboratory personnel and to allow action. concentrations should be ‘‘less than or systems to use duplicates or original (iii) Today’s action. EPA has made the equal to’’ the source water threshold samples, where possible, instead of following changes to § 141.88(a)(1). The levels and has made this change in resampling. The remaining requirements for source water sample today’s action. requirements in § 141.88(a), pertaining location, number of source water A second commenter suggested that to sample location and number of samples, and collection methods have EPA set the same lead and copper samples, were retained from § 141.23. been incorporated directly into concentrations for reduced source water (ii) Comments and analysis. While § 141.88(a)(1) and the reference to monitoring as for accelerated reduced most commenters supported the § 141.23 has been eliminated. Systems lead and copper monitoring at the tap. proposed revisions to § 141.88(a), a few may composite up to five source water The Agency agrees that it is less commenters raised issues. One samples. The compositing must be done confusing to use the same lead and commenter asked how the 90th by certified laboratory personnel. If the copper thresholds for both accelerated percentile would be calculated when lead concentration in the composite reduced tap water monitoring and samples are composited. EPA would sample is greater than or equal to 0.001 reduced source water monitoring where like to clarify that compositing applies mg/L or the copper concentration in the the State has determined that source to source water samples only. Tap composite sample is greater than or water treatment is not required. Today’s samples cannot be composited. equal to 0.160 mg/L, then the system action therefore establishes 0.65 mg/L as Therefore, compositing does not affect must take and analyze a follow-up the copper threshold for reduced source the way in which the 90th percentile is sample at each sampling site used in the water monitoring where the State has to be calculated. composite within 14 days; however, if determined that no source water Another commenter discussed the duplicates of, or sufficient quantities treatment is required. The Agency potential impact of rounding the from, the original samples from each estimates that less than one percent of reported value for the composite sampling point used in the composite water systems have source water copper sample. The commenter was concerned are available, the system may use these levels between 0.65 mg/L and 0.8 mg/ that if water systems with a source instead of resampling. L (EPA, 1988). EPA thus believes that water lead level just above 0.001 mg/L b. Reduced source water monitoring very few, if any, systems will be rounded down to 0.001 mg/L, under the for systems without State-designated precluded from reducing source water proposed rule, resampling of the maximum permissible source water monitoring as a consequence of composite sample would not need to levels. establishing this slightly more stringent occur. EPA has addressed this potential (i) Proposed revision and background. threshold than the Agency proposed in problem by revising the language in In 1996, EPA proposed to add 1996. today’s action to change the resampling provisions to the source water Another commenter criticized the triggers from lead levels greater than monitoring requirements that would Agency for not proposing to revise the allow the same reduction in the reduced source water monitoring 14 Since up to five samples may be composited for frequency of source water monitoring frequency consistent with a 5/10/15 analysis, in 1996, EPA proposed resampling triggers that are one-fifth of the levels above which EPA for systems that exceed an action level year monitoring framework for chemical recommends source water treatment. (EPA’s if the source water lead and copper contaminants regulated by the Phase II/ guidance document Lead and Copper Rule levels are low and the State has V rules that the Agency was Guidance Manual Volume II: Corrosion Control determined that source water treatment considering. In 1997, EPA published an recommends source water treatment when the concentration of lead in the source water is greater is not required. This change would Advance Notice of Proposed than 0.005 mg/L or the concentration of copper in allow such systems to reduce the Rulemaking that requested comment on source water is greater than 0.800 mg/L.) frequency of source water monitoring on possible Chemical Monitoring Reform

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations and Permanent Monitoring Relief sensitive to the implementation that the proposed changes to the provisions for the chemicals regulated complications arising from different composite source water resampling under the Phase II/V rules (62 FR 36100, frequencies, it does not believe that triggers for lead and copper at Jul. 3, 1997). EPA has since decided not adequate public health protection § 141.88(a)(1)(iii) necessitate revisions to move forward with Chemical should be sacrificed merely for the sake to the laboratory certification Monitoring Reform. However, the of consistency. procedures pertaining to composite Agency has published Alternative One commenter pointed out a source water samples at Monitoring Guidance (formerly known discrepancy in the proposed language at § 141.89(a)(1)(iii). EPA therefore § 141.88(e) regarding whether systems as the Permanent Monitoring Relief) that proposed to delete the requirement for are required to monitor for both lead permit States meeting specified a laboratory to achieve the MDL for conditions to issue five-year monitoring and copper. The language in § 141.88(e)(1) has been revised to clarify copper. It is no longer necessary to waivers for contaminants to which the specify that laboratories be capable of State has determined the system is not that systems subject to source water achieving the copper MDL in order to vulnerable (EPA, 1997b). Unless a monitoring requirements must sample accept composite source water samples. waiver has been issued, the system must for both lead and copper. continue to monitor for the Phase II/V Finally, one commenter stated that in With the copper resampling trigger set chemicals within the 3/6/9 year making these revisions, EPA was setting at 0.160 mg/L, the laboratory will be framework. source water treatment levels by default. sufficiently tested on its capabilities EPA does not intend to set specific under § 141.89(a)(1)(ii)(B) where it is The Agency agrees that a consistent levels requiring source water treatment. framework for chemical contaminants is required to achieve a quantitative EPA’s intent is to specify the levels of ± desirable to the extent that it does not acceptance limit of 10 percent of the lead and copper in source water which jeopardize public health protection or actual amount of the performance will determine whether a system can the environment. EPA does not believe evaluation sample when the actual reduce source water monitoring. it would be appropriate to revise the amount is greater than or equal to 0.050 (iii) Today’s action. EPA has therefore mg/L. monitoring frequency for lead and finalized the revision as proposed, copper in source water along the lines incorporating the clarification discussed b. Comments and analysis. EPA did being considered for the Chemical above. Sections 141.88(e)(1) and (2) not receive any comments objecting to Monitoring Reform/Permanent have been revised to allow water this revision. Monitoring Relief, however. Other systems that exceed the action level, but c. Today’s action. The Agency has regulated chemical contaminants for which the State has determined that revised § 141.89(a)(1)(iii) to delete the address chemicals where existing source water treatment is not needed, to requirement for laboratories to achieve contamination and vulnerability to reduce the frequency of source water future contamination can be identified the copper MDL in order to accept monitoring if the system maintains composite samples. Sections relatively easily and where the public source water lead levels at or below health concern is overall lifetime 141.89(a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) have been 0.005 mg/L and source water copper eliminated since they no longer are exposure. The issues pertaining to the levels at or below 0.65 mg/L for three necessary. control of lead and copper are consecutive monitoring periods, if using significantly different. The health effect an exclusively ground water source, or 9. Revisions to System Reporting of primary concern is exposure to lead three consecutive years, if using a Requirements in § 141.90 for children. Since systems triggered surface water or combined surface and into source water monitoring exceed ground water source. EPA is promulgating a number of one or both action levels, EPA does not changes to water system reporting 8. Revisions to Laboratory Certification believe it appropriate to reduce the requirements at § 141.90. The following Requirements in § 141.89 monitoring frequency for source water chart summarizes these changes. lead and copper beyond the schedule in a. Proposed revision and background. today’s action. While the Agency is EPA noted in the April 1996 Proposal

TABLE 4.ÐSUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Preamble Paragraph Revision discussion

141.90(a)(1), introductory Remove reference to § 141.88 and revise examples of ``applicable monitoring periods'' to in- C.9.a. text. clude a 9-year monitoring period. 141.90(a)(1)(ii) ...... Remove requirement for certification of first-draw samples collected by the system ...... C.9.b. Replace with new requirement for documentation to accompany sample invalidation re- C.5.k. quests. 141.90(a)(1)(iii) ...... Remove requirement for certification pertaining to first-draw samples collected by residents C.9.b. and reserve paragraph. 141.90(a)(1)(iv) ...... Modify to address reporting requirement for those systems for which the State will be calcu- C.9.c. lating the system's 90th percentile lead and copper levels. 141.90(a)(1)(viii) ...... Add requirement for reporting WQP monitoring results collected under §§ 141.87(c)±(f) ...... C.2.b. 141.90(a)(2) ...... Remove requirement for CWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient num- C.5.b. ber of Tier 1 sites cannot be located. Replace with a new requirement for NTNCWSs that cannot find enough first-draw sampling C.5.c. sites to identify non-first-draw sample times and locations. 141.90(a)(3) ...... Remove requirement for NTNCWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient C.5.b. number of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1987

TABLE 4.ÐSUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTSÐContinued

Preamble Paragraph Revision discussion

Replace with a new requirement for systems monitoring at the tap less frequently than once C.5.j. & C.5.l. every 6 months to notify the State within 60 days if there are any changes in treatment or addition of a new source water. 141.90(a)(4) ...... Remove requirement to send letter to State demonstrating why 50% of sampling sites are C.5.b. not served by lead service lines. Replace with new reporting requirement for small systems requesting a monitoring waiver ... C.5.l. 141.90(a)(5) ...... Remove reporting requirements associated with requesting reduced monitoring ...... C.5.f. Replace with new reporting requirement demonstrating representative locations for biweekly C.6.b. entry point water quality parameter monitoring after the installation of corrosion control treatment. 141.90(e)(2) ...... Revise all references to ``§ 141.84(f)'' to read ``§ 141.84(e)'' ...... C.3.b. 141.90(e)(4) ...... Remove reporting requirements associated with rebutting presumption of control of entire C.3.b. length of LSL. Add new requirement for systems collecting LSL samples after partial lead service line re- C.3.b. placement to report results to the State. 141.90(f) ...... Revise deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks ...... C.4.c. 141.90(h) ...... Add new requirement for reporting lead and copper concentrations where the State cal- C.9.c. culates a system's 90th percentile levels.

Most of these changes are described in (ii) Comments and analysis. One with § 141.88. Because the reporting more detail in other sections of the commenter pointed out that EPA had requirements for source water preamble, as indicated in the table apparently omitted the phrase, ‘‘below monitoring are specified in § 141.90(b) above. The remaining changes to system for,’’ in the first sentence of the and not in § 141.90(a)(1), the reference reporting requirements are described proposed rewording in the April 1996 to § 141.88 has been deleted from the below. Proposal. EPA agrees that the phrase introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1). a. Timing of reporting of tap water was inadvertently omitted from the b. Elimination of certification monitoring for lead and copper and April 1996 Proposal and has corrected requirements pertaining to first-draw water quality parameter monitoring. the error in today’s action. No samples. (i) Proposed revision and background. commenter took issue with the (i) Proposed revision and background. The introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) of proposed changes to the introductory Section 141.90(a)(1)(ii) of the LCR, as the 1991 LCR requires a water system to text of § 141.90(a)(1) in response to promulgated in 1991, required water report monitoring data to the State for either the April 1996 Proposal or the systems to certify that each sample all tap water samples within the first 10 August 1998 Notice. collected by the system pursuant to days following the end of each (iii) Today’s action. The introductory § 141.86(d) was one-liter in volume and, applicable monitoring period specified text of § 141.90(a)(1) has been revised to to the best of the system’s knowledge, in §§ 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. The reflect ‘‘every 9 years’’ as one of the had stood motionless in the service line applicable monitoring periods listed in applicable reporting frequencies. or in the interior plumbing of a the original rule were ‘‘every six- Today’s action also revises the sampling site for at least six hours. months’’, ‘‘annually’’, and ‘‘every 3 introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) to Section 141.90(a)(1)(iii) required water years.’’ Because the proposed revisions include the qualifying phrase, ‘‘except systems to certify that each tap sample included a provision that would allow as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of collected by residents was taken after certain small water systems to conduct this section.’’ Since today’s action the water system informed the residents tap water monitoring once every nine retains the requirement for a six-month of the proper sampling procedures. EPA years (see § 141.86(g)), EPA also monitoring period for WQPs after the included these requirements to help proposed a revision to the introductory State designates OWQPs under ensure use of the proper sampling text of § 141.90(a)(1) to include ‘‘every § 141.82(f), instead of revising this to a protocol contained in § 141.86. Most 9 years’’ as one of the applicable quarterly period, EPA has omitted water systems have now completed at monitoring periods. In the August 1998 ‘‘quarterly’’ from the list of applicable least two rounds of monitoring for lead Notice, the Agency proposed to add monitoring periods referenced in the and copper and have experience in ‘‘quarterly’’ to this list to reflect the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1). The collecting first-draw samples. Because proposed requirement that water Agency believes that the language of the Agency believes that continuing to systems subject to the WQP monitoring § 141.90(a)(1)(viii), added by today’s require systems to provide these requirements of §§ 141.87(d) and (e) language, makes clear that systems must certifications every monitoring period report these results quarterly. Because report these WQP monitoring results to imposes a burden that can no longer be EPA was also proposing to give States the State no less frequently than every justified, EPA proposed eliminating explicit discretion to require more six months. these two certification requirements in frequent reporting of WQP results, the Today’s action also makes one the April 1996 Proposal. Agency also proposed to add a qualifier technical correction to the introductory (ii) Comments and analysis. Most to the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(1) text of § 141.90(a)(1). This language, as commenters supported the proposal to to make clear that the specific WQP promulgated in 1991, referenced tap eliminate the requirement for written reporting requirements took precedence water samples collected in accordance certification of first-draw sample over the general reporting requirements with § 141.86, WQP samples collected collection. However, concern was wherever the two appeared to be in in accordance with § 141.87, and source expressed that improper sample conflict. water samples collected in accordance collection might occur due to: new

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations homeowners who are not aware of preamble to the April 1996 Proposal requiring States to perform these collection requirements; staff turnover, requested comment on a burden calculations would increase the data particularly at NTNCWSs; and reduction measure that would give manipulation load on already customers who forget proper sample States the flexibility to eliminate the overburdened State regulatory staff. collection procedures over time. requirement that systems calculate and Some commenters suggested that EPA acknowledges that requiring report 90th percentile lead and copper eliminating the requirement for systems written certification provides an extra values, provided that the State performs to calculate the 90th percentile lead and level of assurance that samples have the calculation. A number of water copper values would result in systems been collected correctly. However, EPA systems, especially small water systems, not having time to take appropriate also believes that the reduced burden find it difficult to calculate these 90th follow-up actions (such as collecting resulting from the elimination of these percentile values. Some States have WQP samples) within the required time requirements outweighs the benefits of found that the 90th percentile lead and frame if the State reported the 90th maintaining the certification copper values submitted by such percentile values back to the system requirements, especially since systems are incorrect. Consequently, a later in the monitoring period, or after § 141.86(b)(2) still requires water number of these States routinely it had ended. Finally, several systems to instruct residents regarding recalculate the 90th percentile values commenters opposed allowing the first-draw sample procedures. EPA also based on the individual tap sample data States to calculate systems’ 90th believes it is prudent to provide that systems are required to submit. percentile levels because they felt that technical assistance, when necessary, to Granting States the option to calculate water system owner/operators need to new water system staff, water system the 90th percentile values in lieu of the take responsibility for what is occurring customers sampling for the first time, water system would result in a burden in their systems. and customers who have previously reduction for those water systems who EPA shares the concerns raised by sampled, to ensure proper sample are finding it difficult and time these commenters. Nevertheless, the collection. EPA has therefore eliminated consuming to do the calculation on their Agency believes that there may be these certification requirements. own and would not increase the burden instances where it is least burdensome One commenter favored elimination for those States who have already opted overall for the State to perform the of the certification requirement but to recalculate the systems’ 90th calculations, as long as systems are suggested that public water systems percentile values. notified of the results sufficiently early should require a certification from the (ii) Comments and analysis. Many in the monitoring period to take any homeowner. In addition, the commenter commenters supported this measure. A required follow-up action. EPA also suggested adding a requirement few commenters, however, did not therefore has included provisions that a chain of custody be maintained support such a change. One commenter providing States some flexibility to until the laboratory has finished suggested that rather than eliminating eliminate the 90th percentile reporting analyzing the sample. The LCR will the requirement for systems to calculate requirements for all systems, no continue to require (at § 141.86(b)(2)) and report 90th percentile values, the systems, or some subset (e.g., small that water systems provide sampling Rule should stipulate that it is up to the systems). Water systems for which the instructions to residents who will be State to determine whether systems State will calculate the 90th percentile collecting first-draw samples. However, should report the results of all tap lead and copper levels must submit the because EPA can only regulate water samples, the 90th percentile values, or results of all lead and copper tap systems, the Rule cannot incorporate both. The commenter maintained that samples to the State by a date language that would require this change would be appropriate in designated by the State. The State will homeowners to provide a certification their State since the certified then calculate the system’s 90th that they sampled correctly. Water laboratories are already required to percentile lead and copper systems are responsible for ensuring calculate and report the 90th percentile concentrations and will provide the that reported results accurately reflect values based on the results of the lead results of the calculations, in writing, to the samples collected. The absence of a and copper tap samples that they have the system prior to the end of the Federal requirement for chain of just analyzed. applicable monitoring period. custody does not preclude the State or Because it is difficult to ensure that a EPA agrees that if the State calculates the system from establishing these certified lab will report results to the the 90th percentile lead and copper controls. EPA encourages States and State within the reporting time frame levels, it is possible that a water system systems to establish the necessary required of public water systems, would not have sufficient time to collect controls; however, the Agency has no today’s action does not include language water quality parameter samples during plans to add a chain of custody that allows States the flexibility to rely the same monitoring period that an requirement to the lead and copper on information reported to the State by action level is exceeded. To avoid this regulations. certified laboratories in lieu of system situation, EPA strongly encourages (iii) Today’s action. The certification reporting of the lead and copper tap States to provide the results of the 90th requirements pertaining to first-draw water results and 90th percentile percentile calculations to each system lead and copper tap water samples, calculations. EPA cannot impose well in advance of the end of the previously codified at §§ 141.90(a)(1)(ii) reporting requirements on certified labs monitoring period. States will need to and (iii), have been deleted. New through the LCR and EPA does not have advise systems when they must submit requirements have been added at authority to take enforcement action lead and copper tap water sample § 141.90(a)(1)(ii) associated with against certified labs that do not report results to the State so that the State can requesting sample invalidation (see data within the reporting time frame do these calculations in a timely section C.5.k. of this preamble). required of public water systems. manner. While determining when the c. State calculation/reporting of 90th A few commenters suggested that the systems must submit their lead and percentile levels. 90th percentile reporting requirements copper tap results, the State should: (1) (i) Proposed revision and background. be eliminated for small systems only; Consider the length of time it will need Although no specific regulatory another commenter opposed the to review the lead and copper tap language changes were proposed, the proposed measure due to the belief that results provided by all affected water

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1989 systems; and (2) consider the length of selected for the sampling pool, and an definition of ‘‘lead free’’ the following: time needed by water systems exceeding identification of sampling sites utilized ‘‘When used with respect to plumbing the lead and/or copper action level(s) to during the current monitoring period fittings and fixtures intended by the collect water quality parameter samples. that were not sampled during previous manufacturer to dispense water for If lead and copper tap results are not monitoring periods along with an human ingestion refers to fittings and provided by the date required by the explanation why sampling sites have fixtures that are in compliance with State, it becomes the system’s changed. voluntary standards and testing responsibility to calculate their 90th • The State must provide the results protocols for the leaching of lead in percentile values. of the 90th percentile lead and copper accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(e).’’ The Agency agrees that all systems calculations, in writing, to the water As discussed previously (see section should take responsibility for the system before the end of the monitoring C.5.l.(ii)(A) of this preamble), EPA has quality of water delivered to their period. recognized NSF International’s Standard customers. However, it appears that EPA is also revising § 142.14(d)(9) to 61, Section 9, as meeting the some systems still find it difficult to make clear that States must maintain requirements for a voluntary lead- calculate 90th percentile lead and records pertaining to any State- leaching standard under Section 1417(e) copper levels correctly. Today’s action calculated 90th percentile levels along (62 FR 44686, Aug. 22, 1997). If other allows States that are concerned with with records of data submitted pursuant standards that meet the requirements of the accuracy of the systems’ calculations to § 141.90. SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are to perform the calculations and then 10. Revisions to § 141.43 established in the future, EPA will provide the results to the system before publish appropriate notification in the Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of § 141.43 the end of the monitoring period so that Federal Register. the system can take appropriate action. contain a one-time requirement for EPA strongly encourages all water public water systems to identify and D. Revisions to Requirements for States systems to calculate their 90th notify persons that may be affected by As discussed earlier in this preamble, percentile lead and copper levels on lead contamination of their drinking primacy States must adopt and submit their own using the ‘‘instructions’’ water. This requirement is obsolete. to EPA for approval a primacy program found in § 141.80(c)(3) even if the State Notification pursuant to § 141.43 was to revision to incorporate the provisions of has committed to performing these have occurred no later than June 1988. today’s rule into their approved primacy calculations and providing the results of Moreover, the requirement for a water program. In addition to the revised the calculations to the water system. system to conduct public education system requirements in Part 141, today’s Systems that determine that they have pursuant to § 141.85 as long as the water rule amends the State recordkeeping exceeded an action level may proceed system exceeds the lead action level is requirements of § 142.14, the LCR- with the appropriate follow-up much more comprehensive and specific State reporting requirements in requirements, such as WQP monitoring accomplishes the same goal of § 142.15(c)(4), and the special primacy or lead public education. If, based on informing the public about the requirements unique to specific the same lead and copper tap results possibility of lead contamination. EPA regulations in § 142.16. These revisions submitted by the system, the State has therefore deleted and reserved are discussed below. determines that the system’s 90th §§ 141.43(a)(2) and (b)(2). EPA believes 1. Records kept by States. As percentile lead and copper levels this revision is appropriate to avoid discussed in C. of this preamble, today’s actually do not exceed either the lead or confusion and redundancy. action contains several conforming EPA also is revising § 141.43 to copper action levels, the system may changes to the State recordkeeping amend the definition of ‘‘lead free’’ to discontinue with any follow-up actions requirements associated with the LCR. reflect the provisions of Sections it has begun. These requirements are codified at 1417(d) and (e) of the 1996 SDWA (iii) Today’s action. EPA has therefore § 142.14(d)(8). The following Amendments. Section 1417(a)(1) of the revised the requirement at summarizes these revisions. § 141.90(a)(1)(iv), requiring system SDWA states that ‘‘no person may use • Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been reporting of the 90th percentile lead and any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting eliminated. copper level calculations, to omit the or fixture, any solder, or any flux, in the • Sections 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (vi) requirement in those instances where installation or repair of any public water has been redesignated as the State will be performing the system or any plumbing in a residential §§ 142.14(d)(8)(ii) through (vii), calculations in accordance with the or nonresidential facility providing respectively. provisions specified in a new water for human consumption that is • A new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) has been § 141.90(h). Section 141.90(h) contains not lead free.’’ Under section 1417(d), added to require States to maintain the following requirements. ‘‘lead free’’ means that solders and flux records of any system-specific • The State must have previously may not contain more than 0.2 percent requirements for (b)(1) and (b)(3) notified the system that the State will lead; pipes, pipe fittings, and well systems that have corrosion control calculate the 90th percentile lead and pumps may not contain more than 8.0 treatment installed. copper levels and have provided the percent lead; and plumbing fittings and • The newly designated system with a date, earlier than the end fixtures must meet standards § 142.14(d)(8)(vi) has been revised to of the monitoring period, by which the established under section 1417(e) (42 eliminate the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of system must provide the results of all U.S.C. 300g–6(e)). Section 1417(e) of the the paragraph. lead and copper tap water samples SDWA states that ‘‘lead free’’ with • The newly designated collected during the monitoring period. regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures § 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been revised to • The system must provide the intended to dispense water for human correct the punctuation at the end of the following information to the State by the consumption means those fittings and paragraph. date specified: The results of all lead fixtures that are in compliance with a • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(viii) has been and copper tap water samples, standard established under that section. revised to change the reference to including the location of each site and Today’s action adds a paragraph (d)(3) ‘‘Section 141.84(f) to read ‘‘Section the criteria under which the site was to § 141.43 to incorporate into the 141.84(e).’’

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1990 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

• Section 142.14(d)(8)(ix) has been records of sample invalidation § 141.82(f), require the reporting of the added to require States to maintain determinations. maximum permissible source water records of any determinations of • Section § 142.14(d)(11) has been levels designated by the State under monitoring or other requirements for revised to change the reference to § 141.83(b)(4), and retain the systems monitoring for lead and copper ‘‘§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(viii)’’ requirement for States to report any at the tap less frequently than every six to read ‘‘§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through accelerated lead service line months that change treatment or add a (d)(8)(xvii).’’ replacement schedule established new source of water. 2. Reporting requirements for States. pursuant to § 141.84(f). • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(x) has been a. Proposed revision and background. In light of the public comments added to require States to maintain Under the 1991 Rule, States were received and other, concurrent internal records of system-specific decisions required to report up to eleven LCR Agency discussions, EPA requested regarding the content of written public implementation milestones for each public comment in the April 1998 education materials and/or distribution water system. These milestones were: Notice on another regulatory option of these materials. • Lead action level exceedance and pertaining to State reporting • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) has been date of the exceedance; requirements. Under the April 1998 • added to require States to maintain Copper action level exceedance and option, EPA would require the records of any system-specific date of the exceedance; following: • Corrosion control study required; • All lead 90th percentile values for determinations regarding use of non- • first-draw samples under § 141.86(b)(5). Corrosion control study completed large and medium-size systems; • • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xii) has been and date State received the results of the 90th percentile values that exceed added to require States to maintain study; the lead action level for small systems; • State designation of CCT and date • records of any system-specific or case- 90th percentile copper values that of the determination; by-case designations of sampling exceed the copper action level for all • State designation of source water locations for systems subject to reduced systems; treatment and date of the determination; • A new ‘‘deemed’’ milestone, monitoring. • CCT installed; indicating the system has optimized • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii) has been • Source water treatment installed; corrosion control and the basis for that added to require States to maintain • State designation of optimal water determination, and the date of the records of system-specific quality control parameters and date of determination; determinations pertaining to alternative the determination; • The streamlined lead service line sample collection periods for systems • State designation of maximum replacement required milestone subject to reduced monitoring. permissible source water levels; and • proposed in 1996; and Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) has been • Lead service line replacement • A new ‘‘done’’ milestone, indicating added to require States to maintain required, accelerated replacement the system had optimized corrosion records of any determinations, schedule (if any), and annual control and completed any required including waiver renewals and compliance with the replacement source water treatment steps and lead revocations. schedule. service line replacement requirements, • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) has been Through implementation guidance, and the date of the determination. added to require States to maintain EPA had also requested that States The ‘‘deemed’’ and ‘‘done’’ milestones records of any determinations made report 90th percentile lead and copper would be reported for all systems. The regarding representative entry point values in conjunction with lead action lead service line replacement required monitoring locations at ground water level exceedance and copper action milestone would continue to be systems. level exceedance milestones, reported only for those systems • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) has been respectively, and requested States to triggered into the requirement. added to require States to maintain provide all 90th percentile lead levels b. Comments and analysis. records of any system-specific for large systems and for any medium- EPA received mixed comments in determinations made regarding the size and small size system once they response to the April 1996 Proposal. submission of information to had exceeded the lead action level While some commenters agreed with demonstrate compliance with partial (EPA, 1992b). the proposed revisions, others took lead service line replacement In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA issue with some, or all, of the requirements. requested comment on several revisions milestones that EPA proposed to retain. • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) has to these milestones. These changes In particular, several commenters took been added to require States to maintain included a requirement to report all issue with the need to report many of records of any system-specific decisions 90th percentile lead values for large and the interim milestones, arguing that it is regarding the resubmission of detailed medium-size systems, elimination of the inconsistent with the concept of documentation demonstrating two corrosion control study milestones, performance partnerships for EPA to completion of public education the CCT installed milestone, and the track LCR implementation at the level requirements. State designation of maximum suggested by the milestones. Two • Section § 142.14(d)(9) has been permissible source water levels commenters objected to reporting all revised to include any State-calculated milestone. The proposed revisions also 90th percentile lead values for large and 90th percentile values among records would have added a date to the source medium-size systems. One of these States must maintain relative to data water treatment installed milestone and commenters thought the information submitted pursuant to § 141.90. streamlined the lead service line would be confusing to the public; the • Section § 142.14(d)(10) has been replacement required milestone. In other commenter raised concern about revised to include records of State addition, the Agency requested public the burden implications. A third activities, and the results thereof, to comment on whether it should require commenter recommended that EPA determine compliance with the the reporting of the optimal water require the reporting of all 90th requirements related to partial lead quality control parameter limits percentile values for all systems. None service line replacement and to include designated by the State under of the commenters supported reporting

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1991 of the additional items (i.e., State- time in the future.16 While the Agency process of developing an automated specified optimal water quality control believes that most systems not triggered information system and that it would parameters, State-specified maximum into lead service line replacement not be possible to incorporate the permissible source water levels, and requirements should be ‘‘done’’ at the proposed revisions until some time after accelerated lead service line time they are considered to have the new system was online. Other replacement schedules) on which EPA optimized corrosion control, the commenters questioned whether requested comment. The reasons for potential exists that this may not be requisite resources would be available opposing such requirements were true, especially since there is no way to to make necessary changes to State similar to those expressed, in general, discontinue source water treatment information systems. EPA recognizes about State reporting requirements— requirements once a State has that a relatively long lead time is needed lack of clear justification on the part of determined that source water treatment to give States time to make changes to EPA, burden implications, and is required. The Agency has eliminated automated data systems. EPA also needs inconsistency with the concept of all milestones that might otherwise time to make the necessary revisions to performance partnerships. indicate that a water system has been the Safe Drinking Water Information triggered into source water treatment. System (SDWIS). Beginning May 15, In light of these comments, the EPA therefore believes it is important 2000, States may report in accordance Agency thoroughly re-examined its need for States to explicitly indicate that a with the new requirements; however, for, and planned use of, system-specific system is ‘‘done,’’ rather than for EPA to States have until January 14, 2002 to LCR implementation data. EPA infer this based on the ‘‘deemed’’ complete the transition to the new concluded that the Agency needs more milestone and the available 90th reporting requirements. States will not information for this Rule than is percentile level information. The be required to report in accordance with generally true for other NPDWRs. The Agency believes the additional burden the revised requirements until January Agency’s rationale is explained in the of reporting this milestone will be 14, 2002. Between May 15, 2000, and April 1998 Notice and is based on the minimal in those cases when the January 14, 2002, States have the option fact that lead is a priority contaminant ‘‘deemed’’ and the ‘‘done’’ milestones to report compliance with either the as well as the nature of the rule that occur at the same time. EPA 1991 reporting requirements or the provides States broad discretion in acknowledges that future events may revised requirements in today’s action. specifying precisely what constitutes necessitate some ‘‘done’’ systems to Because of this compliance schedule, compliance for each water system. The revisit specific LCR treatment technique EPA has separately codified the new Agency also concluded, however, that requirements. The Agency will address requirements at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). The the use of exception-based reporting 15 how these situations are to be reported requirements, codified in the 1991 Rule for this Rule has resulted in in implementation guidance. at §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have unanticipated data anomalies that make A few commenters objected to been redesignated as the use of the reported milestones reporting 90th percentile lead levels §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G), problematic. EPA therefore requested other than those reflecting action level respectively, and introductory text public comment on a revised option that exceedances. EPA would like to receive added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to identify the would eliminate all but one of the all 90th percentile values and period during which they are to be original treatment milestones and encourages States to provide them. In reported. replace the others with two newly light of the reporting burden involved, Finally, the Agency received a few defined milestones that would need to however, the Agency is not requiring comments in response to EPA’s request the reporting of either non-exceedance for comment on the need for the rule be reported for all systems. lead values for small systems or non- language to explicitly state that the Commenters were more supportive of exceedance copper values for any size Administrator of EPA would specify the the April 1998 option than they were of system. EPA plans to use the 90th format of reporting. No commenter the 1996 option. Several commenters percentile lead values to show how objected to this revision, however, two continued to have concerns, however. A levels of lead at the tap have changed commenters suggested that EPA adopt a few commenters believe EPA still has over time for large and medium-size consistent format for reporting drinking not provided adequate justification for systems and, by extrapolation, for small water data and adhere to it to minimize this reporting. In particular, several systems. In terms of routine reporting, State burden. EPA agrees that the commenters opposed the requirement to this is the only measure that the Agency reporting format for the LCR should be report the ‘‘done’’ milestone for every has for showing the Rule’s effectiveness. consistent with other drinking water system and suggested that it be required The goal of the LCR is to get lead levels data reporting and will publish specific only for those systems that continue to at the tap to as close to zero as possible. formatting instructions as a part of exceed an action level after optimizing Without any 90th percentile lead data implementation guidance. CCT. One commenter questioned below the action level, EPA would have c. Today’s action. After considering whether a system would ever really be no way to measure progress toward the the public comments received, EPA has done, since new requirements and/or goal. revised § 142.15(c)(4) along the lines of other changes at the system could Several commenters who supported the regulatory option discussed in the necessitate adjustments in CCT or the revisions to the reporting April 1998 Notice. Specifically, the trigger a system [back] into lead service requirements noted that States would Agency has made the following line replacement requirements at some need a long lead time to implement the revisions. changes. One commenter, for example, • EPA has made two substantive 15 Under the 1991 requirements, States only mentioned that his State was in the changes to the introductory text of report a milestone if it is appropriate to a water § 142.15(c)(4). (1) EPA has changed the system. Thus, for example, there is no requirement 16 Systems may cease lead service line schedule of reporting from ‘‘May 15, to report the CCT installed milestone for a small/ replacement before they have replaced all the lead August 15, November 15, and February medium-size system that is deemed to be optimized service lines they own if the 90th percentile lead after demonstrating for two consecutive six-month levels from routine tap water monitoring do not 15 of each year’’ to ‘‘quarterly.’’ monitoring periods that it does not exceed either exceed 0.015 mg/L for two consecutive monitoring Although the Agency has no plans to the lead or the copper action level. periods. change the actual due dates at the

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations current time, this revision provides has been eliminated. In their place, water lead and copper samples in flexibility to make such a change today’s action requires the reporting of months other than June, July, August, through guidance, rather than requiring the following three milestones. and/or September. another rulemaking, should it be —A ‘‘deemed’’ milestone to be reported E. Burden Reduction Suggestions Not appropriate to alter the schedule in the for each public water system for Adopted future. (2) The Rule now states that the which the State has designated Administrator [of EPA] will prescribe optimal water quality control In the preamble to the April 1996 the format of reporting. As discussed parameters under § 141.82(f), or Proposal, EPA requested public above, this will be done through which the State has deemed to have comment on seven burden reduction implementation guidance. optimized corrosion control under suggestions that the Agency had • Sections 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3), and the date received in the Summer of 1995 but which EPA had not evaluated have been redesignated as and basis of the determination. This thoroughly. EPA did not propose §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G), milestone is to be reported for all specific provisions in the April 1996 respectively. Introductory text has been systems, pursuant to Proposal, but indicated that the added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to indicate that § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). The Agency will comments might be considered for the requirements in that paragraph are provide instructions on how to report further rulemaking after they had been effective through May 14, 2000. different scenarios (e.g., the system • fully evaluated. The Agency invited A new paragraph had been added at adjusted existing treatment rather comments to provide suggestions as to § 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to indicate that States than installing new CCT) in the how these suggestions might be have the option to report in accordance implementation guidance. implemented. with the requirements in either —Each public water system required to § 142.15(c)(4)(i) or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii) After considering the comments begin replacing lead service lines as received and other factors, EPA has during the time period of May 15, 2000 specified in § 141.84 and the date the through January 14, 2002. decided to adopt two of the system is to begin replacement, suggestions—flexibility for States to • A new set of reporting pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(E). requirements, described below, has been eliminate system reporting/calculation —A ‘‘done’’ milestone to be reported for of 90th percentile levels and elimination added at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). State must each public water system that has begin complying with these of the public service announcement task completed all of the following under public education for small requirements on January 14, 2002. requirements, as appropriate: Under these revised reporting systems. These revisions are included in Optimization of corrosion control; any today’s action and discussed in sections requirements, States no longer are applicable source water treatment required to submit the system name, as C.9.c. and C.4.b.(i), respectively of this requirements under § 141.83; and any preamble. The Agency has no plans to well as the system identification applicable lead service line number. EPA deleted the requirement implement the other five suggestions. A replacement requirements under summary of the comments received on for the system name as a part of LCR § 141.84. States also are required to reporting since this information already these suggestions and EPA’s rationale report the date of the State’s for not adopting them follows. is contained in EPA’s information determination that these requirements system through inventory data have been completed. This milestone 1. Reduced Frequency of Water Quality submitted under § 142.15(b). is to be reported for all systems, Parameter Monitoring at Entry Points for The other revised State reporting pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(F). Systems Subject to Water Quality requirements are as follows. Parameter Monitoring Requirements • 3. Special primacy considerations. As The requirement to report lead and discussed in C of this preamble, today’s a. Burden reduction suggestion and copper action level exceedances action contains several changes to the background. The regulations require all (§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A), as redesignated, of language of § 142.16(d). These changes large water systems (except (b)(3) the 1991 Rule) has been eliminated. In are summarized below: systems), and many small and medium- its place, today’s action requires the • EPA has added provisions at size water systems that install OCCT to reporting of 90th percentile values and § 142.16(d)(1) for States to use an collect one sample at each entry point the first and last date of the monitoring alternative method of aggregating to the distribution system, at least every period for which the 90th percentile multiple measurements taken during a two weeks (biweekly), for pH, and, if value was calculated as follows: single day for a water quality parameter alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor is —All 90th percentile lead values, at a sample location. States need not adjusted as part of OCCT, a reading of regardless of whether the lead action submit anything under this paragraph if the dosage rate of the chemical used to level is exceeded, for all large and they elect to use the formula for adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used, medium-size systems, pursuant to aggregating these results specified in and the alkalinity concentration or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(A); § 141.82(g). concentration of orthophosphate or —90th percentile lead values for each • Section 142.16(d)(3) has been silica (whichever is applicable). In the small system for each monitoring revised to eliminate the requirement for April 1996 Proposal, EPA asked for period in which the system exceeds States to specify in their primacy comment on whether the frequency of the lead action level, pursuant to applications how they plan to verify this monitoring should be reduced from § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B); and PWS demonstrations of limited control biweekly to monthly. —90th percentile copper values for each over lead service lines. b. Comments and analysis. EPA system for each monitoring period in • A new § 142.16(d)(4) has been received a number of comments on this which the system exceeds the copper added to require States to specify in issue. Over half the commenters favored action level, pursuant to their primacy applications how they revising the rule to allow less frequent § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(C). plan to determine periods when lead monitoring, at least for ground water • The reporting of interim treatment levels are likely to be the highest for systems not under the influence of milestones (§§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(B) through community water systems subject to surface water. These commenters (G), as redesignated, of the 1991 Rule) reduced monitoring that collect tap expressed the opinion that monthly, or

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1993 even quarterly, entry point WQP WQP monitoring, the system will be explained that almost all of the water monitoring should provide sufficient deemed to be in compliance with the used at their facility is for industrial information for systems and States to OWQPs so long as it has excursions processes, but is conveyed in the same ensure maintenance of optimal from the State-specified values/limits on piping as water used for non-potable corrosion control. Several commenters no more than 9 days in a six-month purposes. Bottled water is used for noted that biweekly monitoring period. drinking, but the piped water is still represents a major burden for many A few commenters raised related used for hand-washing and the flushing ground water systems, especially those issues. One commenter, for example, of toilets. The commenter notes that it which tend to have relatively stable suggested that the frequency of WQP is not ingested and should therefore water chemistry and many entry points. monitoring be reduced to quarterly both pose no health risk from lead or copper. One commenter suggested that EPA at entry points and within the Another system commented that bottled should give States the discretion to distribution system. This commenter water is already provided to employees determine monitoring frequency on a also noted that it was important that for aesthetic purposes. The commenters case-by-case basis. States be able to adjust monitoring felt that in these cases, the entire The remaining commenters urged the frequencies to address seasonal volumes of water would need to be Agency to retain the current variability. EPA does not believe that treated at considerable cost, with no requirement for biweekly monitoring; a further rule changes are required to additional health protection, and the few suggested that systems be required address these concerns. The Agency systems would still be paying for bottled to collect samples daily to ensure proper notes that nothing in the regulations water. operational control. Several of the precludes a water system from After considering all comments commenters who opposed reducing the collecting routine distribution system received, EPA has concluded that, in frequency of monitoring thought that it WQP samples on a quarterly basis. general, for the purposes of this would be appropriate to reduce the Likewise, nothing in the rule prevents a nationally-applicable rulemaking, the frequency of reporting the monitoring State from setting seasonal ranges, if use of flushing and/or bottled water for results to the State, however, and appropriate, to reflect seasonal NTNCWSs may not be as protective of suggested that the reporting frequency differences that might affect water human health, may not provide any be reduced to monthly or quarterly. quality. significant relief to systems, and could EPA disagrees with those commenters be a burden increase on States. who believe that monthly, or quarterly, 2. Use of Flushing/Bottled Water at EPA believes that in order for a WQP monitoring at entry points will NTNCWSs in Lieu of Corrosion Control flushing and/or bottled water program provide sufficient information to ensure Treatment to be effective, and as protective of the maintenance of optimal corrosion a. Burden reduction suggestion and human health as the installation of CCT, control at most systems. The Agency background. EPA requested comments the following criteria would have to be believes there are a number of variables, on whether to allow NTNCWSs to use met, at a minimum. A water system such as pH and inhibitor concentration flushing and/or bottled water in lieu of using bottled water would need to that may affect levels of lead and copper installing CCT to ease the burden of ensure that the bottled water meets the at the tap within a matter of days. installing and operating CCT at these Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Frequent monitoring is required so that systems. lead and copper standards (either via a appropriate measures can be taken to b. Comments and analysis. In general, State-approved monitoring program or adjust for these variables in a timely commenters supported the use of via certification from the bottled water manner. EPA therefore is retaining the flushing and/or bottled water, with purveyor on an annual basis) and that requirement for biweekly monitoring for some commenters suggesting certain only the bottled water will be used for WQPs at entry points to the distribution restrictions. A few commenters human consumption at all times. A system and encourages water systems to suggested allowing flushing and/or system relying on flushing would need conduct even more frequent monitoring bottled water for small CWSs as well. to utilize an automatic flushing device for process control purposes. EPA has Commenters expressed many reasons that flushes all faucets used for revised the language at § 141.87(c)(2) for supporting the use of flushing and/ consumptive purposes at a State- regarding the frequency of WQP or bottled water in lieu of CCT. The approved frequency identified through a monitoring at the entry points to allow main reasons for favoring flushing and/ State-approved monitoring program. States the flexibility to require more or bottled water were the cost of The flushing and/or bottled water frequent entry point monitoring. The installing CCT, the lack of trained program would need to include new language states that systems must personnel to operate and maintain the additional monitoring and reporting, conduct entry point monitoring for treatment system, and lack of facilities well beyond what is presently included WQPs ‘‘no less frequently than every to house treatment apparatus. Some in the LCR, and would also require more two weeks (biweekly).’’ commenters believe that flushing and/or State oversight. States would be EPA is sensitive to the burden bottled water is a more affordable, required to review and approve system biweekly entry point monitoring may practical solution, and may be more proposals, and review periodic pose for some systems and is making a protective of public health since it submittals by the system to determine change to help alleviate this burden. As eliminates the addition of chemicals compliance with the flushing and/or discussed in section C.6.b., EPA is into the water supply by untrained bottled water program. Systems would revising the LCR, as proposed, to allow personnel. Commenters suggested that have to prepare and submit proposals to some ground water systems to collect automatic flushing devices are readily the States, perform plumbing WQP samples at representative points available and inexpensive, and one inspections and in most cases, install instead of requiring samples to be commenter suggested that public automatic flushing devices or make collected at every entry point. education could be part of regular other plumbing modifications, which As discussed in section C.2.b., today’s mandatory safety meetings. could be costly. In addition, the State action also revises the definition of what Other commenters favored the use of would need to include provisions for constitutes compliance with State- flushing and/or bottled water for inspection of the automatic flushing designated OWQPs. For entry point operational reasons. One commenter devices to ensure proper operation.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Additional tap monitoring would need reporting requirements imposed on and copper to assess the effectiveness of to be conducted by the systems before these water systems by § 141.90(c)(3) are corrosion control. The Agency noted and after flushing, to determine how that the systems must report the that it did not have data to develop quickly lead and/or copper levels rise information required by § 141.82(c). alternative sampling methods that after flushing, and to determine an This means that a water system must would provide information with as appropriate flushing frequency. Systems report on its evaluation of each of the much certainty as direct sampling at utilizing flushing could waste a three treatment categories specified and taps. EPA invited the public to submit significant amount of water on a daily then make a recommendation to the suggestions, and especially technical basis which adds to cost and may be State regarding which treatment it data, that could be used in developing counter to conservation measures thinks will provide optimal corrosion reliable monitoring methods that do not needed during periods when the water control for that system. In the April involve household tap water sampling, supply is low. These additional 1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment that could be used to measure and monitoring, reporting and program on a burden reduction suggestion to predict actual and/or relative exposures activities could increase the cost and eliminate the requirement that the of the public to lead and copper, and burden on States and systems, which is system report on those treatment that could measure compliance with, the opposite of what States and systems technologies which it does not identify and the efficacy of, CCT requirements. desire and EPA intended. as providing OCCT. The effect of such b. Comments and analysis. Many EPA recognizes that there are some a change would mean that a system States, water utilities, municipalities, systems that may already be providing would only need to provide the and water industry associations bottled water for aesthetic or other justification for its recommended provided comments on this issue in reasons, and the only piped water in use treatment to the State. 1996; several of these reiterated their is utilized for washing hands and b. Comments and analysis. EPA comments on the need for an alternative flushing toilets. These systems feel that received comments on both sides of this to tap lead/copper monitoring in the installation of CCT provides no issue. States overwhelmingly opposed response to the April 1998 Notice. Most added health protection from lead and the suggestion, pointing out that it commenters favor an alternative to copper. EPA also recognizes that there would greatly increase the burden on residential sampling. Commenters cited are systems which have unique them in designating OCCT and in major problems with the current circumstances which make compliance dealing with problems that might arise monitoring requirements such as lack of with some requirements seem later with some systems’ corrosion control over sample collection, unnecessary or very difficult. This is control. EPA agrees and believes that accessibility problems, insufficient sites, especially the case for small systems. In those supporting the suggestion and disagreement with the the SDWA Amendments of 1996, EPA generally overlooked the requirement appropriateness of triggering CCT was directed to develop alternative that CCT be optimal treatment, not just requirements based on residential compliance technologies to help any treatment that might reduce monitoring. Although EPA agrees that systems comply with the drinking water corrosion in the distribution system. many of the problems cited are valid regulations. EPA has published a list of The State is responsible for issues for some systems, the Agency has compliance technologies for certain designating OCCT for the system. In not been able to identify an acceptable system sizes that allows the use of order to determine what is optimal for alternative to tap water monitoring. point-of-use devices for compliance a given water system, the State needs While many commenters suggested with the LCR (63 FR 42032, August 6, the complete picture in the form of all conceptual alternative approaches to 1998). EPA feels that these changes will the information developed by the water assess the effectiveness of corrosion offer systems a wider range of system in the course of its evaluation of control in lieu of residential lead and compliance options, and should the three treatment categories. The copper tap water monitoring, none eliminate the problems that systems suggestion, if implemented, would not provided specific technical data that have expressed regarding the relieve the water system of the effort to would assist the Agency to develop installation of CCT. EPA also notes that evaluate the alternative treatments. It acceptable alternative(s) to residential there are numerous burden reduction would only have relieved the system of sampling. Some commenters, for features already incorporated in this the need to provide the results of that example, felt that when pipe rigs, pipe rule. For the reasons stated, EPA has evaluation to the State. The burden on loops, or corrosion test coupons were decided not to incorporate the use of water systems to report the results of used, many of these ‘‘surrogate’’ systems flushing and/or bottled water as an their evaluations to the State is more could be set up and operated in option for NTNCWSs under the LCR. than offset by the States’ need to make locations where there would be easy informed decisions regarding OCCT for and controllable access to utility 3. Requirement for Water Systems to those systems. Having all the personnel. Other commenters suggested Justify Corrosion Control Methods Not information from a water system up that pipe loops placed in easily- Recommended front allows the State to make the right accessible and controllable public a. Burden reduction suggestion and decision the first time (which is actually buildings or other structures could be background. The LCR requires the State a form of burden reduction) and ensures directly substituted for the residential to designate OCCT for each system that better public health protection. sampling sites. None of these reaches the applicable step as outlined Therefore, EPA has decided not to commenters provided any new data or in §§ 141.81(d) and (e). Prior to this implement the suggestion. proposals on exactly how the designation, most large systems must alternatives would be employed, and perform corrosion control studies, and 4. Use of Alternatives to Tap Samples to how the standards for performance of small and medium systems exceeding Assess Corrosion Control Effectiveness such systems would be developed and the lead or copper action level must a. Burden reduction suggestion and implemented to determine OCCT. perform corrosion control studies if the background. In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA’s basic rationale for tap State specifically requires them to do so. EPA requested comment on a burden monitoring is simply that no surrogate The studies must fulfill the reduction suggestion to allow technique has been identified that can requirements in § 141.82(c). The alternatives to tap water testing for lead allow extrapolation to tap results with

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1995 either accuracy, precision, or both. The used. In addition, EPA believes such an explained in the April 1998 Notice, the Agency agrees that pipe loops, corrosion approach could result in an overall Agency needs to have available in the coupons, electrochemical rate burden increase, especially for those national data base sufficient up-to-date measurements, and other kinds of test small and medium-size systems that information to provide a degree of systems may be useful for many utilities currently are not required to perform oversight and to answer some basic to screen CCT strategies. In some studies this type of process control monitoring questions. The Agency therefore for individual water systems, tap water and for the States who would need to believes it is appropriate for States to concentrations were also predicted designate OWQPs and determine report quarterly information for those reasonably well, especially for copper. compliance for these systems. water systems that have achieved one or Establishing a regulatory standard based Such changes are outside the scope of more of the three milestones. on corrosion rate or loop testing, the current rulemaking. While EPA has however, would introduce additional no immediate plans to pursue this F. Simultaneous Compliance Comments complexity to the regulations. The alternative, the Agency may choose to 1. Request for comments and concentrations or values obtained from evaluate it at some point in the future background. The April 1998 Notice these surrogate systems cannot be if new data become available that referenced comments that had been precisely and accurately related to the suggest that a reliable and cost-effective received on the Notice of Data lead and copper levels at the tap since approach could be developed and Availability pertaining to the proposed tap water levels also may be affected implemented effectively through a rule for Disinfection/Disinfection By- significantly by building-specific national regulation. Products (DDBP) (62 FR 59388, factors. 5. Reduced Frequency for State November 3, 1997). Commenters to the After carefully evaluating information Reporting of 90th Percentile and DDBP Notice had suggested that from many sources, EPA believes that Milestone Data compliance with the proposed the published research data at this point enhanced coagulation requirements indicate that predicting tap water 90th a. Burden reduction suggestion and could have an adverse effect on a water percentile levels using surrogate background. In addition to reporting system’s ability to maintain compliance systems (as described above) would be violations and follow-up enforcement with State-designated optimal water inherently imprecise on a national basis, actions to EPA quarterly, States are quality parameters under the LCR. In required to report exceedances of lead and implementation of such an light of these concerns, in the April and copper action levels and other LCR approach would be an expensive and 1998 Notice, EPA requested further implementation milestones quarterly. impractical regulatory burden imposed public comment on the following issues: Through guidance, the Agency also has on States, who would have to oversee • How lowering pH and alkalinity requested that 90th percentile values for the establishment and justification of during enhanced coagulation may cause surrogate systems on virtually a utility- lead be reported for all large and medium-size systems. In the April 1996 LCR compliance problems, given that by-utility basis. Additionally, EPA both pH and alkalinity levels can be believes that the frequency and extent of Proposal, EPA requested comment on a burden reduction suggestion to reduce adjusted to meet OWQPs prior to entry sampling and analyses required to use to the distribution system. the surrogate systems would not the frequency of reporting 90th • Whether decreasing the pH and substantively reduce monitoring burden percentile data (including action level alkalinity during enhanced coagulation but would introduce greater uncertainty exceedances where appropriate) and and then increasing them prior to about the extent to which systems were LCR implementation milestone data to distribution system entry may increase reducing the lead and copper levels at once or twice a year. exceedances of lead and copper action consumers’ taps. b. Comments and analysis. The Agency received mixed comments on levels. Several commenters, including some • of the trade organizations and States, this suggestion. While some What issues should be addressed in suggested a different approach which commenters supported it, a number of guidance that EPA is developing to EPA considers to be more promising States noted that it does not matter what mitigate concerns about simultaneous because it should be easier to the frequency of reporting is—quarterly compliance with enhanced coagulation implement and should still provide or less frequent—as long as they could and LCR requirements. • sufficient public health protection. continue to submit their data to EPA Whether additional regulatory Although expressed slightly differently quarterly. Finally, one State wanted to provisions are necessary to address the in each comment, the common theme is retain the current requirement. simultaneous compliance issues that once the physical and chemical After considering the comments pertaining to enhanced coagulation and nature of a distribution system is well- received and the changes to the State LCR requirements, or whether guidance characterized through the current reporting requirements discussed in would be sufficient to mitigate potential monitoring requirements, reliance could section D.2. of this preamble, EPA has compliance problems. be placed on the continued maintenance decided to retain the requirement to 2. Comments and analysis. Although of the optimized CCT. report 90th percentile and milestone a few commenters indicated that they EPA believes that this might represent data quarterly. In the Drinking Water did not anticipate simultaneous a scientifically-valid and feasible Program, EPA reviews violations compliance problems, several others approach. However, to make this a quarterly to ensure that timely and expressed concern about the ability of viable regulatory option, additional appropriate follow-up action is water systems to simultaneously comply research and several rule changes would occurring. The Agency considers a with the enhanced coagulation be needed. For example, such an water system’s most recently reported requirements of the DDBP rule and the approach would require additional 90th percentile lead value in assessing LCR. Commenters also were mixed as to WQP monitoring both at the treatment the severity of many LCR violations. whether the issue of simultaneous plant and within the distribution Moreover, as discussed in section D.2., compliance could be addressed system. It might also be necessary to EPA has eliminated the reporting adequately in guidance or whether make changes in the site targeting for requirements for all but three additional regulatory language was copper and in the analytical methods implementation milestones. As needed.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1996 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Several commenters recommended different WQPs may need to be set to arising from the need to simultaneously that EPA establish a hierarchy of define optimal corrosion control comply with other drinking water regulatory concerns. EPA does not depending upon the type of treatment regulations. The Agency, therefore, does believe that a hierarchy of regulatory change. For example, a lower pH and not plan to further revise the LCR to concerns needs to be developed to deal the addition of inhibitors may be the address these issues. The Agency has with simultaneous compliance issues. solution to resolving the conflict developed guidance that addresses the EPA believes that the LCR is flexible between pH and disinfection by-product issue of simultaneous compliance with enough that systems can comply with formation. Systems may change their enhanced coagulation and LCR other rules that have conflicting corrosion control approach from a high requirements (EPA, 1999c). treatment objectives without violating pH passivation to an inhibitor the LCR. passivation process. A new set of G. Administrative Requirements EPA also received comments about optimal corrosion control parameters 1. Executive Order 12866 providing flexibility to deal with would need to be established by the Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR regulatory conflicts related to different State under this scenario. The system 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must treatment objectives. The structure of would then need to meet those OWQPs. the LCR provides flexibility to deal with EPA received several comments that a determine whether the regulatory action the issue of simultaneous compliance comprehensive corrosion/corrosion by- is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to with multiple rules. Section 141.2 product regulation should be developed Office of Management and Budget defines optimal corrosion control that addresses other substances that (OMB) review and the requirements of treatment, for purposes of complying come into contact with drinking water the Executive Order. The Order defines with the LCR, as ‘‘the corrosion control that could have a corrosive and/or ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: treatment that minimizes the lead and dissolving effect. EPA agrees that • copper concentration at users’ taps control of corrosion of various materials Have an annual effect on the while insuring that the treatment does not directly related to health effects can economy of $100 million or more, or not cause the water system to violate be a concern of water suppliers. EPA adversely affect in a material way the any national primary drinking water believes that the corrosion control economy, a sector of the economy, regulations.’’ Section 141.82(c)(5) states treatment considerations discussed productivity, competition, jobs, the that ‘‘The water system shall evaluate above provide sufficient flexibility for environment, public health or safety, or the effect of the chemicals used for water systems to address water quality State, local or tribal governments or corrosion control treatment on other aesthetic considerations. EPA is also communities; • water quality treatment processes.’’ very conscious of the regulatory burden Create a serious inconsistency or Section 141.82(d)(1) states that ‘‘When imposed by the current SDWA otherwise interfere with an action taken designating optimal treatment the State regulations, and believes that or planned by another agency; • shall consider the effects that additional promulgating corrosion-related Materially alter the budgetary corrosion control treatment will have on regulations to require utilities to meet impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, water quality parameters and on other aesthetic performance standards is not or loan programs or the right and water quality treatment processes.’’ warranted. EPA does not have exposure obligations of the recipients thereof; or • Treatment changes to comply with or health effects data that show that the Raise novel legal or policy issues another rule can affect the performance other corrosion by-products merit a arising out of legal mandates, the of corrosion control processes. NPDWR. Thus, EPA does not believe President’s priorities, or the principles As discussed previously, today’s that the scope of the corrosion control set forth in the Executive Order. action adds provisions to the LCR regulations should be expanded beyond Pursuant to the terms of Executive requiring systems monitoring for lead lead, copper and asbestos. Asbestos was Order 12866, it has been determined and copper at the tap annually or less included in the Phase II rulemaking (56 that this rule is not a ‘‘significant frequently to notify the State when FR 3526, Jan. 30, 1991). regulatory action’’ and is therefore not treatment changes occur. EPA added EPA also received comments related subject to OMB review. this requirement because of concerns to the cost of simultaneous compliance. 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as that changes in treatment may impact EPA recognizes that water chemistry Amended by the Small Business CCT. While the LCR does not require changes might result from either Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of that this notification occur before the optimization of corrosion control or 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq. treatment change is implemented coagulation (or other treatment (unless required by the State or other processes). In order to meet all finished The RFA generally requires an agency Federal drinking water regulations), the water quality objectives, systems may to prepare a regulatory flexibility Agency encourages water systems to need to modify an existing process or analysis for any rule subject to notice consult with the State before install additional process equipment. and comment rulemaking requirements implementing a treatment change so as EPA considers these to be necessary under the Administrative Procedure Act to minimize the risk that the treatment changes and costs to achieve the best or any other statute unless the agency change will have unanticipated adverse overall treatment and risk reduction. certifies that the rule will not have a impacts on corrosion control. The State EPA does not consider the cost of significant economic impact on a can require additional monitoring or the chemical feed equipment to be substantial number of small entities. State can require the system to re- significant, especially when compared Small entities include small businesses, evaluate its CCT given the potentially to other types of drinking water small organizations, and small different water quality considerations. treatment technology. government jurisdictions. One option may be to readjust the water 3. Today’s action. After considering The RFA provides default definitions quality to produce a finished water that the comments received, EPA has for each type of small entity. It also meets the existing OWQPs. For concluded that the LCR, as modified by authorizes an agency to use alternative example, pH and alkalinity can be the revisions previously discussed in definitions for each category of small raised to counter the effect of enhanced today’s action, provides water systems entity, ‘‘which are appropriate to the coagulation. Another option is that sufficient flexibility to address issues activities of the agency’’ after proposing

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1997 the alternative definition(s) in the differing compliance or reporting help evaluate whether changes in Federal Register and taking comment. 5 requirements for smaller systems that national policy or regulations are U.S.C secs. 601 (3)–(5). In addition to take into account the resources available necessary to protect public health. the above, to establish an alternative to smaller water systems. In addition, Reporting of all other LCR-related small business definition, agencies must the final regulation clarifies and milestones has been eliminated. consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for simplifies the current compliance and The information collection in this rule advocacy. reporting requirements and eliminates is mandatory and is authorized under For purposes of assessing the impacts unnecessary or redundant requirements. the Safe Drinking Water Act. The of today’s rule on small entities, EPA The Agency has incorporated provisions information collected is not confidential considered small entities to be those into the rule that specifically benefit and is considered public information. public water systems serving 10,000 or many small entities. These include Many of the additional recordkeeping fewer customers. Public water systems monitoring waiver provisions where the and reporting requirements in this rule include both publicly and privately risk of high levels of lead or copper at are offset by other provisions of the rule owned water systems. In accordance the tap are low and greater flexibility in that will reduce monitoring burden and with the RFA requirements, EPA the delivery of required public eliminate some system and State proposed using this alternative education materials. In addition, other reporting requirements. definition for governmental provisions, while not specifically EPA is required to estimate the jurisdictions, small businesses and targeted for small entities, should burden on water systems and States for small not-for-profit enterprises in the further reduce burden for many small complying with the final rule. Burden Federal Register (63 FR 7620–7621, entities. These provisions include means the total time, effort, or financial February 13, 1998), requested public accelerated reduced monitoring, sample resources expended by persons to comment, consulted with small invalidation, elimination of sample site generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or Business administration (SBA) on the justifications and sample collection provide information to or for a Federal alternative definition as it relates to certifications, and flexibility for the agency. This includes the time needed small businesses, and finalized the State to calculate 90th percentile levels to review instructions; develop, acquire, alternative definition in the final for the system. install, and utilize technology and Consumer Confidence Report regulation systems for the purpose of collecting, (63 FR 44512, Aug 19, 1998). As stated 3. Paperwork Reduction Act validating, and verifying information, in that Final Rule, the alternative The Office of Management and Budget processing and maintaining definition would be applied to all future (OMB) has approved the information information, and disclosing and drinking water regulations. collection requirements contained in providing information; adjust the After considering the economic this rule under the provisions of the existing ways to comply with any impacts of today’s final rule on small Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. previously applicable instructions and entities, I certify that this action will not 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB requirements; train personnel to be able have significant economic impact on a control number 2040–0210. to respond to a collection of substantial number of small entities. This rule changes recordkeeping and information; search data sources; The Lead and Copper Rule affects each reporting requirements for some water complete and review the collection of water system in the the defined universe systems and the States in the following information; and transmit or otherwise of small entities (drinking water systems categories: lead and copper tap water disclose the information. serving 10,000 or fewer customers) in a monitoring; WQP monitoring; changes For the first three years of different way. For many small entities, in treatment and addition of a new implementation of this rule, EPA the rule will result in a reduced source; and LSL replacement. This rule estimates that the annual burden on economic impact. It will have a positive also requires more frequent reporting of systems for reporting and recordkeeping effect on the revenues of all systems but the completion of public education will be 225,419 hours. This is based on the very smallest systems—those tasks for CWSs serving more than 3,300. an estimate that there are 75,945 serving fewer then 500 customers. Even This information collection is necessary respondents per year who will each, on for these systems, however, the to evaluate system-specific needs, average, need to provide 58,813 economic impact will not exceed one including determining compliance, responses and that the average time per percent of their revenues during the first examining treatment effectiveness; response will be 3.8 hours. The total three years; beyond the first three years adjusting monitoring frequencies and annual cost burden for systems is these systems also will experience schedules to address possible public estimated to be $3,380,500. This burden and cost savings. In these health concerns; and determining includes total annual labor costs of circumstances, EPA has concluded that whether the public is receiving timely $3,349,000 and non-labor costs of the Rule will not have a significant notification of possible health risks $31,500 for the purchase of laboratory impact on a substantial number of small associated with high levels of lead at the supplies, pre-printed public education entities. EPA estimates of the impacts of tap. materials, and postage. EPA also this rule on small entities are contained In addition, this rule includes estimates that the annual burden on in Chapter 5 of the Information requirements for States to report to EPA States for reporting and recordkeeping Collection Request (EPA, 1999a). 90th percentile lead and copper values will be 69,296 hours. The total annual Although this final rule will not have for specified water systems; all systems average cost for States is estimated to be a significant economic impact on a that have optimized, or are deemed to $2,655,900. This is based on an estimate substantial number of small entities, have optimized CCT, and the basis of that each of 56 State respondents will, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the that optimization determination; all on average, need to provide 77,523 impact of this rule on small entities. systems that are triggered into LSL responses and that the average response Today’s rule amends EPA’s 1991 Lead replacement; and all systems that have will take 0.9 hours. This includes total and Copper Rule to reduce the burden completed the applicable CCT, source annual labor costs of $1,755,900 and on PWSs, especially smaller systems. water treatment, and LSL replacement non-labor costs of $900,000 for These revisions make a number of requirements. This information will be contractor support for the modification changes including the establishment of used to develop national trends and to of State data systems.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 1998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This action also contains a number of offset much of the burden and cost effect on burden and cost for the first provisions intended to reduce burden associated with today’s action. Table 5 three years of implementation. and costs associated with implementing shows the estimated average annual the 1991 requirements. These savings burden and cost savings and the net

TABLE 5.ÐNET EFFECT OF LCRMR ON AVERAGE ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN AND COST

New/revised requirements Reductions Net impact of LCRMR Number of respondents Burden Total cost Burden Total cost Burden Total cost hours ($M) hours ($M) hours ($M)

Systems ...... 75,945 225,419 3,380.5 ¥262,192 ¥6,204.4 ¥36,773 ¥2,823.9 States ...... 56 69,296 2,655.9 ¥19,241 ¥487.5 50,055 2,168.4

After the first three years, systems and Administrator publishes with the final and local officials in the development of States are expected to complete such rule an explanation why that alternative regulatory policies that have federalism activities as training, reading the was not adopted. Before EPA establishes implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have regulations, and regulatory adoption. any regulatory requirements that may federalism implications’’ is defined in EPA estimates that the average annual significantly or uniquely affect small the Executive Order to include burden and cost associated with today’s governments, including tribal regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct action will decrease significantly at that governments, it must have developed effects on the States, on the relationship time. under section 203 of the UMRA a small between the national government and An Agency may not conduct or government agency plan. The plan must the States, or on the distribution of sponsor, and a person is not required to provide for notifying potentially power and responsibilities among the respond to a collection of information affected small governments, enabling various levels of government.’’ unless it displays a currently valid OMB officials of affected small governments Under Section 6 of Executive Order control number. The OMB control to have meaningful and timely input in 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed the development of EPA regulatory that has federalism implications, that in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter proposals with significant Federal imposes substantial direct compliance 15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR intergovernmental mandates and costs, and that is not required by statute, Part 9 of currently approved ICR control informing, educating and advising small unless the Federal government provides numbers issued by OMB for various governments on compliance with the the funds necessary to pay the direct regulations to list the information regulatory requirements. compliance costs incurred by State and requirements contained in this final EPA has determined that this rule local governments, or EPA consults with rule. does not contain a Federal mandate that State and local officials early in the may result in expenditures of $100 process of developing the proposed 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act million or more for State, local, and regulation. EPA also may not issue a tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Title II of the Unfunded Mandates regulation that has federalism the private sector, in any one year. The Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public implications and that preempts State overall effect of this rule is estimated to Law 104–4, establishes requirements for law unless the Agency consults with decrease overall expenditures to public Federal agencies to assess the effects of State and local officials early in the water systems (which include State, their regulatory actions on State, local, process of developing the proposed local, and tribal governments as well as and tribal governments and the private regulation. the private sector) to comply with the This final rule does not have sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, NPDWRs for lead and copper. Thus, EPA generally must prepare a written today’s rule is not subject to the federalism implications. It will not have statement, including a cost-benefit requirements of sections 202 and 205 of substantial direct effects on the States, analysis, for proposed and final rules the UMRA. on the relationship between the national with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may This rule will establish requirements government and the states, or on the result in expenditures to State, local, that affect small water systems. EPA has distribution of power and and tribal governments, in the aggregate, determined that this rule contains no responsibilities among the various or to the private sector, of $100 million regulatory requirements that might levels of government, as specified in or more in any one year. Before significantly or uniquely affect small Executive Order 13132, because the rule promulgating an EPA rule for which a governments because the regulation is consistent with, and only makes written statement is needed, section 205 requires minimal expenditure of minor changes to, the requirements of the UMRA generally requires EPA to resources and applies to all owners/ under the current national primary identify and consider a reasonable operators of public water systems, and drinking water regulations for lead and number of regulatory alternatives and not uniquely to those owners/operators copper. The existing rule imposes adopt the least costly, most cost- that are small entities. Thus, this rule is requirements on public water systems to effective, or least burdensome not subject to the requirements of ensure that water delivered to users is alternative that achieves the objectives section 203 of UMRA. minimally corrosive, to treat source of the rule. The provisions of section water, remove lead service lines and 205 do not apply when they are 5. Executive Order 13132 deliver public education where inconsistent with applicable law. Executive Order 13132, entitled necessary to ensure public health Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, protection. Today’s rule does not make adopt an alternative other than the least 1999), requires EPA to develop an any significant changes to these costly, most cost-effective or least accountable process to ensure treatment requirements but, as burdensome alternative if the ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State explained elsewhere in today’s notice,

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1999 makes minor adjustments to the rule’s changes in State reporting requirements, revised the way in which compliance requirements to enhance the efficiency EPA worked with States through the with OWQPs is determined and and effectiveness of current Office of Ground Water and Drinking substantially revised State reporting requirements. In general, these changes Water’s Data Sharing Committee (DSC) requirements primarily as a result of should result in slight burden to substantially revise these these comments. Another concern reductions for public water systems requirements. Several States and the raised by these commenters, the (some of which are owned and operated Association of State Drinking Water continuing requirement to collect tap by local governmental entities). States Administrators (ASDWA) participated water lead and copper samples, is not may, if they choose, maintain primary actively in this effort. The DSC revised by today’s rule because the goal enforcement authority for this rule by recommended the elimination of most of the rule is to reduce the levels of lead adopting the revisions that are more of the milestones required by the 1991 and copper at the tap to as close to the stringent than the existing rule (see Rule, modifications to remaining MCLGs as possible and the Agency does Table 2 in the section, ‘‘Primacy State milestones including the reporting of not know of any alternatives that will Program Revisions,’’ in the beginning of 90th percentile data, and the addition of predict tap water lead and copper levels the preamble). EPA projects that States two new milestones that the DSC with accuracy, precision, or both.19 choosing to maintain primacy for this believes will provide more meaningful Although the burden reductions are not rule may incur a slight increase in data regarding the implementation as extensive as some State and local administrative costs due to the adoption status of the LCR (EPA, 1997c). The governments would like, EPA believes of these revisions, additional training, DSC’s recommendations have been that today’s rule is necessary to effect as and the modifications to the State incorporated into today’s rule.17 many burden reductions as possible, reporting requirements. However, the In April 1998 and August 1998, prior without jeopardizing the level of public actual burdens incurred will vary from to publishing additional Notices for health protection, and to address a State to State and, EPA projects that the comment, EPA again provided national, number of implementation issues, increased burden will not be significant local, and tribal organizations with brief including lead service line replacement. (see discussion of State impacts in articles for inclusion in their newsletters section G.3. of this preamble). In announcing upcoming plans to publish 6. Consultation With Indian Tribal addition, these revisions provide States the Notices and encouraging readers to Governments increased flexibility to make system- provide EPA comment on the additional Under Executive Order 13084, EPA specific decisions in some instances regulatory options described in those may not issue a regulation that is not (e.g., sample invalidation [Section notices. In addition, EPA coordinated required by statute, that significantly or C.5.k.], small system waivers [Section closely with several national uniquely affects the communities of C.5.l.], alternative timing of sample organizations and the States to provide Indian tribal governments, and that collection under reduced monitoring copies of the August 18, 1998 Notice imposes substantial direct compliance [Section C.5.g.] and representative directly to those water systems most costs on those communities, unless the locations for entry point water quality likely to be affected by the regulatory Federal Government provides the funds parameter monitoring at ground water option discussed in that notice, necessary to pay the direct compliance systems [Section C.6.b.]). Accordingly, including all water systems serving costs incurred by the tribal this rule will not have a substantial more than 50,000 people and any governments, or EPA consults with direct effect on the States or on smaller-size water system that is likely those governments. If EPA complies by intergovernmental relationships or to continue to exceed an action level consulting, Executive Order 13084 responsibilities. Thus, the requirements after the installation of CCT. EPA also requires EPA to provide the Office of of section 6 of the Executive Order do requested review by a panel of State Management and Budget, in a separately not apply to this rule. Drinking Water Program Directors of the identified section of the preamble to the Although section 6 of Executive Order Agency’s estimated impacts on water rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA systems and States. prior consultation with representatives consulted with State and local In February 1999, EPA requested a of affected tribal governments, a 18 governments to enable them to provide panel of six State Directors to review summary of the nature of their concerns, meaningful and timely input in the the EPA’s revised estimate of Paperwork and a statement supporting the need to development of this rule. Prior to the Reduction Act-related burden and costs issue the regulation. In addition, April 1996 Proposal, EPA initiated a associated with the LCR and the Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to number of activities to gain meaningful LCRMR. EPA incorporated the develop an effective process permitting input from State and local governments. comments received from that review elected officials and other These activities included: Distribution (EPA, 1999d) in the final estimates representatives of Indian tribal of a strawman proposal in August 1993; (EPA, 1999a). governments ‘‘to provide meaningful In general, State and local State involvement in the development and timely input in the development of governments support the provisions of of the April 1996 Proposal; and regulatory policies on matters that today’s rule although many wanted EPA distribution of newsletter articles significantly or uniquely affect their to adopt more burden reduction than is highlighting upcoming Federal Register communities.’’ notices to organizations representing included in today’s action. Many of the Today’s rule does not significantly or these governments. These activities are suggestions made by these commenters uniquely affect the communities of have been incorporated into the final discussed in greater detail in the Indian tribal governments, nor does it rule. In particular, as described in preamble to the April 1996 Proposal (61 impose substantial direct compliance section C.2.b. in this preamble, EPA has FR 16364, middle column, Apr. 12, costs on those communities. The 1996). In addition to continuing these provisions of today’s rule apply to all 17 See Section D.2 of this preamble for a detailed efforts, EPA has conducted the community and non-transient non- following efforts to actively coordinate discussion of the State reporting requirement changes. with these groups. 18 The panel consisted of the Directors of the 19 See Section E.4 of this preamble for a more In 1997, in response to the comments Drinking Water program from Iowa, Michigan, detailed discussion of EPA’s rationale for not received to the April 1996 proposed Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas. adopting an alternative to tap water monitoring.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2000 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations community water systems. Tribal 9. Likely Effect of Compliance With the already are conducting such monitoring governments may be the owners or LCRMR on the Technical, Financial, but, for a few systems, this LCRMR operators of such systems, however, and Managerial Capacity of Public provision represents a new requirement. nothing in today’s provisions uniquely Water Systems The affected systems predominantly affects them. The overall effect of Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as serve more than 50,000 persons and are today’s rule should be to reduce water amended requires that, in promulgating not expected to require significantly system operational costs slightly, a NPDWR, the Administrator shall increased technical, financial, or managerial capacity to comply with depending on system-specific include an analysis of the likely effect these requirements. Certainly some circumstances, with no change in the of compliance with the regulation on individual facilities may have level of public health protection. EPA the technical, financial, and managerial weaknesses in one or more of these therefore concludes that today’s rule capacity of public water systems. The areas but overall these systems with does not significantly or uniquely affect following analysis has been performed minimal corrosion in the distribution the communities of Indian tribal to fulfill this statutory obligation. system should have or be able to easily governments. Accordingly, the Overall water system capacity is obtain the capacity needed for these requirements of section 3(b) of defined in guidance (EPA, 1998a) as the actions. Executive Order 13084 do not apply to ability to plan for, achieve, and • this rule. There are an estimated 762 systems, maintain compliance with applicable 592 of which serve 3,300 or fewer 7. Risk to Children Analysis drinking water standards. Capacity has persons, subject to the LCR’s lead three components: technical, service line replacement requirements. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of managerial, and financial. The LCRMR do not alter these basic Children from Environmental Health Technical capacity is the physical and requirements, and so do not affect the Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, operational ability of a water system to number of systems triggered into these April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: meet SDWA requirements. Technical requirements or significantly affect the (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically capacity refers to the physical amount of lead pipe to be replaced; significant’’ as defined under E.O. infrastructure of the water system, however, the LCRMR do require 12866, and (2) concerns an including the adequacy of source water additional consumer notification and environmental health or safety risk that and the adequacy of treatment, storage, modify post-replacement sampling and EPA has reason to believe may have a and distribution infrastructure. It also reporting requirements when the water disproportionate effect on children. If refers to the ability of system personnel system replaces less than the entire the regulatory action meets both criteria, to adequately operate and maintain the length of the lead service line. These the Agency must evaluate the system and to otherwise implement systems now will be required to provide environmental health or safety effects of requisite technical knowledge. consumers served by the partially- the planned rule on children, and Managerial capacity is the ability of a replaced lead service line(s) 45-day explain why the planned regulation is water system to conduct its affairs in a advance notification of the replacement, preferable to other potentially effective manner enabling the system to achieve guidance about possible short-term and reasonably feasible alternatives and maintain compliance with SDWA increases of lead levels at the tap, and considered by the Agency. This Lead requirements. Managerial capacity refers steps consumers can take to minimize and Copper Rule Minor Revisions final to the system’s institutional and exposure. These systems also must take rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because administrative capabilities. a post-replacement sample within three it is not ‘‘economically significant’’ as Financial capacity is a water system’s days of completing the replacement and defined under E.O. 12866. ability to acquire and manage sufficient provide the results to all affected financial resources to allow the system consumers within three business days of 8. National Technology Transfer and to achieve and maintain compliance receiving the results from the laboratory. Advancement Act with SDWA requirements. These requirements strengthen the Section 12(d) of the National Key Points notification and post-partial replacement monitoring and reporting Technology Transfer and Advancement There are 75,945 water systems Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub L. No. requirements of the 1991 LCR. The affected by this rule. Overall, these notification requirements may require 104–113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) systems are not expected to require directs EPA to use voluntary consensus an enhancement of technical, significantly increased technical, managerial, and financial capacity. EPA standards in its regulatory activities financial, or managerial capacity as a anticipates, however, that the post unless to do so would be inconsistent result of the LCRMR, as most of the partial-replacement monitoring will with applicable law or otherwise revisions reduce or clarify existing LCR require less capacity than the 1991 LCR impractical. Voluntary consensus requirements. The few exceptions are because systems may now limit this standards are technical standards (e.g., highlighted below. monitoring to one sample per line materials specifications, test methods, • There are an estimated 171 systems (compared to one sample per household sampling procedures, business deemed to have optimized corrosion served by the line) to comply with these practices) that are developed or adopted control treatment after demonstrating requirements. The net effect should by voluntary consensus standard bodies. that little or no lead corrosion is result in an overall decrease of The NTTAA directs EPA to provide occurring in the distribution system. A technical, managerial, and financial Congress, through OMB, explanations few of these systems may be triggered capacity required to comply with these when the Agency decides not to use into the LCR’s corrosion control requirements. available and applicable voluntary treatment requirements because they • All 75,945 water systems consensus standards. exceed the copper action level. The 171 potentially are affected by new LCRMR This action does not involve technical systems also will be required to conduct provisions requiring any water system standards. Therefore, EPA did not monitoring for lead and copper at the subject to reduced monitoring for lead consider the use of any voluntary tap, and in source water, at least once and copper at the tap to notify the State consensus standards. every three years. Some of these systems no later than 60 days after any change

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2001 in treatment or the addition of a new broadcast stations to which the system reduce the amount of supporting source. The State, in response, may provided bi-annual public service documentation that must accompany require the system to conduct some announcements. Moreover, States have tap water monitoring results and an additional monitoring and/or to take the discretion to waive submission of estimated 34,046 systems will be able to other appropriate action to ensure that the supporting documentation in some eliminate 90th percentile calculations. optimal corrosion control is maintained. cases. The remaining 2,983 CWSs are no The 4,256 systems required to conduct Many States already impose comparable longer required to provide public public education will be able to take requirements as a condition of the service announcements and will advantage of the LCRMR provisions operating permit and, thus, this continue to report completion of public allowing greater flexibility in the provision will not represent a new education tasks on an annual basis. delivery of materials to homeowners requirement for many systems. Therefore, water systems are not and others in the community. Consequently, systems generally are not expected to require increased technical, Generally, it is expected that the expected to require significantly financial, or managerial capacity to reductions in regulatory burden will increased technical, managerial, or comply with this increased reporting offset any enhanced technical, financial, financial capacity to deal with this requirement. and managerial capacity requirements requirement. Certainly some individual Some of the LCRMR provisions clarify resulting from the LCRMR. Certainly, facilities may have weaknesses in one or 1991 LCR requirements. These some individual facilities may have more of these areas but overall, water clarifications include: weaknesses in one or more of these • systems should have or be able to easily The requirement to properly areas with respect to the basic LCR obtain the capacity needed for these operate and maintain optimal corrosion requirements, but overall, it is expected activities. control; that the LCRMR will not exacerbate any • • There are an estimated 6,116 The requirement that water systems weaknesses that already may exist. systems, 5,552 of which serve 50,000 or deemed to have optimized corrosion fewer persons, required to monitor for control under § 141.81(b)(2) conduct 10. Submission to Congress and the water quality parameters after the routine water quality parameter General Accounting Office installation of corrosion control monitoring; The Congressional Review Act, 5 treatment under the 1991 LCR. The • The requirements pertaining to the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small LCRMR do not affect the monitoring number and location of tap water lead Business Regulatory Enforcement requirement but makes changes in the and copper sampling sites; Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides • way the results are to be evaluated to The requirements specifying the that before a rule may take effect, the determine compliance with State- conditions under which a system must agency promulgating the rule must designated optimal water quality resume monitoring at the tap every six submit a rule report, which includes a parameters. For some systems this months; and • copy of the rule, to each House of the revised approach for determining The resampling triggers for Congress and to the Comptroller General compliance is expected to require composite source water samples. of the United States. EPA will submit a additional analysis to assess Certainly, there may be some report containing this rule and other compliance, but to result in fewer individual facilities that need to required information to the U.S. Senate, systems incurring violations due to enhance technical, financial, and the U.S. House of Representatives, and temporary short-term fluctuations in managerial capacity to comply with the Comptroller General of the United water quality. Some of these systems these pre-existing requirements; States prior to publication of the rule in may need to enhance their technical, however, most systems are expected to the Federal Register. A major rule managerial, and financial capacity to have or be able to easily obtain the cannot take effect until 60 days after it comply with these requirements; capacity necessary for these activities. is published in the Federal Register. All 75,945 systems may benefit from however, most of the affected systems This rule is not a major rule as defined one or more of the LCRMR provisions should have or easily be able to obtain by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be intended to reduce regulatory burden. the needed capacity because fewer effective on April 11, 2000. resources will be required to address There are an estimated 4,554 systems violations that likely would have that are eligible to reduce the frequency H. References occurred under the 1991 regulations. of tap water monitoring to once every American Water Works Association, et al. v. These violations, in turn, would have three years without first conducting EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.C. Cir. (1994). triggered activities including public several rounds of annual monitoring. An [AWWA v. EPA] notification and loss of eligibility for estimated 6,809 systems serving 3,300 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease reduced monitoring that would have or fewer persons may be eligible for Registry (ATSDR). Aug. 1997. required technical, managerial, and waivers that will reduce the frequency Toxicological Profile for Lead. Draft for financial capacity to address. of monitoring for lead and/or copper at Public Comment. Prepared by Research • the tap to once every nine years. An Triangle Institute for U.S. Department of There are 4,649 CWSs and Health & Human Services, Public Health NTNCWSs that are estimated to estimated 397 of the 4,923 ground water Service, Atlanta, GA. Pages 27, 104, 132– continue to be required to conduct systems subject to routine water quality 133, 166 [ATSDR, 1997] public education programs after the parameter monitoring will be able to Britton, A. and Richards, W.N. November installation of treatment. 387 of these reduce the number of samples by using 1981. Factors Influencing Plumbosolvency systems are CWSs that serve more than representative locations instead of in Scotland. Originally presented as: A 3,300 persons. Under the LCRMR, these sampling at every entry point. Some potpourri on plumbosolvency. At a 387 systems will need to report systems also will be able to reduce the Scientific Section Symposium on completion of public education tasks to frequency of source water monitoring. Plumbosolvency. [Britton and Richards, An estimated 6,116 systems subject to 1981] the State twice a year, instead of once Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E., per year as required by the 1991 LCR. routine water quality monitoring and Harward, G. June 1992. The required supporting documentation requirements will be able to reduce Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in for this second submission is minimal, paperwork seeking approval for reduced Hard Waters. J IWEM, 6:259–268. [Colling, since it need only include a list of the monitoring. All systems will be able to et al., 1992]

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2002 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Cools, A., Salle, H.J.A., Verbeck, M.M., Chemical Contaminants—Chemical Approach. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis. Zielhuis, R.L. 1976. Biochemical Response Monitoring Reform (CMR) and Permanent [Montgomery, et al., 1990] of Male Volunteers Ingesting Inorganic Monitoring Relief (PMR); Advance Notice Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E., Brantbar, N., Hu, Lead for 49 Days. Int. Arch. Occup. of Proposed Rulemaking. (Thur., Jul. 3, N., McDonough, A., Eggena, P., Golut, Environ. Health, 38:129–139. [Cools, et al., 1997), 36100–36136. [62 FR 36100] M.S., Berger, M., Cheng, C., Jangotchian, 1976] Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163. N., and Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid Dodrill, D.M. and Edwards, M. July 1995. Interpretation of New Drinking Water Hypertensiveogenic Effect of Lead Studies Corrosion Control on the Basis of Utility Requirements Relating to Lead Free in Hypertensive Rat. Toxical. In. Health, Experience. Journal AWWA, 74–85. Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures; Notice. 8(1–2): 89–102. [Nakhoul, et al., 1992] [Dodrill and Edwards, 1995] (Fri., Aug. 22, 1997), 44684–44685. [62 FR National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1982. Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E. 44684] Drinking Water and Health. Washington, March 1996. Alkalinity, pH, and Copper Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 212. National DC: National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4, Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal Primary Drinking Water Regulations: pp. 179–183. [NAS, 1982] AWWA, 81–94. [Edwards, et al., 1996] Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Pocock, S.J. 1980. Factors Influencing Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130. National Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule. Household Water Lead: A British National Primary Drinking Water Regulations— (Mon., Nov. 3, 1997), 59388–58484. [62 FR Survey. Arch. of Env. Health, 35(1): 45–51. Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring 59388] [Pocock, 1980] for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 30. National Rezania, L.W. and Anderl, W.H. 1996. (Wed., Jul. 8, 1987), 25690–25717. [52 FR Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Copper Corrosion and Iron Removal Plants. 25690] Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Conference Paper. Section of Drinking Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 30. National (Fri., Feb. 13, 1998), 7605–7633. [63 FR Water Protection, Minnesota Department of Primary Drinking Water Regulations— 7605] Health. [Rezania and Anderl, 1996] Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 77. Maximum Schlegel, H., Kufner, G. 1979. Long-term Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminant Level Goals and National observation of biochemical effects of lead Contaminants; National Primary Drinking Primary Drinking Water Regulations for in human experiments. J Clin. Chem. Clin. Water Regulations Implementation; Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Wed., Biochem., 17: 225–233. [Schlegel and National Secondary Drinking Water Apr. 22, 1998), 20038–20047. [63 FR Kufner, 1979] Regulations; Final Rule. (Wed., Jan. 30, 20038] Shannon, M.W. and Graef, J.W. 1992. Lead 1991), 3526–3614. [56 FR 3526] Federal Register, Vol. 63, No 81. Revisions Intoxication in Infancy. Pediatrics, 89: 87– Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 110. Drinking to State Primary Requirements to 90. [Shannon and Graef, 1992] Water Regulations—Maximum Implement Safe Drinking Water Act Struik, E.J. 1974. Biochemical response of Contaminant Level Goals and National Amendments; Final Rule. (Tue., Apr. 28, male and female volunteers to inorganic Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 1998), 23361–23368. [63 FR 23361] lead. Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33: 83–97. Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Fri., Jun. 7, Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 151. [Struik, 1974] 1991), 26460–26564. [56 FR 26460] Announcement of Small System U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135. Drinking Compliance Technology Lists for Existing Undated. An Evaluation of the Secondary Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant National Primary Drinking Water Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Regulations and Findings Concerning Effects of Enhanced Coagulation, With Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Variance Technologies. (Thur., Aug. 6, Emphasis on Corrosion Control. Final Rule; Correction. (Mon., Jul. 15, 1998), 42032–42048. [63 FR 42032] Conference Paper prepared by D.A. Lytle, 1991), 32113. [56 FR 32113] Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 159. Maximum M.R. Schock, and R.J. Miltner, Treatment Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125. Drinking Contaminant Level Goals and National and Technology Evaluation Branch, Water Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Supply and Water Resources Division, Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Tue., National Risk Management Research Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Aug. 18, 1998), 44214–44218. [63 FR Laboratory. [EPA, undated] Final Rule; Correcting Amendments. 44214] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Feb. (Mon., Jun. 29, 1992), 28785–28789. [57 FR Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241. National 23, 1988. Memorandum to Arthur Perler, 28785] Primary Drinking Water Regulations— Science and Technology Branch from Jon Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138. National Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Longtin, Water Supply Technology Branch, Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), 69388– regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic 69476. [62 FR 69388] Results. [EPA, 1988] Chemicals; Final Rule. (Fri., Jul. 17, 1992), Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 241. National U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 31776–31849. [57 FR 31776] Primary Drinking Water Regulations— 1991. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125. Drinking Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Water; Maximum Contaminant Level Goals Rule; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared and National Primary Drinking Water 69477–69521. [63 FR 69521] by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. [EPA, Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Gittelman, T.S., Luitweiler, P., and Yohe, 1991a] Rule; Technical Corrections. (Thu., Jun. 30, T.L. 1992. Evaluation of Lead Corrosion U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1994), 33860–33864. [59 FR 33860] Control Measures for a Multi-source Water 1991. Summary: Peach Orchard Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232. Analytical Utility. American Water Works Monitoring; Lead Service Line Methods for Regulated Drinking Water Association, 1992 Water Quality Replacement Study. Prepared by Barbara Contaminants; Final Rule. (Mon., Dec. 5, Technology Conference Proceedings. Part I: Wysock, Office of Drinking Water 1994), 62456–62471. [59 FR 62456] 777–797. [Gittelman, et al., 1992] Technical Support Division. [EPA, 1991b] Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125. National Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphrias: Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Advances. Clinical Chemistry, 32(7)a; 1991. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Regulations; Analytical Methods for 1255–1263. [Hindmarsh, 1986] Manual; Volume 1: Monitoring. Prepared Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants; Kuch, A. and Wagner, I. 1983. A mass by Black & Veatch, ECOS, Inc., and Final Rule. (Thu., Jun. 29, 1995), 34084– transfer model to describe lead Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (NTIS PB 92–112101). 34086. [60 FR 34084] concentrations in drinking water. Water [EPA, 1991c] Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum Research, 17(10): 1301. [Kuch and Wagner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan. Contaminant Level Goals and National 1983] 10, 1992. Memo from Jeff Cohen, Chief Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Mahaffey, K.R. 1977. Relation Between Lead Task Force, Office of Ground Water Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Fri., Quantities of Lead Ingested and Health and Drinking Water, to Regional Drinking Apr. 12, 1996), 16348–16371. [60 FR Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics, Water Branch Chiefs. Consecutive Systems 16348] 59(3): 448–456. [Mahaffey, 1977] Regulated Under the National Primary Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 128. Drinking Montgomery, R., Convoy, T.W, and Spector, Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Water Monitoring Requirements for Certain A.A. 1990. Biochemistry: A Case-Oriented Copper. [EPA 1992a]

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2003

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and 1992. Lead and Copper Rule; Definitions Criteria Division, Office of Science and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, and Federal Reporting for Milestones, Technology, Office of Water. [EPA, 1998b] 1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, Violations and SNCs. (ERIC G405, NTIS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, PB–93–156–131). [EPA, 1992b] 28, 1998. Memo to the Record from Jeffrey 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. B. Kempic. Analysis of Partial Lead Service 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 1992. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Line Replacement Data. [EPA, 1998c] 6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 11023, 11048. Treatment. Prepared by Black & Veatch and 1999. Information Collection Request for 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended under Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (NTIS PB–93– the National Primary Drinking Water 101583). [EPA, 1992c] Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared the indicated heading by revising entry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May by the Cadmus Group, Inc. [EPA, 1999a] ‘‘141.80–141.91,’’ by removing entries 1994. Methods for Determination of Metals U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June ‘‘142.10–142.15,’’ and by adding new in Environmental Samples—Supplement 1. 19, 1999. Memo from Anne Jaffe Murray, entries in numerical order to read as (NTIS PB–94–184942). [EPA, 1994] the Cadmus Group, Inc. to Judith follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. Lebowich. Review of Data for Large 4, 1995. Memo from Robert J. Blanco, Community Water Systems (CWSs) that § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Director, Drinking Water Implementation Continue to Exceed the Action Level After Reduction Act. Division, to O. Thomas Love, Chief, Water Treatment is Installed. [EPA, 1999b] * * * * * Supply Branch, Region 6. All Plastic U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Systems—Compliance with the Lead and August 1999. Microbial Disinfection OMB control Copper Rule. [EPA, 1995a] Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance 40 CFR citation No. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct. Manual. EPA 815–R–99–015. [EPA, 1999c] 1995. National Primary Drinking Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aug. Regulations for Lead and Copper: Analysis 2, 1999. Memo to the Record by Judith ***** of Occurrence of Very Low 90th Percentile Lebowich. Summary of State Panel Review National Primary Drinking Lead Levels. (EPA 812–X–95–001; NTIS PB of Estimated Lead and Copper Rule Minor Water Regulations. 96–129077). [EPA, 1995b] Revisions Burden and Costs under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. Paperwork Reduction Act. [EPA, 1999d] ***** 1995. A Survey Study of Lead in Drinking U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 141.80±141.91 ...... 2040±0210 Water Supplied by Transient Water Systems. Prepared by R.P. Maas, S.C. September 30, 1999. Response to Comment Patch, D.M. Morgan, and G.M. Brown, Document for The Lead and Copper Rule ***** Environmental Quality Institute, The Minor Revisions. [EPA, 1999e] National Primary Drinking University of North Carolina at Ashville. Wagner, I. Jun. 18–22, 1988. Effects of Water Regulations Implemen- Technical Report #95–019. [EPA, 1995c] Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate and Metal tation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mar. Uptake. Proceedings of American Water 20, 1996. Memo from Jeff Cohen to Connie Works Conference. [Wagner, 1988] ***** 142.10±142.14 ...... 2040±0090 [Bosma] and Judy [Lebowich]. Lead Rule List of Subjects for Transient Systems. [EPA, 1996a] 142.14(d)(8)±(11) ...... 2040±0210 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 40 CFR Part 9 142.15 ...... 2040±0090 19. 1996. Memorandum to Jeffrey B. 142.15(c)(4) ...... 2040±0210 Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Environmental protection, Reporting Drinking Water from Michael R. Shock, and recordkeeping requirements. ***** 142.16(d) ...... 2040±0210 Treatment and Technology Branch, Water 40 CFR Part 141 Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Environmental protection, Chemicals, ***** Laboratory. Seasonal Monitoring Revision. Indians—lands, Intergovernmental (Note: References 5, 6, and 7 cited in the relations, Radiation protection, PART 141ÐNATIONAL PRIMARY memorandum are not publically available Reporting and recordkeeping DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS data and the data contained in these requirements, Water supply. studies have not been factored into EPA’s 3. The authority citation for part 141 decision making.) [EPA, 1996b] 40 CFR Part 142 continues to read as follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Administrative practice and March 1997. Manual for the Certification of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, Laboratories in Analyzing Drinking procedure, Chemicals, Indians—lands, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, Water—Criteria and Procedures Quality Radiation protection, Reporting and 300j–9, and 300j–11. recordkeeping requirements, Water Assurance. Fourth Edition. EPA 815–B– 4. Section 141.43 is amended by 97–001. [EPA 1997a] supply. removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dated: December 20, 1999. August 1997. Alternative Monitoring removing the undesignatted paragraph Guidelines. [EPA–816–R–97–011]. [EPA, Carol M. Browner, immediately following paragraph 1997b] Administrator. (a)(2)(ii), and removing and reserving U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. For the reasons set forth in the (b)(2), and by revising paragraph (d) to 26, 1997. The Data Sharing Committee’s preamble, title 40 chapter 1, parts 141 read as follows: Recommendations for the Lead and Copper Rule. Draft Report. Prepared for the Office and 142 of the Code of Federal § 141.43 Prohibition on use of lead pipes, of Ground Water and Drinking Water by Regulations are amended as follows: solder, and flux. the PWSS Data Sharing Committee. [EPA, PART 9Ð[AMENDED] * * * * * 1997c] (d) Definition of lead free. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1. The authority citation for part 9 purposes of this section, the term lead 1998. Guidance on Implementing the continues to read as follows: Capacity Development Provisions of the free: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; (1) When used with respect to solders 1996. EPA 816–R–98–006. [EPA 1998a] 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; and flux refers to solders and flux U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 containing not more than 0.2 percent 22, 1998. Health Effects from Short-Term U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, lead;

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(2) When used with respect to pipes conducted in accordance with § 141.86 longer deemed to have optimized and pipe fittings refers to pipes and pipe and source water monitoring conducted corrosion control under this paragraph. fittings containing not more than 8.0 in accordance with § 141.88 that * * * * * percent lead; and demonstrates for two consecutive 6- 6. Section 141.82 is amended by (3) When used with respect to month monitoring periods that the revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: plumbing fittings and fixtures intended difference between the 90th percentile by the manufacturer to dispense water tap water lead level computed under § 141.82 Description of corrosion control treatment requirements. for human ingestion refers to fittings § 141.80(c)(3), and the highest source and fixtures that are in compliance with water lead concentration is less than the * * * * * standards established in accordance Practical Quantitation Level for lead (g) Continued operation and with 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(e). specified in § 141.89(a)(1)(ii). monitoring. All systems optimizing 5. Section 141.81 is amended by corrosion control shall continue to (i) Those systems whose highest revising paragraph (b) introductory text, operate and maintain optimal corrosion source water lead level is below the paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, and control treatment, including Method Detection Limit may also be paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: maintaining water quality parameters at deemed to have optimized corrosion or above minimum values or within § 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control control under this paragraph if the 90th ranges designated by the State under treatment steps to small, medium-size and percentile tap water lead level is less paragraph (f) of this section, in large water systems. than or equal to the Practical accordance with this paragraph for all * * * * * Quantitation Level for lead for two samples collected under § 141.87(d) (b) A system is deemed to have consecutive 6-month monitoring through (f). Compliance with the optimized corrosion control and is not periods. requirements of this paragraph shall be required to complete the applicable (ii) Any water system deemed to have determined every six months, as corrosion control treatment steps optimized corrosion control in specified under § 141.87(d). A water identified in this section if the system accordance with this paragraph shall system is out of compliance with the satisfies one of the criteria specified in continue monitoring for lead and copper requirements of this paragraph for a six- paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this at the tap no less frequently than once month period if it has excursions for section. Any such system deemed to every three calendar years using the any State-specified parameter on more have optimized corrosion control under reduced number of sites specified in than nine days during the period. An this paragraph, and which has treatment § 141.86(c) and collecting the samples at excursion occurs whenever the daily in place, shall continue to operate and times and locations specified in value for one or more of the water maintain optimal corrosion control § 141.86(d)(4)(iv). Any such system that quality parameters measured at a treatment and meet any requirements has not conducted a round of sampling location is below the that the State determines appropriate to monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d) since minimum value or outside the range ensure optimal corrosion control September 30, 1997, shall complete a designated by the State. Daily values are treatment is maintained. round of monitoring pursuant to this calculated as follows. States have (1) * * * paragraph no later than September 30, discretion to delete results of obvious (2) Any water system may be deemed 2000. sampling errors from this calculation. by the State to have optimized corrosion (iii) Any water system deemed to have (1) On days when more than one control treatment if the system measurement for the water quality demonstrates to the satisfaction of the optimized corrosion control pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in parameter is collected at the sampling State that it has conducted activities location, the daily value shall be the writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any equivalent to the corrosion control steps average of all results collected during change in treatment or the addition of applicable to such system under this the day regardless of whether they are a new source. The State may require any section. If the State makes this collected through continuous such system to conduct additional determination, it shall provide the monitoring, grab sampling, or a monitoring or to take other action the system with written notice explaining combination of both. If EPA has State deems appropriate to ensure that the basis for its decision and shall approved an alternative formula under such systems maintain minimal levels specify the water quality control § 142.16 of this chapter in the State’s of corrosion in the distribution system. parameters representing optimal application for a program revision corrosion control in accordance with (iv) As of July 12, 2001, a system is submitted pursuant to § 142.12 of this § 141.82(f). Water systems deemed to not deemed to have optimized corrosion chapter, the State’s formula shall be have optimized corrosion control under control under this paragraph, and shall used to aggregate multiple this paragraph shall operate in implement corrosion control treatment measurements taken at a sampling point compliance with the State-designated pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this for the water quality parameter in lieu optimal water quality control section unless it meets the copper action of the formula in this paragraph. parameters in accordance with level. (2) On days when only one § 141.82(g) and continue to conduct lead (v) Any system triggered into measurement for the water quality and copper tap and water quality corrosion control because it is no longer parameter is collected at the sampling parameter sampling in accordance with deemed to have optimized corrosion location, the daily value shall be the § 141.86(d)(3) and § 141.87(d), control under this paragraph shall result of that measurement. respectively. A system shall provide the implement corrosion control treatment (3) On days when no measurement is State with the following information in in accordance with the deadlines in collected for the water quality parameter order to support a determination under paragraph (e) of this section. Any such at the sampling location, the daily value this paragraph: large system shall adhere to the shall be the daily value calculated on * * * * * schedule specified in that paragraph for the most recent day on which the water (3) Any water system is deemed to medium-size systems, with the time quality parameter was measured at the have optimized corrosion control if it periods for completing each step being sample site. submits results of tap water monitoring triggered by the date the system is no * * * * *

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2005

7. Section 141.84 is amended by emergency repairs. In addition, the text and (c)(2)(i) through (iii), (c)(4) removing paragraph (e), redesignating water system shall inform the introductory text, and (c)(4)(ii) to read paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through resident(s) served by the line that the as follows: (g), and by revising paragraphs (b) and system will, at the system’s expense, (d) to read as follows: § 141.85 Public education and collect a sample from each partially- supplemental monitoring requirements. replaced lead service line that is § 141.84 Lead service line replacement * * * * * requirements. representative of the water in the service line for analysis of lead content, as (a) Content of written public education materials. (1) Community * * * * * prescribed under § 141.86(b)(3), within (b) A water system shall replace water systems. A community water 72 hours after the completion of the annually at least 7 percent of the initial system shall include the following text partial replacement of the service line. number of lead service lines in its in all of the printed materials it The system shall collect the sample and distribution system. The initial number distributes through its lead public report the results of the analysis to the of lead service lines is the number of education program. Systems may delete owner and the resident(s) served by the lead lines in place at the time the information pertaining to lead service line within three business days of replacement program begins. The lines, upon approval by the State, if no receiving the results. Mailed notices system shall identify the initial number lead service lines exist anywhere in the post-marked within three business days of lead service lines in its distribution water system service area. Public system, including an identification of of receiving the results shall be education language at paragraphs the portion(s) owned by the system, considered ‘‘on time.’’ (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) of this (2) The water system shall provide the based on a materials evaluation, section may be modified regarding information required by paragraph (d)(1) including the evaluation required under building permit record availability and of this section to the residents of § 141.86(a) and relevant legal authorities consumer access to these records, if individual dwellings by mail or by other (e.g., contracts, local ordinances) approved by the State. Systems may also methods approved by the State. In regarding the portion owned by the continue to utilize pre-printed materials instances where multi-family dwellings system. The first year of lead service that meet the public education language line replacement shall begin on the date are served by the line, the water system requirements in 40 CFR 141.85, effective the action level was exceeded in tap shall have the option to post the November 6, 1991, and contained in the sampling referenced in paragraph (a) of information at a conspicuous location. 40 CFR, parts 100 to 149, edition revised this section. * * * * * as of July 1, 1991. Any additional 8. Section 141.85 is amended by * * * * * information presented by a system shall (d) A water system shall replace that redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) through be consistent with the information portion of the lead service line that it (a)(4)(v) as follows: below and be in plain English that can owns. In cases where the system does be understood by lay people. Old paragraph New paragraph not own the entire lead service line, the * * * * * system shall notify the owner of the (a) Introductory text ... (a)(1). (iv) * * * line, or the owner’s authorized agent, (a)(1) Introductory (a)(1)(i). (B) * * * that the system will replace the portion text. (5) Determine whether or not the of the service line that it owns and shall (a)(2) ...... (a)(1)(ii). service line that connects your home or offer to replace the owner’s portion of (a)(3) ...... (a)(1)(iii). apartment to the water main is made of the line. A system is not required to bear (a)(3)(i) ...... (a)(1)(iii)(A). lead. The best way to determine if your the cost of replacing the privately- (a)(3)(ii) ...... (a)(1)(iii)(B). service line is made of lead is by either owned portion of the line, nor is it (a)(3)(iii) ...... (a)(1)(iii)(C). hiring a licensed plumber to inspect the (a)(4) ...... (a)(1)(iv). required to replace the privately-owned line or by contacting the plumbing (a)(4)(i) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(A). contractor who installed the line. You portion where the owner chooses not to (a)(4)(ii) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B). pay the cost of replacing the privately- (a)(4)(ii)(A) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(1). can identify the plumbing contractor by owned portion of the line, or where (a)(4)(ii)(B) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(2). checking the city’s record of building replacing the privately-owned portion (a)(4)(ii)(C) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(3). permits which should be maintained in would be precluded by State, local or (a)(4)(ii)(D) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(4). the files of the [insert name of common law. A water system that does (a)(4)(ii)(E) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5). department that issues building not replace the entire length of the (a)(4)(ii)(F) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(B)(6). permits]. A licensed plumber can at the service line also shall complete the (a)(4)(iii) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(C). same time check to see if your home’s following tasks. (a)(4)(iii)(A) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(C)(1). plumbing contains lead solder, lead (1) At least 45 days prior to (a)(4)(iii)(B) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(C)(2). pipes, or pipe fittings that contain lead. (a)(4)(iv) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D). commencing with the partial (a)(4)(iv)(A) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(1). The public water system that delivers replacement of a lead service line, the (a)(4)(iv)(B) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2). water to your home should also water system shall provide notice to the (a)(4)(iv)(C) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(D)(3). maintain records of the materials resident(s) of all buildings served by the (a)(4)(v) ...... (a)(1)(iv)(E). located in the distribution system. If the line explaining that they may service line that connects your dwelling experience a temporary increase of lead 8.a. Section 141.85 is further amended to the water main contributes more than levels in their drinking water, along by adding paragraphs (a) introductory 15 ppb to drinking water, after our with guidance on measures consumers text, (a)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), by revising comprehensive treatment program is in can take to minimize their exposure to all references to ‘‘each lead service line place, we are required to replace the lead. The State may allow the water that we control’’ in redesignated portion of the line we own. If the line system to provide notice under the paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read ‘‘the portion is only partially owned by the [insert previous sentence less than 45 days of each lead service line that we own’’ the name of the city, county, or water prior to commencing partial lead service and by revising newly designated system that owns the line], we are line replacement where such paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5), and by required to provide the owner of the replacement is in conjunction with revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory privately-owned portion of the line with

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2006 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations information on how to replace the (ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is portion of the plumbing system, you privately-owned portion of the service found throughout the environment in still need to flush the water in each line, and offer to replace that portion of lead-based paint, air, soil, household faucet before using it for drinking or the line at the owner’s expense. If we dust, food, certain types of pottery cooking. Flushing tap water is a simple replace only the portion of the line that porcelain and pewter, and water. Lead and inexpensive measure you can take we own, we also are required to notify can pose a significant risk to your health to protect your health. It usually uses you in advance and provide you with if too much of it enters your body. Lead less than one gallon of water. information on the steps you can take to builds up in the body over many years (B) Do not cook with, or drink water minimize exposure to any temporary and can cause damage to the brain, red from the hot water tap. Hot water can increase in lead levels that may result blood cells and kidneys. The greatest dissolve more lead more quickly than from the partial replacement, to take a risk is to young children and pregnant cold water. If you need hot water, draw follow-up sample at our expense from women. Amounts of lead that won’t water from the cold tap and then heat the line within 72 hours after the partial hurt adults can slow down normal it. replacement, and to mail or otherwise mental and physical development of (C) The steps described above will provide you with the results of that growing bodies. In addition, a child at reduce the lead concentrations in your sample within three business days of play often comes into contact with drinking water. However, if you are still receiving the results. Acceptable sources of lead contamination—like dirt concerned, you may wish to use bottled replacement alternatives include and dust—that rarely affect an adult. It water for drinking and cooking. copper, steel, iron, and plastic pipes. is important to wash children’s hands (D) You can consult a variety of and toys often, and to try to make sure sources for additional information. Your * * * * * they only put food in their mouths. family doctor or pediatrician can (2) Non-transient non-community (iii) Lead in drinking water. (A) Lead perform a blood test for lead and water systems. A non-transient non- in drinking water, although rarely the provide you with information about the community water system shall either sole cause of lead poisoning, can health effects of lead. State and local include the text specified in paragraph significantly increase a person’s total government agencies that can be (a)(1) of this section or shall include the lead exposure, particularly the exposure contacted include: following text in all of the printed of infants who drink baby formulas and (1) [insert the name or title of facility materials it distributes through its lead concentrated juices that are mixed with official if appropriate] at [insert phone public education program. Water water. The EPA estimates that drinking number] can provide you with systems may delete information water can make up 20 percent or more information about your facility’s water pertaining to lead service lines upon of a person’s total exposure to lead. supply; and approval by the State if no lead service (B) Lead is unusual among drinking (2) [insert the name or title of the water contaminants in that it seldom lines exist anywhere in the water system State Department of Public Health] at occurs naturally in water supplies like service area. Any additional information [insert phone number] or the [insert the rivers and lakes. Lead enters drinking presented by a system shall be name of the city or county health water primarily as a result of the consistent with the information below department] at [insert phone number] corrosion, or wearing away, of materials and be in plain English that can be can provide you with information about containing lead in the water distribution understood by lay people. the health effects of lead. system and household plumbing. These (i) Introduction. The United States materials include lead-based solder * * * * * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used to join copper pipe, brass and (c) * * * and [insert name of water supplier] are chrome-plated brass faucets, and in (2) A community water system that concerned about lead in your drinking some cases, pipes made of lead that exceeds the lead action level on the water. Some drinking water samples connect houses and buildings to water basis of tap water samples collected in taken from this facility have lead levels mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress accordance with § 141.86, and that is above the EPA action level of 15 parts banned the use of lead solder containing not already repeating public education per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams of greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted tasks pursuant to paragraph (c)(3), (c)(7), lead per liter of water (mg/L). Under the lead content of faucets, pipes and or (c)(8), of this section, shall, within 60 Federal law we are required to have a other plumbing materials to 8.0%. days: program in place to minimize lead in (C) When water stands in lead pipes (i) Insert notices in each customer’s your drinking water by [insert date or plumbing systems containing lead for water utility bill containing the when corrosion control will be several hours or more, the lead may information in paragraph (a)(1) of this completed for your system]. This dissolve into your drinking water. This section, along with the following alert program includes corrosion control means the first water drawn from the on the water bill itself in large print: treatment, source water treatment, and tap in the morning, or later in the ‘‘SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY public education. We are also required afternoon if the water has not been used HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN to replace the portion of each lead all day, can contain fairly high levels of THEIR DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN service line that we own if the line lead. POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR contributes lead concentrations of more (iv) Steps you can take to reduce HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE than 15 ppb after we have completed exposure to lead in drinking water. (A) ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER the comprehensive treatment program. Let the water run from the tap before INFORMATION.’’ A community water If you have any questions about how we using it for drinking or cooking any time system having a billing cycle that does are carrying out the requirements of the the water in a faucet has gone unused not include a billing within 60 days of lead regulation please give us a call at for more than six hours. The longer exceeding the action level, or that [insert water system’s phone number]. water resides in plumbing the more lead cannot insert information in the water This brochure explains the simple steps it may contain. Flushing the tap means utility bill without making major you can take to protect yourself by running the cold water faucet for about changes to its billing system, may use a reducing your exposure to lead in 15–30 seconds. Although toilet flushing separate mailing to deliver the drinking water. or showering flushes water through a information in paragraph (a)(1) of this

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2007 section as long as the information is served by the system, such systems may paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall delivered to each customer within 60 further limit their public education complete its sampling pool with days of exceeding the action level. Such programs as follows: sampling sites that contain copper pipes water systems shall also include the (A) Systems serving 500 or fewer with lead solder installed before 1983. ‘‘alert’’ language specified in this people may forego the task contained in If additional sites are needed to paragraph. paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Such complete the sampling pool, the non- (ii) Submit the information in a system may limit the distribution of transient non-community water system paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the the public education materials required shall use representative sites throughout editorial departments of the major daily under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section the distribution system. For the purpose and weekly newspapers circulated to facilities and organizations served by of this paragraph, a representative site is throughout the community. the system that are most likely to be a site in which the plumbing materials (iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or visited regularly by pregnant women used at that site would be commonly brochures that contain the public and children, unless it is notified by the found at other sites served by the water education materials in paragraphs State in writing that it must make a system. (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section to broader distribution. (8) Any water system whose facilities and organizations, including (B) If approved by the State in writing, distribution system contains lead the following: a system serving 501 to 3,300 people service lines shall draw 50 percent of may omit the task in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) * * * * * the samples it collects during each (4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the of this section and/or limit the monitoring period from sites that distribution of the public education lead action level (unless it already is contain lead pipes, or copper pipes with materials required under paragraph repeating public education tasks lead solder, and 50 percent of the (c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this samples from sites served by a lead organizations served by the system that section), a non-transient non- service line. A water system that cannot are most likely to be visited regularly by community water system shall deliver identify a sufficient number of sampling pregnant women and children. sites served by a lead service line shall the public education materials specified (ii) A community water system by paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the collect first-draw samples from all of the serving 3,300 or fewer people that sites identified as being served by such public education materials specified by delivers public education in accordance lines. paragraph (a)(2) of this section as with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section (b) Sample collection methods. (1) All follows: shall repeat the required public tap samples for lead and copper (i) * * * education tasks at least once during collected in accordance with this (ii) Distribute informational each calendar year in which the system subpart, with the exception of lead pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in exceeds the lead action level. service line samples collected under drinking water to each person served by § 141.84(c) and samples collected under the non-transient non-community water * * * * * 9. Section 141.86 is amended by paragraph (b)(5) of this section, shall be system. The State may allow the system removing paragraph (a)(8), by first-draw samples. to utilize electronic transmission in lieu redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as (2) Each first-draw tap sample for lead of or combined with printed materials paragraph (a)(8) and revising it, by and copper shall be one liter in volume as long as it achieves at least the same redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as and have stood motionless in the coverage. paragraph (d)(4)(vi) and revising it, by plumbing system of each sampling site * * * * * adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4)(v), for at least six hours. First-draw samples (7) A community water system may (d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by revising from residential housing shall be apply to the State, in writing, (unless paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), collected from the cold water kitchen the State has waived the requirement for and (d)(4)(ii) through (d)(4)(iv), to read tap or bathroom sink tap. First-draw prior State approval) to use the text as follows: samples from a nonresidential building specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this shall be one liter in volume and shall be section in lieu of the text in paragraph § 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead collected at an interior tap from which (a)(1) of this section and to perform the and copper in tap water. water is typically drawn for tasks listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and (a) * * * consumption. Non-first-draw samples (c)(5) of this section in lieu of the tasks (5) Any community water system with collected in lieu of first-draw samples in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this insufficient tier 1 and tier 2 sampling pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section if: sites shall complete its sampling pool section shall be one liter in volume and (i) The system is a facility, such as a with ‘‘tier 3 sampling sites’’, consisting shall be collected at an interior tap from prison or a hospital, where the of single family structures that contain which water is typically drawn for population served is not capable of or is copper pipes with lead solder installed consumption. First-draw samples may prevented from making improvements before 1983. A community water system be collected by the system or the system to plumbing or installing point of use with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier may allow residents to collect first-draw treatment devices; and 3 sampling sites shall complete its samples after instructing the residents of (ii) The system provides water as part sampling pool with representative sites the sampling procedures specified in of the cost of services provided and does throughout the distribution system. For this paragraph. To avoid problems of not separately charge for water the purpose of this paragraph, a residents handling nitric acid, consumption. representative site is a site in which the acidification of first-draw samples may (8)(i) A community water system plumbing materials used at that site be done up to 14 days after the sample serving 3,300 or fewer people may omit would be commonly found at other sites is collected. After acidification to the task contained in paragraph served by the water system. resolubilize the metals, the sample must (c)(2)(iv) of this section. As long as it * * * * * stand in the original container for the distributes notices containing the (7) A non-transient non-community time specified in the approved EPA information contained in paragraph water system with insufficient tier 1 method before the sample can be (a)(1) of this section to every household sites that meet the targeting criteria in analyzed. If a system allows residents to

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations perform sampling, the system may not year and reduce the number of lead and highest levels of lead are most likely to challenge, based on alleged errors in copper samples in accordance with occur. For a non-transient non- sample collection, the accuracy of paragraph (c) of this section if it receives community water system that does not sampling results. written approval from the State. The operate during the months of June * * * * * State shall review monitoring, through September, and for which the (5) A non-transient non-community treatment, and other relevant period of normal operation where the water system, or a community water information submitted by the water highest levels of lead are most likely to system that meets the criteria of system in accordance with § 141.90, and occur is not known, the State shall §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that does not shall notify the system in writing when designate a period that represents a time have enough taps that can supply first- it determines the system is eligible to of normal operation for the system. draw samples, as defined in § 141.2, commence reduced monitoring (B) Systems monitoring annually, that may apply to the State in writing to pursuant to this paragraph. The State have been collecting samples during the substitute non-first-draw samples. Such shall review, and where appropriate, months of June through September and systems must collect as many first-draw revise its determination when the that receive State approval to alter their samples from appropriate taps as system submits new monitoring or sample collection period under possible and identify sampling times treatment data, or when other data paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section, and locations that would likely result in relevant to the number and frequency of must collect their next round of samples the longest standing time for the tap sampling becomes available. during a time period that ends no later remaining sites. The State has the (iii) A small or medium-size water than 21 months after the previous round discretion to waive the requirement for system that meets the lead and copper of sampling. Systems monitoring prior State approval of non-first-draw action levels during three consecutive triennially that have been collecting samples during the months of June sample sites selected by the system, years of monitoring may reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and through September, and receive State either through State regulation or copper from annually to once every approval to alter the sampling collection written notification to the system. period as per paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of (c) Number of samples. Water systems three years. Any water system that maintains the range of values for the this section, must collect their next shall collect at least one sample during water quality control parameters round of samples during a time period each monitoring period specified in reflecting optimal corrosion control that ends no later than 45 months after paragraph (d) of this section from the treatment specified by the State under the previous round of sampling. number of sites listed in the first § 141.82(f) during three consecutive Subsequent rounds of sampling must be column (‘‘standard monitoring’’) of the years of monitoring may reduce the collected annually or triennially, as table in this paragraph. A system frequency of monitoring from annually required by this section. Small systems conducting reduced monitoring under to once every three years if it receives with waivers, granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall written approval from the State. The paragraph (g) of this section, that have collect at least one sample from the State shall review monitoring, been collecting samples during the number of sites specified in the second treatment, and other relevant months of June through September and column (‘‘reduced monitoring’’) of the information submitted by the water receive State approval to alter their table in this paragraph during each system in accordance with § 141.90, and sample collection period under monitoring period specified in shall notify the system in writing when paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Such it determines the system is eligible to must collect their next round of samples reduced monitoring sites shall be reduce the frequency of monitoring to before the end of the 9-year period. representative of the sites required for once every three years. The State shall (v) Any water system that standard monitoring. States may specify review, and where appropriate, revise demonstrates for two consecutive 6- sampling locations when a system is its determination when the system month monitoring periods that the tap conducting reduced monitoring. The submits new monitoring or treatment water lead level computed under table is as follows: data, or when other data relevant to the § 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to number and frequency of tap sampling 0.005 mg/L and the tap water copper Number of sites Number becomes available. level computed under § 141.80(c)(3) is of sites (iv) A water system that reduces the less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may System size (number of (stand- (reduced people served) ard moni- number and frequency of sampling shall reduce the number of samples in moni- toring) collect these samples from accordance with paragraph (c) of this toring) representative sites included in the pool section and reduce the frequency of >100,000 ...... 100 50 of targeted sampling sites identified in sampling to once every three calendar 10,001 to 100,000 ...... 60 30 paragraph (a) of this section. Systems years. 3,301 to 10,000 ...... 40 20 sampling annually or less frequently (vi)(A) A small or medium-size water 501 to 3,300 ...... 20 10 shall conduct the lead and copper tap system subject to reduced monitoring 101 to 500 ...... 10 5 sampling during the months of June, that exceeds the lead or copper action ≤100 ...... 5 5 July, August, or September unless the level shall resume sampling in State has approved a different sampling accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this (d) * * * period in accordance with paragraph section and collect the number of (4) * * * (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section. samples specified for standard (ii) Any water system that maintains (A) The State, at its discretion, may monitoring under paragraph (c) of this the range of values for the water quality approve a different period for section. Such a system shall also control parameters reflecting optimal conducting the lead and copper tap conduct water quality parameter corrosion control treatment specified by sampling for systems collecting a monitoring in accordance with the State under § 141.82(f) during each reduced number of samples. Such a § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) of two consecutive six-month period shall be no longer than four during the monitoring period in which monitoring periods may reduce the consecutive months and must represent it exceeded the action level. Any such frequency of monitoring to once per a time of normal operation where the system may resume annual monitoring

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2009 for lead and copper at the tap at the paragraph (d)(4) of this section that also be used to meet the monitoring reduced number of sites specified in either adds a new source of water or requirements of a subsequent paragraph (c) of this section after it has changes any water treatment shall monitoring period. The replacement completed two subsequent consecutive inform the State in writing in samples shall be taken at the same six-month rounds of monitoring that accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The locations as the invalidated samples or, meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of State may require the system to resume if that is not possible, at locations other this section and/or may resume triennial sampling in accordance with paragraph than those already used for sampling monitoring for lead and copper at the (d)(3) of this section and collect the during the monitoring period. reduced number of sites after it number of samples specified for (g) Monitoring waivers for small demonstrates through subsequent standard monitoring under paragraph systems. Any small system that meets rounds of monitoring that it meets the (c) of this section or take other the criteria of this paragraph may apply criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or appropriate steps such as increased to the State to reduce the frequency of (d)(4)(v) of this section. water quality parameter monitoring or monitoring for lead and copper under (B) Any water system subject to the re-evaluation of its corrosion control this section to once every nine years reduced monitoring frequency that fails treatment given the potentially different (i.e., a ‘‘full waiver’’) if it meets all of the to operate at or above the minimum water quality considerations. materials criteria specified in paragraph value or within the range of values for * * * * * (g)(1) of this section and all of the the water quality parameters specified (f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap monitoring criteria specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If State by the State under § 141.82(f) for more water samples. A sample invalidated than nine days in any six-month period regulations permit, any small system under this paragraph does not count specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct that meets the criteria in paragraphs toward determining lead or copper 90th tap water sampling for lead and copper (g)(1) and (2) of this section only for percentile levels under § 141.80(c)(3) or at the frequency specified in paragraph lead, or only for copper, may apply to toward meeting the minimum (d)(3) of this section, collect the number the State for a waiver to reduce the monitoring requirements of paragraph of samples specified for standard frequency of tap water monitoring to (c) of this section. monitoring under paragraph (c) of this once every nine years for that (1) The State may invalidate a lead or section, and shall resume monitoring for contaminant only (i.e., a ‘‘partial copper tap water sample at least if one water quality parameters within the waiver’’). of the following conditions is met. distribution system in accordance with (1) Materials criteria. The system § 141.87(d). Such a system may resume (i) The laboratory establishes that must demonstrate that its distribution reduced monitoring for lead and copper improper sample analysis caused system and service lines and all at the tap and for water quality erroneous results. drinking water supply plumbing, parameters within the distribution (ii) The State determines that the including plumbing conveying drinking system under the following conditions: sample was taken from a site that did water within all residences and (1) The system may resume annual not meet the site selection criteria of buildings connected to the system, are monitoring for lead and copper at the this section. free of lead-containing materials and/or tap at the reduced number of sites (iii) The sample container was copper-containing materials, as those specified in paragraph (c) of this section damaged in transit. terms are defined in this paragraph, as after it has completed two subsequent (iv) There is substantial reason to follows: six-month rounds of monitoring that believe that the sample was subject to (i) Lead. To qualify for a full waiver, meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) tampering. or a waiver of the tap water monitoring of this section and the system has (2) The system must report the results requirements for lead (i.e., a ‘‘lead received written approval from the State of all samples to the State and all waiver’’), the water system must provide that it is appropriate to resume reduced supporting documentation for samples certification and supporting monitoring on an annual frequency. the system believes should be documentation to the State that the (2) The system may resume triennial invalidated. system is free of all lead-containing monitoring for lead and copper at the (3) To invalidate a sample under materials, as follows: tap at the reduced number of sites after paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the (A) It contains no plastic pipes which it demonstrates through subsequent decision and the rationale for the contain lead plasticizers, or plastic rounds of monitoring that it meets the decision must be documented in service lines which contain lead criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or writing. States may not invalidate a plasticizers; and (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system sample solely on the grounds that a (B) It is free of lead service lines, lead has received written approval from the follow-up sample result is higher or pipes, lead soldered pipe joints, and State that it is appropriate to resume lower than that of the original sample. leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and triennial monitoring. (4) The water system must collect fixtures, unless such fittings and (3) The system may reduce the replacement samples for any samples fixtures meet the specifications of any number of water quality parameter tap invalidated under this section if, after standard established pursuant to 42 water samples required in accordance the invalidation of one or more samples, U.S.C. 300g–6(e) (SDWA section with § 141.87(e)(1) and the frequency the system has too few samples to meet 1417(e)). with which it collects such samples in the minimum requirements of paragraph (ii) Copper. To qualify for a full accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a (c) of this section. Any such waiver, or a waiver of the tap water system may not resume triennial replacement samples must be taken as monitoring requirements for copper monitoring for water quality parameters soon as possible, but no later than 20 (i.e., a ‘‘copper waiver’’), the water at the tap until it demonstrates, in days after the date the State invalidates system must provide certification and accordance with the requirements of the sample or by the end of the supporting documentation to the State § 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for applicable monitoring period, that the system contains no copper triennial monitoring. whichever occurs later. Replacement pipes or copper service lines. (vii) Any water system subject to a samples taken after the end of the (2) Monitoring criteria for waiver reduced monitoring frequency under applicable monitoring period shall not issuance. The system must have

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations completed at least one 6-month round of through (d)(4) of this section, as sample sites specified in paragraph (c) standard tap water monitoring for lead appropriate. of this section. and copper at sites approved by the (iii) If a system with a full or partial (7) Pre-existing waivers. Small system State and from the number of sites waiver adds a new source of water or waivers approved by the State in writing required by paragraph (c) of this section changes any water treatment, the system prior to April 11, 2000 shall remain in and demonstrate that the 90th percentile must notify the State in writing in effect under the following conditions: levels for any and all rounds of accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The (i) If the system has demonstrated that monitoring conducted since the system State has the authority to require the it is both free of lead-containing and became free of all lead-containing and/ system to add or modify waiver copper-containing materials, as required or copper-containing materials, as conditions (e.g., require recertification by paragraph (g)(1) of this section and appropriate, meet the following criteria. that the system is free of lead-containing that its 90th percentile lead levels and (i) Lead levels. To qualify for a full and/or copper-containing materials, 90th percentile copper levels meet the waiver, or a lead waiver, the system require additional round(s) of criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this must demonstrate that the 90th monitoring), if it deems such section, the waiver remains in effect so percentile lead level does not exceed modifications are necessary to address long as the system continues to meet the 0.005 mg/L. treatment or source water changes at the waiver eligibility criteria of paragraph (ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a full system. (g)(5) of this section. The first round of waiver, or a copper waiver, the system (iv) If a system with a full or partial tap water monitoring conducted must demonstrate that the 90th waiver becomes aware that it is no pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this percentile copper level does not exceed longer free of lead-containing or copper- section shall be completed no later than 0.65 mg/L. containing materials, as appropriate, nine years after the last time the system (3) State approval of waiver (e.g., as a result of new construction or has monitored for lead and copper at the application. The State shall notify the repairs), the system shall notify the tap. system of its waiver determination, in State in writing no later than 60 days (ii) If the system has met the materials writing, setting forth the basis of its after becoming aware of such a change. criteria of paragraph (g)(1) of this decision and any condition of the (5) Continued eligibility. If the system section but has not met the monitoring waiver. As a condition of the waiver, the continues to satisfy the requirements of criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this State may require the system to perform section, the system shall conduct a specific activities (e.g., limited paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the waiver will be renewed automatically, round of monitoring for lead and copper monitoring, periodic outreach to at the tap demonstrating that it meets customers to remind them to avoid unless any of the conditions listed in paragraph (g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this installation of materials that might void section no later than September 30, the waiver) to avoid the risk of lead or this section occurs. A system whose waiver has been revoked may re-apply 2000. Thereafter, the waiver shall copper concentration of concern in tap remain in effect as long as the system water. The small system must continue for a waiver at such time as it again meets the appropriate materials and meets the continued eligibility criteria monitoring for lead and copper at the of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The tap as required by paragraphs (d)(1) monitoring criteria of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section. first round of tap water monitoring through (d)(4) of this section, as conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) appropriate, until it receives written (i) A system with a full waiver or a lead waiver no longer satisfies the of this section shall be completed no notification from the State that the later than nine years after the round of waiver has been approved. materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section or has a 90th percentile lead monitoring conducted pursuant to (4) Monitoring frequency for systems paragraph (g)(2) of this section. with waivers. (i) A system with a full level greater than 0.005 mg/L. * * * * * waiver must conduct tap water (ii) A system with a full waiver or a 10. Section 141.87 is amended by monitoring for lead and copper in copper waiver no longer satisfies the redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) (e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and this section at the reduced number of of this section or has a 90th percentile (e)(2)(ii), and by revising the first sampling sites identified in paragraph copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L. sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and by (c) of this section at least once every (iii) The State notifies the system, in revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory nine years and provide the materials writing, that the waiver has been text, (d), (e)(4), and the table at the end certification specified in paragraph revoked, setting forth the basis of its of § 141.87 following paragraph (f), to (g)(1) of this section for both lead and decision. read as follows: copper to the State along with the (6) Requirements following waiver monitoring results. revocation. A system whose full or § 141.87 Monitoring requirements for (ii) A system with a partial waiver partial waiver has been revoked by the water quality parameters. must conduct tap water monitoring for State is subject to the corrosion control * * * * * the waived contaminant in accordance treatment and lead and copper tap water (a) * * * with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of this section monitoring requirements, as follows: (2) * * * at the reduced number of sampling sites (i) If the system exceeds the lead and/ (ii) Except as provided in paragraph specified in paragraph (c) of this section or copper action level, the system must (c)(3) of this section, systems shall at least once every nine years and implement corrosion control treatment collect two samples for each applicable provide the materials certification in accordance with the deadlines water quality parameter at each entry specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this specified in § 141.81(e), and any other point to the distribution system during section pertaining to the waived applicable requirements of this subpart. each monitoring period specified in contaminant along with the monitoring (ii) If the system meets both the lead paragraph (b) of this section. * * * results. Such a system also must and the copper action level, the system * * * * * continue to monitor for the non-waived must monitor for lead and copper at the (c) * * * contaminant in accordance with tap no less frequently than once every (2) Except as provided in paragraph requirements of paragraph (d)(1) three years using the reduced number of (c)(3) of this section, at each entry point

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2011 to the distribution system, at least one with paragraph (c) of this section and percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 sample no less frequently than every determine compliance with the mg/L for copper in § 141.80(c)(2), and two weeks (biweekly) for: * * * requirements of § 141.82(g) every six that it also has maintained the range of (3) Any ground water system can limit months with the first six-month period values for the water quality parameters entry point sampling described in to begin on the date the State specifies reflecting optimal corrosion control paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those the optimal values under § 141.82(f). treatment specified by the State under entry points that are representative of Any small or medium-size system shall § 141.82(f). water quality and treatment conditions conduct such monitoring during each * * * * * throughout the system. If water from six-month period specified in this (4) Any water system subject to the untreated ground water sources mixes paragraph in which the system exceeds reduced monitoring frequency that fails with water from treated ground water the lead or copper action level. For any to operate at or above the minimum sources, the system must monitor for such small and medium-size system that value or within the range of values for water quality parameters both at is subject to a reduced monitoring the water quality parameters specified representative entry points receiving frequency pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) at by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than treatment and representative entry the time of the action level exceedance, nine days in any six-month period points receiving no treatment. Prior to the end of the applicable six-month specified in § 141.82(g) shall resume period under this paragraph shall the start of any monitoring under this distribution system tap water sampling coincide with the end of the applicable paragraph, the system shall provide to in accordance with the number and monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4). the State written information identifying frequency requirements in paragraph (d) Compliance with State-designated the selected entry points and of this section. Such a system may optimal water quality parameter values documentation, including information resume annual monitoring for water shall be determined as specified under on seasonal variability, sufficient to quality parameters at the tap at the § 141.82(g). demonstrate that the sites are (e) * * * reduced number of sites specified in representative of water quality and (2) * * * paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it treatment conditions throughout the (ii) A water system may reduce the has completed two subsequent system. frequency with which it collects tap consecutive six-month rounds of (d) Monitoring after State specifies samples for applicable water quality monitoring that meet the criteria of that water quality parameter values for parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) paragraph and/or may resume triennial optimal corrosion control. After the of this section to every three years if it monitoring for water quality parameters State specifies the values for applicable demonstrates during two consecutive at the tap at the reduced number of sites water quality control parameters monitoring periods that its tap water after it demonstrates through reflecting optimal corrosion control lead level at the 90th percentile is less subsequent rounds of monitoring that it treatment under § 141.82(f), all large than or equal to the PQL for lead meets the criteria of either paragraph systems shall measure the applicable specified in § 141.89 (a)(1)(ii), that its (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section. water quality parameters in accordance tap water copper level at the 90th * * * * *

SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1

Monitoring period Parameters 2 Location Frequency

Initial monitoring...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps and at entry point(s) to dis- Every 6 months. silica 3, calcium, conductivity, tem- tribution system. perature. After installation of corrosion control .. pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. silica 3, calcium 4. pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and con- Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than centration (if alkalinity adjusted as tem 6. every two weeks. part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor resid- ual 5. After State specifies parameter values pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months. for optimal corrosion control. silica 3, calcium 4. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con- Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than centration (if alkalinity adjusted as tem 6. every two weeks. part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor resid- ual 5. Reduced monitoring...... pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate or Taps ...... Every 6 months, annually 7 silica 3, calcium 4. or every 3 years 8; re- duced number of sites. pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con- Entry point(s) to distribution sys- No less frequently than centration (if alkalinity adjusted as tem 6. every two weeks. part of corrosion control), inhibitor dosage rate and inhibitor resid- ual 5. 1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements. 2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level. 3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used. 4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used. 6 Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system. 7 Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring. 8 Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of water quality param- eters designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

11. Section 141.88 is amended by concentration is greater than or equal to water was less than or equal to 0.005 revising paragraphs (a)(1), (e)(1), and 0.160 mg/L, then either: mg/L and the concentration of copper in (e)(2) to read as follows: (A) A follow-up sample shall be taken source water was less than or equal to and analyzed within 14 days at each 0.65 mg/L. § 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source water. sampling point included in the * * * * * composite; or 12. Section 141.89 is amended by (a) * * * (B) If duplicates of or sufficient (1) A water system that fails to meet revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as quantities from the original samples the lead or copper action level on the follows: from each sampling point used in the basis of tap samples collected in composite are available, the system may § 141.89 Analytical methods. accordance with § 141.86 shall collect use these instead of resampling. lead and copper source water samples (a) * * * in accordance with the following * * * * * (1) * * * requirements regarding sample location, (e) * * * (iii) Achieve the method detection number of samples, and collection (1) A water system using only ground limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L according methods: water may reduce the monitoring to the procedures in appendix B of part (i) Groundwater systems shall take a frequency for lead and copper in source 136 of this title. This need only be minimum of one sample at every entry water to once during each nine-year accomplished if the laboratory will be point to the distribution system which compliance cycle (as that term is processing source water composite is representative of each well after defined in § 141.2) if the system meets samples under § 141.88(a)(1)(iii). treatment (hereafter called a sampling one of the following criteria: * * * * * point). The system shall take one (i) The system demonstrates that 13. Section 141.90 is amended by sample at the same sampling point finished drinking water entering the removing and reserving paragraph unless conditions make another distribution system has been maintained (a)(1)(iii), by revising all references to sampling point more representative of below the maximum permissible lead ‘‘§ 141.84(f)’’ in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and each source or treatment plant. and copper concentrations specified by (ii) to read ‘‘§ 141.84(e)’’, by revising (ii) Surface water systems shall take a the State in § 141.83(b)(4) during at least paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, minimum of one sample at every entry three consecutive compliance periods (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2) through (a)(5), point to the distribution system after under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or (e)(4) and (f), by removing a period from any application of treatment or in the (ii) The State has determined that (a)(1)(vii) and adding a semicolon, and distribution system at a point which is source water treatment is not needed by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (h) representative of each source after and the system demonstrates that, to read as follows: treatment (hereafter called a sampling during at least three consecutive point). The system shall take each compliance periods in which sampling § 141.90 Reporting requirements. sample at the same sampling point was conducted under paragraph (d)(1) * * * * * unless conditions make another of this section, the concentration of lead (a) * * * sampling point more representative of in source water was less than or equal (1) Except as provided in paragraph each source or treatment plant. to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of (a)(1)(viii) of this section, a water system Note to paragraph (a)(1)(ii): For the copper in source water was less than or shall report the information specified purposes of this paragraph, surface water equal to 0.65 mg/L. below for all tap water samples systems include systems with a combination (2) A water system using surface specified in § 141.86 and for all water of surface and ground sources. water (or a combination of surface water quality parameter samples specified in (iii) If a system draws water from and ground water) may reduce the § 141.87 within the first 10 days more than one source and the sources monitoring frequency in paragraph following the end of each applicable are combined before distribution, the (d)(1) of this section to once during each monitoring period specified in § 141.86 system must sample at an entry point to nine-year compliance cycle (as that term and § 141.87 (i.e., every six months, the distribution system during periods is defined in § 141.2) if the system meets annually, every 3 years, or every 9 of normal operating conditions (i.e., one of the following criteria: years): when water is representative of all (i) The system demonstrates that * * * * * sources being used). finished drinking water entering the (ii) Documentation for each tap water (iv) The State may reduce the total distribution system has been maintained lead or copper sample for which the number of samples which must be below the maximum permissible lead water system requests invalidation analyzed by allowing the use of and copper concentrations specified by pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2); compositing. Compositing of samples the State in § 141.83(b)(4) for at least (iii) [Reserved]; must be done by certified laboratory three consecutive years; or (iv) The 90th percentile lead and personnel. Composite samples from a (ii) The State has determined that copper concentrations measured from maximum of five samples are allowed, source water treatment is not needed among all lead and copper tap water provided that if the lead concentration and the system demonstrates that, samples collected during each in the composite sample is greater than during at least three consecutive years, monitoring period (calculated in or equal to 0.001 mg/L or the copper the concentration of lead in source accordance with § 141.80(c)(3)), unless

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2013 the State calculates the system’s 90th following information to the State in education requirements in § 141.85 percentile lead and copper levels under writing by the specified deadline: shall, within ten days after the end of paragraph (h) of this section; (i) By the start of the first applicable each period in which the system is * * * * * monitoring period in § 141.86(d), any required to perform public education (viii) A water system shall report the small water system applying for a tasks in accordance with § 141.85(c), results of all water quality parameter monitoring waiver shall provide the send written documentation to the State samples collected under § 141.87(c) documentation required to demonstrate that contains: through (f) during each six-month that it meets the waiver criteria of (i) A demonstration that the system monitoring period specified in §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2). has delivered the public education § 141.87(d) within the first 10 days (ii) No later than nine years after the materials that meet the content following the end of the monitoring monitoring previously conducted requirements in § 141.85(a) and (b) and period unless the State has specified a pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) or the delivery requirements in § 141.85(c); more frequent reporting requirement. § 141.86(g)(4)(i), each small system and * * * * * desiring to maintain its monitoring (ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio (2) For a non-transient non- waiver shall provide the information stations, television stations, and community water system, or a required by §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii). facilities and organizations to which the community water system meeting the (iii) No later than 60 days after it system delivered public education criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that becomes aware that it is no longer free materials during the period in which the does not have enough taps that can of lead-containing and/or copper- system was required to perform public provide first-draw samples, the system containing material, as appropriate, education tasks. must either: each small system with a monitoring (2) Unless required by the State, a (i) Provide written documentation to waiver shall provide written notification system that previously has submitted the State identifying standing times and to the State, setting forth the the information required by paragraph locations for enough non-first-draw circumstances resulting in the lead- (f)(1)(ii) of this section need not samples to make up its sampling pool containing and/or copper-containing resubmit the information required by under § 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the materials being introduced into the paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, as first applicable monitoring period under system and what corrective action, if long as there have been no changes in § 141.86(d) that commences after April any, the system plans to remove these the distribution list and the system 11, 2000, unless the State has waived materials. certifies that the public education prior State approval of non-first-draw (iv) By October 10, 2000, any small materials were distributed to the same sample sites selected by the system system with a waiver granted prior to list submitted previously. pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or April 11, 2000 and that has not * * * * * (ii) If the State has waived prior previously met the requirements of (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead approval of non-first-draw sample sites § 141.86(g)(2) shall provide the and copper concentrations where the selected by the system, identify, in information required by that paragraph. State calculates a system’s 90th writing, each site that did not meet the (5) Each ground water system that percentile concentrations. A water six-hour minimum standing time and limits water quality parameter system is not required to report the 90th the length of standing time for that monitoring to a subset of entry points percentile lead and copper particular substitute sample collected under § 141.87(c)(3) shall provide, by concentrations measured from among pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5) and include the commencement of such monitoring, all lead and copper tap water samples this information with the lead and written correspondence to the State that collected during each monitoring copper tap sample results required to be identifies the selected entry points and period, as required by paragraph submitted pursuant to paragraph includes information sufficient to (a)(1)(iv) of this section if: (a)(1)(i) of this section. demonstrate that the sites are (1) The State has previously notified (3) No later than 60 days after the representative of water quality and the water system that it will calculate addition of a new source or any change treatment conditions throughout the the water system’s 90th percentile lead in water treatment, unless the State system. and copper concentrations, based on the requires earlier notification, a water * * * * * lead and copper tap results submitted system deemed to have optimized (e) * * * pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a (4) Any system which collects lead section, and has specified a date before water system subject to reduced service line samples following partial the end of the applicable monitoring monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4), lead service line replacement required period by which the system must or a water system subject to a by § 141.84 shall report the results to the provide the results of lead and copper monitoring waiver pursuant to State within the first ten days of the tap water samples; § 141.86(g), shall send written month following the month in which (2) The system has provided the documentation to the State describing the system receives the laboratory following information to the State by the the change. In those instances where results, or as specified by the State. date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this prior State approval of the treatment States, at their discretion may eliminate section: change or new source is not required, this requirement to report these (i) The results of all tap samples for water systems are encouraged to provide monitoring results. Systems shall also lead and copper including the location the notification to the State beforehand report any additional information as of each site and the criteria under to minimize the risk the treatment specified by the State, and in a time and § 141.86(a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and/or (7) change or new source will adversely manner prescribed by the State, to verify under which the site was selected for affect optimal corrosion control. that all partial lead service line the system’s sampling pool, pursuant to (4) Any small system applying for a replacement activities have taken place. paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section; and monitoring waiver under § 141.86(g), or (f) Public education program (ii) An identification of sampling sites subject to a waiver granted pursuant to reporting requirements. (1) Any water utilized during the current monitoring § 141.86(g)(3), shall provide the system that is subject to the public period that were not sampled during

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 2014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations previous monitoring periods, and an non-community water systems, and 16. Section 142.15 is amended by explanation why sampling sites have community water systems meeting the redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(i) changed; and criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) of through (c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(i)(A) through (3) The State has provided the results this chapter, that operate 24 hours a (c)(4)(i)(G) respectively, by adding of the 90th percentile lead and copper day; paragraphs (c)(4)(i) introductory text, calculations, in writing, to the water (xii) Section 141.86(c)—system- (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(4)(iii), and by revising system before the end of the monitoring specific designations of sampling paragraph (c)(4) introductory text to period. locations for systems subject to reduced read as follows: monitoring; § 142.15 Reports by States. PART 142ÐNATIONAL PRIMARY (xiii) Section 141.86(d)(iv)(A)— DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS system-specific determinations * * * * * IMPLEMENTATION pertaining to alternative sample (c) * * * collection periods for systems subject to (4) States shall report quarterly, in a 14. The authority citation for part 142 format and on a schedule prescribed by continues to read as follows: reduced monitoring; (xiv) Section 141.86(g)— the Administrator, the following Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, determinations of small system information related to each system’s 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, compliance with the treatment 300j–9, and 300j–11. monitoring waivers, waiver recertifications, and waiver revocations; techniques for lead and copper under 40 15. Section 142.14 is amended by (xv) Section 141.87(c)(3)— CFR part 141, subpart I during the removing paragraph (d)(8)(vii), by determinations regarding representative preceding calendar quarter. Specifically, redesignating paragraphs (d)(8)(i) entry point locations at ground water States shall report as follows: (i) For any reports provided prior to through (d)(8)(vi) as (d)(8)(ii) through systems; May 15, 2000, States shall report the (d)(8)(vii), respectively, by adding new (xvi) Section 141.90(e)(4)—system- name and PWS identification number: paragraphs (d)(8)(i), and (d)(8)(ix) specific determinations regarding the through (d)(8)(xvii), and by revising submission of information to * * * * * newly designated paragraphs (d)(8)(vi) demonstrate compliance with partial (ii) For any reports provided after May and (d)(8)(vii) and paragraphs lead service line replacement 14, 2000 and before January 14, 2002, (d)(8)(viii), (d)(9), (d)(10), and (d)(11) to requirements; and States may report in accordance with read as follows: (xvii) Section 141.90(f)—system- either paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(iii) of specific decisions regarding the this section. § 142.14 Records kept by States. (iii) For all reports submitted on or resubmission of detailed documentation * * * * * after January 14, 2002, States shall demonstrating completion of public (d) * * * report the PWS identification number of education requirements. (8) * * * each public water system identified in (9) Records of reports and any other (i) Section 141.81(b)—for any water paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of information submitted by PWSs under system deemed to be optimized under this section. § 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this chapter, § 141.90 of this chapter, including (A) For each large and medium-size any conditions imposed by the State on records of any 90th percentile values public water system, all 90th percentile specific water systems to ensure the calculated by the State under lead levels calculated during each continued operation and maintenance of § 141.90(h) of this chapter. monitoring period specified in § 141.86 corrosion control treatment in place; (10) Records of State activities, and of this chapter, and the first and last day the results thereof, to: * * * * * of the monitoring period for which the (i) Verify compliance with State (vi) Section 141.83(b)(2)— 90th percentile lead level was determinations issued under determinations of source water calculated; §§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, 141.82(h) of treatment; (B) For each small public water (vii) Section 141.83(b)(4)— this chapter, 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter, system, the 90th percentile lead level designations of maximum permissible and 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter; calculated during each monitoring concentrations of lead and copper in (ii) Verify compliance with the period in which the system exceeds the source water; requirements related to partial lead lead action level, and the first and last (viii) Section 141.84(e)— service line replacement under day of each monitoring period in which determinations establishing shorter lead § 141.84(d) of this chapter and an exceedance occurred; service line service line replacement compliance with lead service line (C) For each public water system schedules under § 141.84; replacement schedules under (regardless of size), the 90th percentile (ix) Sections 141.81(b)(3)(iii), § 141.84(e) of this chapter; and copper level calculated during each 141.86(d)(4)(vii), and 141.86(g)(4)(iii)— (iii) Invalidate tap water lead and monitoring period in which the system determinations of additional monitoring copper samples under § 141.86(f) of this exceeds the copper action level, and the requirements and/or other actions chapter. first and last day of each monitoring required to maintain optimal corrosion (11) Records of each system’s period in which an exceedance control by systems monitoring for lead currently applicable or most recently occurred; and copper at the tap less frequently designated monitoring requirements. If, (D) For each public water system for than once every six months that change for the records identified in paragraphs which the State has designated optimal treatment or add a new source of water; (d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii) of this water quality parameters under (x) Section 141.85—system-specific section, no change is made to State § 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the decisions regarding the content of determinations during a 12-year State has deemed to have optimized written public education materials and/ retention period, the State shall retain corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(1) or or the distribution of these materials; the record until a new decision, (b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the (xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—system- determination, or designation has been determination and the paragraph(s) specific determinations regarding use of issued. under which the State made its non-first-draw samples at non-transient * * * * * determination;

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2015

(E) For each public water system designates maximum permissible source optimal water quality parameters, and required to begin replacing lead service water levels under § 141.83(b)(4) of this modifications thereto. lines as specified in § 141.84 of this chapter or determines pursuant to (ii) Section 141.82(g)—Designating an chapter and the date each system must § 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source alternative approach for aggregating begin replacement; and water treatment is not required; or multiple measurements collected during (F) For each public water system that (3) For systems triggered into lead the same day for a water quality has implemented optimal corrosion service line replacement, the date the parameter at a sampling location, if the control, completed applicable source system completes lead service line State elects to adopt a formula other water treatment requirements pursuant replacement or becomes eligible to cease than the one specified in § 141.82(g)(1) to § 141.83 of this chapter and/or lead service line replacement pursuant of this chapter. to § 141.84(f) of this chapter. completed lead service line replacement * * * * * requirements pursuant to § 141.84 of * * * * * this chapter, and the date of the State’s 17. Section 142.16 is amended by (3) Section 141.90(e)—Verifying determination that these requirements adding a paragraph (d)(4) and by compliance with lead service line have been met. The date reported shall revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) to replacement schedules and completion be the latest of the following events: read as follows: of all partial lead service line replacement activities. (1) The date the State designates § 142.16 Special primacy requirements. (4) Section 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)— optimal water quality parameters under * * * * * § 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the Designating an alternative period for (d) * * * sample collection for community water system to have optimized corrosion (1) Section 141.82—State designation systems subject to reduced monitoring. control pursuant to § 141.81(b)(1) or of optimal corrosion control. (b)(3) of this chapter; (i) Sections 141.82(d), 141.82(f), and * * * * * (2) For systems triggered into source 141.82(h)—Designating optimal [FR Doc. 00–3 Filed 1–11–00; 8:45 am] water treatment, the date the State corrosion control treatment methods, BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:24 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JAR2.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 12JAR2 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 8 Wednesday, January 12, 2000

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JANUARY

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202±523±5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since the revision date of each title. Laws 523±5227 3 CFR 109...... 1074 110...... 1074 Presidential Documents Executive Orders: 114...... 1074 12543 (See Notice of Executive orders and proclamations 523±5227 116...... 1074 December 29, The United States Government Manual 523±5227 1999) ...... 199 12 CFR 12544 (See Notice of Other Services 935...... 202 December 29, 960...... 203 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523±4534 1999) ...... 199 Proposed Rules: Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 Administrative Orders: 650...... 1676 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 Presidential Determinations: 900...... 324 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523±5229 No. 2000±9 of 910...... 324 December 23, 917...... 81 1999 ...... 689 941...... 324 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH Notices: World Wide Web December 29, 1999...... 199 13 CFR 400...... 1757 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other 7 CFR 500...... 1758 publications: 6...... 1297 Proposed Rules: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara 201...... 1704 120...... 1349 371...... 1298 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 14 CFR Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access: 984...... 1755 997...... 1302 23...... 1758 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg 998...... 1302 39...1, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, E-mail 999...... 1302 213, 346, 691, 692, 695, 1220...... 1 697, 1051, 1537, 1538, PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mail Proposed Rules: 1540, 1761, 1762, 1763, service for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. To 800...... 75 1765, 1767, 1769, 1771 subscribe, send E-mail to 868...... 78 71 .....348, 349, 699, 700, 1308, [email protected] 930...... 672 1309, 1774 with the text message: 979...... 1347 97...... 350 1280...... 1825 382...... 352 subscribe PUBLAWS-L your name 1301...... 1825 Proposed Rules: Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe to 1304...... 1825 39 ...... 250, 251, 254, 395, 397, PENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries. 1305...... 1825 399, 401, 1075, 1350, 1353, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 1306...... 1825 1831, 1833, 1836, 1838, Federal Register system to: 1307...... 1825 1840 1308...... 1825 71...... 402 [email protected] 108...... 560 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 9 CFR 109...... 560 regulations. 93...... 345 111...... 560 94...... 1304, 1529 129...... 560 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JANUARY 96...... 1304 191...... 560 303...... 201 15 CFR 1±200...... 3 381...... 201 201±344...... 4 Proposed Rules: 902...... 30 345±688...... 5 54...... 1074 Proposed Rules: 689±1050...... 6 79...... 1074 280...... 1572 130...... 391 303...... 731 1051±1296...... 7 1297±1528...... 10 10 CFR 16 CFR 1529±1754...... 11 Proposed Rules: 1615...... 1435 1755±2016...... 12 50...... 1829 1700...... 93 490...... 1831 18 CFR 11 CFR 35...... 810 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 100...... 1074 125...... 1484 102...... 1074 225...... 1484 103...... 1074 356...... 1484 104...... 1074 106...... 1074 21 CFR 107...... 1074 101...... 1000

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:32 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\12JACU.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACU ii Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Reader Aids

173...... 1776 154...... 710 300...... 1081 16...... 1438 201...... 7 155...... 710 503...... 1676 17...... 1438 314...... 1776 165...... 1065 22...... 1438 341...... 7 Proposed Rules: 41 CFR 27...... 1438 369...... 7 110...... 1581 301-10...... 1268 28...... 1438 Proposed Rules: 117...... 1077 301-11...... 1326 31...... 1438 216...... 256 165...... 1079 301-74...... 1326 32...... 1438 35...... 1438 22 CFR 34 CFR 42 CFR 37...... 1438 22...... 352 611...... 1780 121...... 1435 42...... 1438 514...... 352 Proposed Rules: 412...... 1817 43...... 1438 Ch. VI...... 1582 413...... 1817 23 CFR 44...... 1438 483...... 1817 38 CFR 45...... 1438 655...... 9 485...... 1817 49...... 1438 Ch. 1 ...... 1544 Proposed Rules: 51...... 1438 24 CFR 17...... 762 405...... 1081 52...... 1438 902...... 1712 51...... 762 53...... 1438 58...... 762 44 CFR 26 CFR 1804...... 429 64...... 1554, 1555 1 ...... 701, 1236, 1310 39 CFR 1852...... 429 49...... 1056 111...... 1318 Proposed Rules: 67...... 1435 301 ...... 215, 263, 1059 Proposed Rules: 49 CFR 602 ...... 1056, 1236, 1310 111...... 264 45 CFR 1...... 220 Proposed Rules: 206...... 403 1...... 258, 1572 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 40 CFR 160...... 427 40...... 1076 209...... 1844 9...... 1950 164...... 427 1244...... 732 27 CFR 49...... 1322 46 CFR 270...... 1676 52 ...... 14, 16, 1068, 1545, 1787 50 CFR 60...... 1323 Proposed Rules: 29 CFR 70...... 1787 356...... 646 17...... 20, 216...... 30 2550...... 614 82...... 716 141...... 1950 47 CFR 226...... 1584 30 CFR 142...... 1950 0...... 374 300...... 59 202...... 1542 180 ...... 1790, 1796, 1802, 1809 51...... 1331 600...... 221 206...... 1542 257...... 1842 73 ...... 219, 220, 1823, 1824 648 ...... 377, 1557, 1568 250...... 217 258...... 1842 76...... 375 660...... 221 914...... 1059 300...... 19, 1070 Proposed Rules: 679 ...... 60, 65, 74, 380 946...... 1063 712...... 1548 73...... 270, 1843 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 716...... 1554 17 ...... 1082, 1583, 1845 206...... 1580 721...... 354 48 CFR 18...... 109 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 216...... 270, 1083 32 CFR 52 ...104, 421, 732, 1080, 1583, 1...... 1438 222...... 270 Proposed Rules: 1841 2...... 1438 223...... 105 813...... 419 70...... 1841 4...... 1438 224...... 1082 180...... 425 7...... 1438 226...... 105, 1584 33 CFR 257...... 1814 8...... 1438 300...... 272 117 ...... 353, 710, 1543, 1543 258...... 1814 15...... 1438 648...... 275, 431

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:32 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\12JACU.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACU Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Reader Aids iii

REMINDERS N,N-diethyl-2-(4- Cook Inlet beluga whales; promulgation; various The items in this list were methylbenzyloxy) depleted designation; States: editorially compiled as an aid ethylamine hydrochloride; comments due by 1-19- Alabama; comments due by to Federal Register users. published 1-12-00 00; published 12-17-99 1-18-00; published 12-16- Inclusion or exclusion from Spinosad; published 1-12-00 Fishery conservation and 99 this list has no legal FEDERAL FINANCIAL management: California; comments due by significance. INSTITUTIONS Alaska; fisheries of 1-17-00; published 1-6-00 EXAMINATION COUNCIL Exclusive Economic Indiana; comments due by Appraisal subcommittee: ZoneÐ 1-19-00; published 12-20- RULES GOING INTO Appraisal policy; disclosure Bering Sea and Aleutian 99 EFFECT JANUARY 12, of information; published Islands pollock; Missouri; comments due by 12-28-99 2000 comments due by 1-20- 1-19-00; published 12-20- HEALTH AND HUMAN 00; published 1-5-00 99 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE Caribbean, Gulf, and South New Jersey; comments due Food and Drug DEPARTMENT Atlantic fisheriesÐ by 1-18-00; published 12- Administration Agricultural Marketing Gulf of Mexico and South 17-99 Food additives: Service Atlantic coastal New Mexico; comments due Oranges and grapefruit grown Secondary direct food migratory pelagic addititvesÐ by 1-19-00; published 12- inÐ resources; comments 20-99 Acidified sodium chlorite due by 1-20-00; Texas; published 12-13-99 Pennsylvania; comments solutions; published 1- published 12-21-99 Oranges, grapefruit, 12-00 due by 1-18-00; published DEFENSE DEPARTMENT tangerines, and tangelos TRANSPORTATION 12-17-99 Acquisition regulations: grown inÐ DEPARTMENT Rhode Island; comments Florida; published 12-13-99 Federal Aviation Anticompetitive teaming; due by 1-21-00; published DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Administration comments due by 1-18- 12-22-99 00; published 11-18-99 Engineers Corps Airworthiness directives: Texas; comments due by 1- Utilization of Indian Navigation regulations: Airbus; published 12-8-99 21-00; published 12-22-99 British Aerospace organizations and Indian- Pesticide programs: St. Marys Falls Canal and owned economic (Jetstream); published 12- Antimicrobial pesticide Soo Locks, MI; enterprises; comments 8-99 products; registration administration and due by 1-18-00; published Dassault; published 12-8-99 procedures and labeling navigation; published 12- 11-18-99 13-99 Fokker; published 12-13-99 standards, etc.; comments DEFENSE DEPARTMENT due by 1-18-00; published EDUCATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS DUE NEXT Navy Department 11-16-99 Postsecondary education: WEEK Underwater archeological Pesticides; tolerances in food, Teacher Quality research permits on animal feeds, and raw Enhancement Grants AGRICULTURE submerged cultural agricultural commodities: Program; published 1-12- DEPARTMENT resources; application 00 Herbicide safener HOE- Animal and Plant Health guidelines; comments due 107892 and metabolites; EMERGENCY OIL AND GAS Inspection Service by 1-18-00; published 11- comments due by 1-21- GUARANTEED LOAN Interstate transportation of 19-99 00; published 11-22-99 BOARD animals and animal products EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Paraquat; comments due by National Environmental Policy (quarantine): Postsecondary education: 1-21-00; published 11-22- Act; implementation: Scrapie pilot projects; Higher Education ActÐ 99 Loan guarantee decisions; comments due by 1-18- Negotiated rulemaking Solid wastes: information availability; 00; published 12-17-99 committees on issues Residential, commercial, and correction; published 1-12- AGRICULTURE under Title IV; institutional solid waste; 00 DEPARTMENT establishment; guideline revisions; EMERGENCY STEEL Food Safety and Inspection comments due by 1-18- comments due by 1-18- GUARANTEE LOAN BOARD Service 00; published 12-30-99 00; published 12-17-99 Meat and poultry inspection: National Environmental Policy Postsecondary eduction: Storage and collection of Meat produced by advanced Act; implementation: residential, commercial, meat/bone separation Gaining Early Awareness Loan guarantee decisions; and institutional solid machinery and recovery and Readiness for information availability; waste; comments due by systems; comments due Undergraduate Programs correction; published 1-12- 1-18-00; published 12-17- by 1-18-00; published 12- (GEAR UP) Program; 00 99 16-99 comments due by 1-20- 00; published 12-21-99 Water programs: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMERCE DEPARTMENT PROTECTION AGENCY National Institute of ENVIRONMENTAL Clean Water ActÐ Air quality implementation Standards and Technology PROTECTION AGENCY Water quality planning plans; approval and Accreditation and assessment Air programs; approval and and management; promulgation; various programs: promulgation; State plans National Pollutant States: Federal conformity for designated facilities and Discharge Elimination California; published 12-13- assessment activities; pollutants: System program and 99 policy guidance; Arizona; comments due by Federal antidegradation Pesticides; tolerances in food, comments due by 1-17- 1-18-00; published 12-17- policy, etc.; comments animal feeds, and raw 00; published 11-3-99 99 due by 1-20-00; agricultural commodities: COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Indiana; comments due by published 10-27-99 Emamectin benzoate; National Oceanic and 1-18-00; published 12-17- FEDERAL published 1-12-00 Atmospheric Administration 99 COMMUNICATIONS Mepiquat chloride; published Endangered and threatened Air quality implementation COMMISSION 1-12-00 species: plans; approval and Radio services, special:

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:32 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\12JACU.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACU iv Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Reader Aids

Fixed microwave servicesÐ reclamation plan (Y2K) reporting Gas transmission and 24 GHz band; licensing submissions: requirements for transiting hazardous liquid pipelines and service rules; Pennsylvania; comments vessels; regulated in high-consequence comments due by 1-19- due by 1-18-00; published navigation area; areas; enhanced safety 00; published 12-20-99 12-17-99 comments due by 1-21- and environmental 00; published 12-22-99 Local multipoint JUSTICE DEPARTMENT protection; comments due TRANSPORTATION by 1-17-00; published 12- distribution service; Privacy Act; implementation; DEPARTMENT 22-99 comments due by 1-21- comments due by 1-18-00; 00; published 12-21-99 Federal Aviation published 12-16-99 TREASURY DEPARTMENT Maritime servicesÐ Administration NUCLEAR REGULATORY Airworthiness directives: Los Angeles and Long Customs Service COMMISSION Airbus; comments due by 1- Beach, CA; 156.250 Rulemaking petitions: MHz frequency 20-00; published 12-21-99 Customs financial and availability for port Stein, Michael; comments AlliedSignal, Inc.; comments accounting procedure: operations; comments due by 1-18-00; published due by 1-18-00; published Endorsement of checks due by 1-18-00; 11-3-99 11-19-99 deposited; comments due published 12-21-99 Spent nuclear fuel and high- Ayres Corp.; comments due level radioactive waste; by 1-21-00; published 11- by 1-18-00; published 11- FEDERAL HOUSING independent storage; 24-99 17-99 FINANCE BOARD licensing requirements: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.; Federal home loan bank Mechandise, special classes: Flexibility; clarification and comments due by 1-18- system: addition; comments due 00; published 11-16-99 Products of forced or Corporate governance by 1-17-00; published 11- Boeing; comments due by indentured child labor; responsibilities devolution; 3-99 1-18-00; published 11-19- prohibited importation and comments due by 1-20- 99 POSTAL RATE COMMISSION seizure; comments due by 00; published 12-21-99 Eurocopter France; Practice and procedure: 1-18-00; published 11-17- HEALTH AND HUMAN comments due by 1-18- 99 SERVICES DEPARTMENT Procedings; efficiency 00; published 11-18-99 improvement; comments Food and Drug General Electric Aircraft TREASURY DEPARTMENT due by 1-21-00; published Administration Engines; comments due 12-28-99 Fiscal Service Medical devices: by 1-18-00; published 11- POSTAL SERVICE 19-99 Hearing aids; technical data Federal claims collection: amendments; comments Domestic Mail Manual: McDonnell Douglas; comments due by 1-21- due by 1-17-00; published Standard Mail destination State income tax 00; published 12-7-99 11-3-99 entry mailings; procedure obligations; tax refund changes; comments due Raytheon; comments due by HEALTH AND HUMAN payments offset; by 1-21-00; published 12- 1-20-00; published 12-6- SERVICES DEPARTMENT comments due by 1-19- 22-99 99 00; published 12-20-99 Inspector General Office, Airworthiness standards: Health and Human Services RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Special conditionsÐ TREASURY DEPARTMENT Department McDonnell Douglas DC-9- Railroad Retirement Act: Health care programs; fraud 30 series airplanes; Internal Revenue Service and abuse: Disability determination; comments due by 1-18- Income taxes: Health Insurance Portability comments due by 1-18- 00; published 12-3-99 00; published 11-18-99 and Accountability ActÐ Class C and Class E Charitable remainder trusts; Medicare and State health Disability determinationÐ airspace; comments due by prevention of abuse; care programs; anti- Reviews for medical 1-17-00; published 12-2-99 comments due by 1-19- kickback statute for recovery of annuitants; Class E airspace; comments 00; published 10-21-99 shared risk discontinuance; due by 1-18-00; published arrangements; statutory comments due by 1-18- 12-17-99 exception; comments 00; published 11-18-99 Commercial space due by 1-18-00; Railroad Unemployment transportation: LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS published 11-19-99 Insurance Act: Licensed reentry activities; financial responsibility INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Remuneration; definition; Note: The List of Public Laws Fish and Wildlife Service comments due by 1-18- requirements; comments due by 1-21-00; published for the first session of the Endangered and threatened 00; published 11-16-99 12-13-99 106th Congress has been species: SECURITIES AND completed and will resume TRANSPORTATION Findings on petitions, etc.Ð EXCHANGE COMMISSION when bills are enacted into Securities: DEPARTMENT law during the second session Alabama beach mouse, National Highway Traffic Proxy and information of the 106th Congress, which etc.; comments due by Safety Administration statements; delivery to convenes on January 24, 1-18-00; published 11- Motor vehicle safety households; comments 2000. 18-99 standards: due by 1-18-00; published Straight-horned markhor; Motorcycle brake systems; 11-16-99 A Cumulative List of Public comments due by 1-21- comments due by 1-18- Laws for the first session of 00; published 9-23-99 TRANSPORTATION 00; published 11-17-99 the 106th Congress will be INTERIOR DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard published in the Federal Surface Mining Reclamation DEPARTMENT Register on December 30, and Enforcement Office Ports and waterways safety: Research and Special 1999. Permanent program and Cape Cod Canal; arrival Programs Administration abandoned mine land notification and Year 2000 Pipeline safety: Last List December 21, 1999.

VerDate 04-JAN-2000 16:32 Jan 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\12JACU.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 12JACU