[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29382-29383]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12373]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Lewistown Municipal Airport, in Lewistown, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from Fergus
County, MT, and the City of Lewistown, MT, to waive the surplus
property requirements for approximately 5.82 acres of airport property
located at Lewistown Municipal Airport, in Lewistown, MT.
    Approximately 3.43 acres of the subject parcel is currently part of
the

right of way for West Main Street. An additional 0.84 acres is proposed
for right of way along West Main Street, and 1.55 acres is proposed for
right of way along Airport Road. These portions of the subject parcel
are currently vacant. It has been determined through study and master
planning that the subject parcel will not be needed for aeronautical
purposes. The proceeds of the sale will be used exclusively for
developing, improving, operating, or maintaining the Lewistown
Municipal Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Steve Engebrecht at
the Federal Aviation Administration, 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2,
Helena, MT, 59601, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by
appointment by contacting Mr. Steve Engebrecht, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by contacting Mr. Jason Garwood, Federal Aviation Administration,
2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, MT 59601, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Issued in Helena, Montana, on May 15, 2015.
David S. Stelling,
Manager, Helena Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-12373 Filed 5-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72758-72760]
[DOCID:fr01de08-25]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571, 575 and 579

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0173]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Small Business Impacts of
Motor Vehicle Safety

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review; Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks comments on the economic impact of its regulations
on small entities. As required by Section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we are attempting to identify rules that may have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We also request comments on ways to make these regulations easier to
read and understand. The focus of this notice is rules that
specifically relate to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, motorcycles, and motor
vehicle equipment.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket
Management receives them not later than January 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-07-29294] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information see the Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Kavalauskas, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Background and Purpose

    Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
354), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires agencies to conduct periodic
reviews of final rules that have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities. The purpose of the
reviews is to determine whether such rules should be continued without
change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the
objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic
impact of the rules on a substantial number of such small entities.

B. Review Schedule

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) published its Semiannual
Regulatory Agenda on November 22, 1999, listing in Appendix D (64 FR
64684) those regulations that each operating administration will review
under section 610 during the next 12 months. Appendix D contained DOT's
10-year review plan for all of its existing regulations. On November
24, 2008, NHTSA is publishing in the Federal Register a revised 10-year
review plan for its existing regulations.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, ``we'')
has divided its rules into 10 groups by subject area. Each group will
be reviewed once every 10 years, undergoing a two-stage process--an
Analysis Year and a Review Year. For purposes of these reviews, a year
will coincide with the fall-to-fall publication schedule of the
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. The newly revised 10-year plan will
assess years 9 and 10 of the old plan in years 1 and 2 of the new plan.
Year 1 (2008) began in the fall of 2008 and will end in the fall of
2009; Year 2 (2009) will begin in the fall of 2009 and will end in the
fall of 2010; and so on.
    During the Analysis Year, we will request public comment on and
analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether
any rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In each fall's Regulatory Agenda, we
will publish the results of the analyses we completed during the
previous year. For rules that have subparts, or other discrete sections
of rules that do have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal
section 610 review during the following 12 months.
    The section 610 review will determine whether a specific rule
should be revised or revoked to lessen its impact on small entities. We
will consider: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of
complaints or comments received from the public; (3) the complexity of
the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other federal rules or with state or local government
rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule. At the end of the Review
Year, we will publish the results of our review. The following table
shows the 10-year analysis and review schedule:

                       National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Section 610 Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Analysis     Review
                      Year                              Regulations to be reviewed           year        year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................  49 CFR 571.223 through 571.500, and            2008        2009
                                                  parts 575 and 579.
2..............................................  23 CFR parts 1200 and 1300.............        2009        2010
3..............................................  49 CFR parts 501 through 526 and               2010        2011
                                                  571.213.
4..............................................  49 CFR 571.131, 571.217, 571.220,              2011        2012
                                                  571.221, and 571.222.
5..............................................  49 CFR 571.101 through 571.110, and            2012        2013
                                                  571.135, 571.138 and 571.139.
6..............................................  49 CFR parts 529 through 578, except           2013        2014
                                                  parts 571 and 575.
7..............................................  49 CFR 571.111 through 571.129 and             2014        2015
                                                  parts 580 through 588.
8..............................................  49 CFR 571.201 through 571.212.........        2015        2016
9..............................................  49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except         2016        2017
                                                  571.217.
10.............................................  49 CFR parts 591 through 595 and new           2017        2018
                                                  parts and subparts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulations Under Analysis

    During Year 1, we will continue to conduct a preliminary assessment
of the following sections of 49 CFR parts 571.223 through 571.500, and
part 579, and will add part 575 to that assessment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section                                                                       Title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
571.223..................................  Rear impact guards.
571.224..................................  Rear impact protection.
571.225..................................  Child restraint anchorage systems.
571.301..................................  Fuel system integrity.
571.302..................................  Flammability of interior materials.
571.303..................................  Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles.
571.304..................................  Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity.
571.305..................................  Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.
571.401..................................  Interior trunk release.
571.403..................................  Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.
571.404..................................  Platform lift installations in motor vehicles.
571.500..................................  Low-speed vehicles.
Part 575.................................  Consumer Information.
Part 579.................................  Reporting of information and communications about potential defects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are seeking comments on whether any requirements in 49 CFR parts
571.223 through 571.500, and parts 575 and 579 have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000.
Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of receiving
Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance. Size standards
established by SBA in 13 CFR 121.201 are expressed either in number of
employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise
specified. The number

of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a
concern and its affiliates to be considered small. If your business or
organization is a small entity and if any of the requirements in 49 CFR
parts 571.223 through 571.500 or parts 575 or 579 have a significant
economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a
comment to explain how and to what degree these rules affect you, the
extent of the economic impact on your business or organization, and why
you believe the economic impact is significant.
    If the agency determines that there is a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, it will ask for
comment in a subsequent notice during the Review Year on how these
impacts could be reduced without reducing safety.

II. Plain Language

A. Background and Purpose

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings. paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this document.

B. Review Schedule

    In conjunction with our section 610 reviews, we will be performing
plain language reviews over a ten-year period on a schedule consistent
with the section 610 review schedule. We will review 49 CFR parts
571.223 through 571.500 and parts 575 and 579 to determine if these
regulations can be reorganized and/or rewritten to make them easier to
read, understand, and use. We encourage interested persons to submit
draft regulatory language that clearly and simply communicates
regulatory requirements, and other recommendations, such as for putting
information in tables that may make the regulations easier to use.
Comments
How do I prepare and submit comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.)
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ornb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT' s
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/
submitlDataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the agency consider late comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://
regulations.gov.
    (2) FDMS provides two basic methods of searching to retrieve
dockets and docket materials that are available in the system: (a)
``Quick Search'' to search using a full-text search engine, or (b)
``Advanced Search,'' which displays various indexed fields such as the
docket name, docket identification number, phase of the action,
initiating office, date of issuance, document title, document
identification number, type of document, Federal Register reference,
CFR citation, etc. Each data field in the advanced search may be
searched independently or in combination with other fields, as desired.
Each search yields a simultaneous display of all available information
found in FDMS that is relevant to the requested subject or topic.
    (3) You may download the comments. However, since the comments are
imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf''
versions of the documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

Marilena Armoni,
Acting Associate Administrator for the National Center for Statistics
and Analysis.
[FR Doc. E8-28226 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16755-16758]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1207; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-47-AD;
Amendment 39-15880; AD 2009-08-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. ALF502L-2
and ALF502L-2C Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Honeywell International Inc. ALF502L-2 and ALF502L-2C turbofan engines
with certain high-pressure compressor (HPC) first stage discs
installed. This AD requires performing a dimensional inspection to
determine if excessive disc balance material was removed and a magnetic
particle inspection if the disc

passes the dimensional inspection. This AD results from reports of
discs found with excessive material removed from the balancing
locations of the disc. We are issuing this AD to prevent the discs from
fracturing before reaching the currently published life limit. A disc
fracture could result in an uncontained failure of the disc and damage
to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from Honeywell International Inc. 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ
85034-2802, U.S.A.; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Web site http://
portal.honeywell.com/wps/portal/aero.
    The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Honeywell International
Inc. ALF502L-2 and ALF502L-2C turbofan engines with certain HPC first
stage discs installed. We published the proposed AD in the Federal
Register on November 28, 2008 (73 FR 72370). That action proposed to
require performing a dimensional inspection to determine if excessive
disc balance material was removed and a magnetic particle inspection if
the disc passes the dimensional inspection.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on
the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 148 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3
work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $21,000
per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the
AD to U.S. operators to be $3,143,520.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2009-08-07 Honeywell International Inc. (Formerly AlliedSignal and
Lycoming): Amendment 39-15880. Docket No. FAA-2008-1207; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-47-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 18,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. ALF502L-2
and ALF502L-2C turbofan engines with high pressure compressor (HPC)
first stage discs, part numbers (P/Ns) 2-101-331-03, 2-101-331-04,
and 2-101-331-10, installed. These engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Bombardier CL-600-1A11 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of discs found with excessive
material removed from the balancing locations of the disc. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the discs from fracturing before reaching
the currently published life limit. A disc fracture could result in
an uncontained failure of the disc and damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed at the next shop visit, but not later than 2,500
cycles-in-service after the effective date of this AD, unless the
actions have already been done.

Visual Inspection

    (f) For discs with 5,000 or more cycles-since-new on the
effective date of this AD, perform a dimensional inspection of the
HPC first stage disc to determine if excessive disc

balance material was removed. See the following Figure 1 for limits.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP09.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AP09.013

    (g) Replace the disc if excessive disc balance material was
removed. See limits in Figure 1 of this AD.
    (h) If the removed balance material condition is acceptable,
perform a magnetic particle inspection of the disc rim and slots for
cracks using a 3 to 7 power magnification glass. The Engine Overhaul
Manual, 72-34-11, Inspection/Check, contains information on the
magnetic particle inspection procedure. Contact Honeywell
International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802,
U.S.A.; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Web site http://
portal.honeywell.com/wps/portal/aero, for a copy of this service
information.
    (i) Replace the disc if you find any cracks.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (j) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has
the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this
AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin ALF/LF A72-1102, dated
April 24, 2007, contains information that pertains to the subject of
this AD. Contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802, U.S.A.; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Web site
http://portal.honeywell.com/wps/portal/aero, for a copy of this
service information.
    (l) Contact Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 6, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-8264 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


MEETING SUMMARY NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 New Bedford, MA   Prepared by Meridian Institute July, 2003 NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 2 NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 New Bedford, MA The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee held its fifth meeting June 17 18, 2003 in New Bedford, MA. This document summarizes discussion topics and key decisions made during the meeting. The meeting was open to the public and audio recorded. Interested individuals and members of the press were present as observers. The Subcommittee's agenda designated several opportunities for public comment as summarized in the appropriate sections of this document. A written transcript was prepared and is available through the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) Docket # SFUND 2002 0005. Angelo Carasea, the Designated Federal Officer ( DFO), is the primary point of contact for all public and press inquiries.

The June17 18, 2003 meeting was intended to accomplish the following objectives:

  Provide an opportunity for the Subcommittee to review and discuss the compilation of information preliminary to report drafting ( June 2003 draft report).   Engage the full Subcommittee in discussions regarding preliminary findings and recommendations developed by the writing teams, creating teams and work groups.   Provide input from EPA Region 1, the state of Massachusetts and the Town of New Bedford regarding the New Bedford Harbor site and related Sediment Site issues relevant to the Subcommittee's Charge.   Provide input from Representatives of Environmental Justice Communities.   Establish a schedule for the development of the Draft Final Report.   Provide an opportunity for public comment.   Provide Subcommittee Members an opportunity to visit a large complex sediment site.

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman of the Subcommittee, opened the meeting and welcomed the Subcommittee members. He introduced Angelo Carasea, the DFO for the Subcommittee and John Ehrmann, the lead facilitator for the group, from Meridian Institute. Dr. Loehr summarized the Subcommittee's charge, its activity since the fourth meeting and the goals for the fifth meeting. The Introductory Statement was available as a handout and is included in Attachment A. Dr. Loehr asked each Subcommittee Member to briefly introduce him or herself.

Agenda Review John Ehrmann, Meridian Institute facilitator, briefly explained the agenda for the meeting. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 3 Opening Remarks The Honorable Frederick Kalisz   Mayor, City of New Bedford, welcomed the Subcommittee to New Bedford and provided opening remarks. He presented slides summarizing the key accomplishments of the cleanup activities conducted in New Bedford.

Introduction of the Draft Subcommittee Report Ray Loehr explained the history and nature of the " June 2003 draft report". The key topics he addressed included the following:

The drafting process built off of the white papers and other documents developed by work groups. Work group material was synthesized into the " June 2003 draft report" that was to be discussed.

The audience for the report includes: USEPA, interested and affected parties, site and program wide stakeholders, state agencies, Congress, and knowledgeable members of the public. The assumption is that the audience will be knowledgeable of Superfund issues to varying degrees.

The " June 2003" draft does not represent final statements, recommendations, or conclusions of the Subcommittee or any of the members.

The report will not be final until December.

Considerable changes are expected between now and the next draft.

Considerable and possibly heated discussion is expected during this meeting to address areas of disagreement.

One of the goals of this meeting is to separate the relevant from the interesting and to identify explicit changes and suggestions for the next draft.

The next draft needs ( 1) more focus on the hard questions; ( 2) clearer conclusions, findings, statements and recommendations; ( 3) more focus on the Charge and ( 4) clear articulation of differences of opinion.

The Chairman emphasized the fact that during this meeting, the staff would be looking for a variety of types of comments, including:

Editorial ( typos, re wording)

Organizational

Clarifications and definitions

Conclusions, findings, recommendations

Disagreement, no consensus He further explained that the core components of the Final Report were expected to include: 1. Executive Summary 2. Body of the report ( key findings, statements, recommendations, logic framework, differences of opinion) 3. Appendices ( Detailed work documents, background documents, website access to meeting summaries, etc.) NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 4 Finally, the chair emphasized the fact that there would be additional opportunities to polish and finalize the report in the future. The schedule would be discussed later in the meeting.

John Ehrmann explained the focus of the review of the " June 2003 draft report" at this point in process and explained how the agenda was organized to discuss and revise the " June 2003 draft report".

Group Discussion of Draft Report The bulk of the meeting was focused on discussing the Subcommittee's comments on the " June 2003 draft report", deliberating over the issues and developing consensus where possible on the recommendations. The key issues raised addressed ( 1) comments on the introduction and organization of the report; ( 2) comments on the substance of the recommendations; and ( 3) new ideas for consideration ( not already included in the report.) The details of all the comments can be found in the transcript of the meeting, available through the DFO.

Miscellaneous Business Wilma Subra and Angelo Carasea reported on the briefing they provided at the meeting of the full NACEPT Council. Some members of the Council have expressed concern that the scope of the Subcommittee is too narrow. Some members felt that the Subcommittee should consider the cost/ benefit analysis issues associated with Superfund. The Council agreed that a representative would raise these issues with Assistant Deputy Administrator Horinko. The Council would like to comment on the draft report of the Superfund Subcommittee at the Council's meeting in late September. Therefore, the draft available at the Subcommittee's meeting in September will likely be the version they will review.

Public Comment Members of the public were invited to comment on their perspectives and concerns regarding Superfund and the work of the Subcommittee.

1. Sandra Jaquith Rocky Mountain Arsenal 2. Doris Bradshaw Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee Concerned Citizens Committee The testimonies are included in the meeting transcript, available through the DFO. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 5 Wednesday, June 18, 2003 John Ehrmann reviewed the agenda for the day. Most of the day was spent continuing the deliberations of the " June 2003 draft report". From 3: 00 PM to 5: 00 PM the Subcommittee heard from the Environmental Justice Panel.

Group Discussion of Draft Report Continued The Subcommittee continued its deliberation on key issues raised in the " June 2003 draft report". Details of the discussion are available in the meeting transcript through the DFO.

Environmental Justice Panel and Discussion Subcommittee members Dolores Herrera and Mildred McClain moderated the Environmental Justice presentations and lead an interactive discussion among the panel members and the Subcommittee. Members of the Panel included the following:

Panel Members   Florence Robinson, North Baton Rouge Environmental Association, Baton Rouge, LA   Charles Utley, Hyde and Aragon Park Improvement, Chair of Augusta Brownfields Commission, Augusta GA   Michael Lythcott, The Lythcott Company, Marlboro, NJ   Veronica Eady, Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, Tufts University Dolores Herrera and Mildred McClain provided a welcome, an overview of Environmental Justice issues and introduced the panel members. After presentations from each of the panel members, an interactive discussion was facilitated among the panel members. The session concluded with a question and answer period for the Subcommittee members. Some of the topics addressed in the presentations and discussion included the following:

The Subcommittee should be targeting " out of the box" recommendations. Look for creative and innovative solutions.

There is a lack of grass roots representatives and diverse perspectives from people of color communities on the Subcommittee.

A lot of the environmental justice issues we are dealing with today come from the fact that the siting of many of these facilities ( that are now on the NPL) came at a time when African Americans had no voice in the democratic process.

Early community involvement is critical to an effective program, effective cleanup of sites and community satisfaction with the cleanup.

There is a difference between the term " community" and " near neighbor". It is a matter of degree   the neighborhood that has born the impact of the site is in a different category. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 6

Superfund creates the opportunity for TAG grants. Strengthen this tool to include factors like redevelopment so that communities can be fully informed.

There are gentrification and displacement issues that we should be considering. What we are seeing is that the more you devolve Superfund from the national level to the states, the more the EJ communities are being devolved. This is an unintended consequence identified by a work group on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council ( NEJAC).

Something must be done about transaction costs associated with Superfund. These funds should be going into the cleanup of communities. We should be willing to put " polluter pays" on the table in exchange for reducing transaction costs.

Don't let Superfund die. Strengthen it. Fund it and if it's broken, then fix it, but the devolution of authority isn't the way to fix it.

In your report, have some language that shows some heart. Have some soul so that people understand that there was real involvement and understanding. ( that may come in the cover letter too)

Regarding the nature of community involvement, we need to provide communities the resources they need to be able to understand the issues necessary to be able to participate actively.

We use the term " risk" in terms of the chances of creating human health impacts, but risk has not predicted the illnesses that have developed in these communities. We are using a faulty tool.

It would be helpful to see a list of alternatives to Superfund that EJ communities could consider taking advantage of.

Adequate health care is a critical element that is missing for these impacted communities.

In EJ communities, homeownership is a critical step in a family's evolution. Many Superfund sites involving EJ communities have families that would have to go back to public housing if they are relocated.

Impacts on property values to the homes adjacent to sites should be considered.

The panel was invited to comment in writing on the " June 2003 draft report" and the draft HRS work group document to help the Subcommittee integrate the panel members' ideas into the Subcommittee's decision making.

Public Comment Members of the public were invited to comment on perspectives and concerns regarding Superfund and the work of the Subcommittee. The following individuals commented:

3. Sandra Jaquith Rocky Mountain Arsenal 4. Doris Bradshaw Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee Concerned Citizens Committee 5. Larry Silverman Attorney   Environmental Consultant NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 7 Testimonies are included in the meeting transcript, available through the DFO. The public meeting adjourned at approximately 6: 20 PM NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute 8 ATTACHMENTS A. Meeting Introductory Information B. List of Presentations and Handouts C. List of Subcommittee Members and Staff in Attendance D. List of Observers Attachment A   Meeting Introductory Information Introductory Information NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, 2003 Meeting The Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT) was established in June 2002 for the purpose of assisting EPA in identifying the future direction of the Superfund Program in the context of other federal and state waste and site cleanup programs. Specifically, the Subcommittee will review the relevant documentation and, to the extent possible, provide answers to questions that relate to: a) the role of the NPL, b) mega sites, and c) measuring program performance. The Subcommittee will operate as, and be subject to, the requirements of a Federal Advisory Committee.

Membership on the committee represents a diversity of interests. Subcommittee members include senior level decision makers and experts from: academia, business and industry, community and environmental advocacy groups, state, local and tribal governments, environmental justice, and non governmental and professional organizations. Dr. Raymond Loehr, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas in Austin, is the chair of the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee is working to accomplish its Charge through quarterly Subcommittee meetings and interim Work Group meetings over about an 18 month period. It is anticipated that one or a series of consensus reports will result from the Subcommittee deliberations. However, where consensus cannot be reached, a written discussion of the views of Subcommittee members is to be provided. As appropriate, the Subcommittee may also respond to issues in the form of " consultation," i. e., dialogue, rather than a formal written report.

Interactive discussion and questioning for the purpose of probing an issue and clarifying a point will be encouraged. As such, any material developed by a Subcommittee member( s), any presentations by a Subcommittee member( s), or comments made by Subcommittee Members at this and future meetings should neither be interpreted to reflect their current Subcommittee position on the subject under discussion, nor their future position as it may evolve over the course of deliberation. Additionally, the comments of an individual Subcommittee Member should not be interpreted as positions of the EPA. The Subcommittee will deliberate thoroughly before developing consensus findings, conclusions or recommendations. Any report on the opinion of the group will undergo rigorous review by all Subcommittee Members before it is considered final and transmitted to EPA. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  1 Subcommittee Meetings To date, the Subcommittee has held four meetings. Three were held in Washington D. C. ( June 17 19, 2002; September 23 24, 2002 and January 7 8, 2003) and one was held in Phoenix, AZ on March 12   14, 2003. A summary of the meetings can be obtained via the EPA website at ( http:// www. epa. gov/ oswer/ SFsub. htm). Highlights from the most recent meeting are included below.

March 2003 Meeting The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee held its fourth meeting March 12 through 13, 2003 in Phoenix, Arizona. The meeting was open to the public. The main purposes of the meeting included the following:

  Provide an opportunity for the Site Types and Cleanup Programs Work Groups to report on their process and status of their deliberations.   Engage the full Subcommittee in discussions regarding preliminary conclusions, policy options and recommendations developed by the Work Groups.   Provide input from the state of Arizona DEQ and EPA Region 9 regarding experience relevant to the Subcommittee's Charge.   Provide input from Community members with experience in the state and federal cleanup programs.   Define the Work Groups and the focus of their activities between the March 2003 and June 2003 plenary meetings.   Review the Subcommittee schedule and determine a path forward.   Provide an opportunity for public comment.   Provide Subcommittee Members an opportunity to visit a large complex mining site being addressed through the State cleanup program.

As a result of the deliberations during the March 2003 meeting, the Subcommittee agreed to organize itself into writing teams, creating teams and work groups. The Measuring Program Progress Work Group agreed to reconvene after taking a hiatus between the January and March meetings in order to focus the efforts of the group members on the increasing demands of the other two groups.

Writing Teams were established as 2 3 person teams to develop the ideas that had been drafted, discussed by the Subcommittee and were ready to be developed into preliminary text for the Draft Final Report. Writing Teams included:   HRS   Program funding and efficiencies   Federal Programs   Prevention Issues   Characteristics that define large complex sites ( Mega sites)

Creating Teams were established as groups of 5 6 people working together to refine NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  2 issues somewhat developed, but needing more discussion among a small group of members before text was drafted for the Draft Final Report. Creating Teams included:   Prioritization of Sites once they are on the NPL   Use of NPL ( AKA " NPL scenarios")   Subdividing sites   State programs A work group was developed to address a variety of issues around NPL listing that still needed significant discussion among Subcommittee members. Topics identified to be addressed by the work group members included:   Early Screening   Coordinating Committee   RI/ FS development for more sites   Preliminary RI and other special approaches to large complex sites In addition to conducting its work via conference calls, the NPL Listing Work Group held an in person meeting on April 30 to May 1 in Washington D. C.

Additionally, the Measuring Program Progress work group reconvened after the March meeting. The focus of their efforts was to respond to EPA on draft documents and initiatives under development within the agency, to integrate ideas from other subcommittee efforts ( including funding prioritization and mega sites in particular) into their efforts and to continue work on developing additional options for program measurements to be considered by the Subcommittee. In addition to conducting its work via conference calls, the Measuring Program Progress Work Group held an in person meeting on April 29th in Washington D. C..

Summary of Activity Since Last Meeting During the period of time between the March 2003 meeting and the June 2003 meeting, the Subcommittee members participated in team activities via conference calls and faceto face meetings. The majority of their efforts related to the drafting and reviewing of recommendations for consideration by the full Subcommittee.

Objectives of the June 17 18, 2003 Meeting The June17 18, 2003 meeting is intended to accomplish the following objectives:

  Provide an opportunity for the Subcommittee to review and discuss the preliminary draft of a final report.   Engage the full Subcommittee in discussions regarding preliminary findings and recommendations developed by the writing teams, creating teams and work groups. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  3   Provide input from EPA Region 1, the state of Massachusetts and the Town of New Bedford regarding the New Bedford Harbor site and related Sediment Site issues relevant to the Subcommittee's Charge.   Provide input from Representatives of Environmental Justice Communities.   Establish a schedule for the development of the Draft Final Report.   Provide an opportunity for public comment.   Provide Subcommittee Members an opportunity to visit a large complex sediment site.

This is an open session for public record. Interested individuals and members of the press have been invited to attend as observers. The Subcommittee will be entertaining questions from the floor during the designated times on the agenda. Angelo Carasea, the Designated Federal Officer, will be available to assist reporters and other interested individuals who would like additional information. His contact information is available on the Roster at the registration table. NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  4 Attachment B   Presentations and Handouts The following presentations and handouts are available electronically as separate documents:

1. Subcommittee Charge 2. June 2003 Draft Subcommittee Report 3. Town of New Bedford Presentation NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  5 Attachment C   List of Subcommittee Members and Staff in Attendance Subcommittee Members Raymond Loehr  Chairman University of Texas at Austin William Adams Kennecot Utah Copper Corporation Sue Briggum Waste Management Doris Cellarius Sierra Club Grant Cope Earthjustice James Derouin Steptoe & Johnson Richard Dewling Dewling Associates, Inc.

Steve Elbert BP America, Inc.

Jane Gardner General Electric Glen Hammer Ashland, Inc.

Dolores Herrera Albuquerque San Jose Community Awareness Council, Inc.

Robert Hickmott Smith Free Group Aimee Houghton Center for Public Environmental Oversight Ken Jock St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Frederick Kalisz City of New Bedford Gary King State of Illinois Ed Lorenz Alma College Mildred McClain Harambee House, Inc.

Michael Mittelholzer National Association of Home Builders Tom Newlon Stoel Rives Victoria Peters State of Colorado Kate Probst Resources for the Future Ed Putnam State of New Jersey Mel Skaggs InDepth Environmental Associates Wilma Subra Louisiana Environmental Action Network Michael Tilchin CH2M Hill Jason White Cherokee Nation Robin Wiener Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries EPA Representatives Barry Breen U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Lawrence Starfield U. S. Environmental Protection Agency NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  1 Designated Federal Officer Angelo Carasea U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Subcommittee Staff Holly Dobson Meridian Institute John Ehrmann Meridian Institute Molly Mayo Meridian Institute Elizabeth McManus Ross and Associates Environmental Consulting NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute A  1 Attachment C  List of Observes and Public Comments NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee June 17 18, New Bedford, MA Public Comment: 1. Sandra Jaquith Rocky Mountain Arsenal 2. Doris Bradshaw Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee Concerned Citizens Committee 3. Larry Silverman Attorney   Environmental Consultant Public Observers: 1. Scott Alfonse City of New Bedford 2. Michael Bonchonsky Dowling Associates 3. Steve Caldwell US EPA 4. Ron Carreira Eagle Safety 5. Paul Connor EPA 6. Carolyn Copper U. S. EPA 7. Paul Craffey MA DEP 8. Mike Crystal Sevenson Environmental Services 9. Alan Hanley General Electric 10. Stephen Langel Inside Washington Publishers 11. Jean Martin BP   attorney 12. William Michaud SRA International 13. Paul Montney Georgia Pacific 14. Doug Motha Mayor's Office   New Bedford 15. Stacy Silva Dyn Corp 16. Nico Sloss US GAO 17. Matthew Thomas City of New Bedford 18. Jim Vondracek Ashland 19. Dale Young MA EOEA


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 32765]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM93-11-000]

Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy
Policy Act of 1992; Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index
for Finished Goods

    The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil
pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that
establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The Commission bases the
index system, found at 18 CFR 342.3, on the annual change in the
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), minus point two one
percent (PPI-FG--0.21%). The Commission determined in the January 2022
Order \1\ that PPI-FG--0.21% is the appropriate oil pricing index
factor for pipelines to use for this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Five-Year Rev. of the Oil Pipeline Index, 178 FERC ] 61,023,
at P 105 (January 2022 Order), reh'g denied, 179 FERC ] 61,100
(2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations provide that the Commission will publish annually
an index figure reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG after the
Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the final PPI-FG in May of each
calendar year. The annual average PPI-FG index figures were 221.0 for
2021 and 250.9 for 2022.\2\ Thus, the percent change (expressed as a
decimal) in the annual average PPI-FG from 2021 to 2022, minus 0.21
percent, is positive 0.133194.\3\ Oil pipelines must multiply their
July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, index ceiling levels \4\ by
positive 1.133194 \5\ to compute their index ceiling levels for July 1,
2023, through June 30, 2024, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). For
guidance in calculating the ceiling levels for each 12-month period
beginning January 1, 1995,\6\ see Explorer Pipeline Company, 71 FERC ]
61,416, at n.6 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the final figure
in mid-May of each year. This figure is publicly available from the
Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes of the BLS, at 202-
691-7705, and in print in August in Table 1 of the annual data
supplement to the BLS publication Producer Price Indexes via the
internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm. To obtain the BLS data,
scroll down to ``PPI Databases'' and click on ``Top Picks'' of the
Commodity Data including ``headline'' FD-ID indexes (Producer Price
Index--PPI). At the next screen, under the heading ``PPI Commodity
Data,'' select the box, ``Finished goods--WPUFD49207,'' then scroll
to the bottom of this screen and click on Retrieve data.
    \3\ [250.9-221.0]/221.0 = 0.135294-0.0021 = 0.133194.
    \4\ See January 2022 Order, 178 FERC ] 61,023 at P 106
(directing oil pipelines to recompute their July 1, 2021 through
June 30, 2022 index ceiling levels to be effective March 1, 2022),
reh'g denied, 179 FERC ] 61,100 at P 8; see also Revisions to Oil
Pipeline Reguls. Pursuant to the Energy Pol'y Act of 1992, 178 FERC
] 61,046 (2022).
    \5\ 1 + 0.133194 = 1.133194.
    \6\ For a listing of all prior multipliers issued by the
Commission, see the Commission's website, https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/oil/general-information/oil-pipeline-index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this Notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print this Notice via the internet through
FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. To
access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the docket number field and
follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's website during normal business hours. For assistance, please
contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free)
or<PHONE_NUMBER> (email at [email protected]), or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public
Reference Room at [email protected].

    Dated: May 16, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10832 Filed 5-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


39942 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Notices PURPOSE: EPA has the authority to designate ODMDS under Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act ( MPRSA) of 1972 ( 33USC 1401 et seq.). EPA's preparation of this EIS is being carried out pursuant to the October 29, 1998 Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) ( 63 FR 58045). Public comments on the scope of the EIS evaluation will be accepted for 45 days from the date of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, TO SUBMIT COMMENTS, AND TO BE PLACED ON A PROJECT MAILING LIST, CONTACT: Mr. Allan Ota, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Dredging and Sediment Management Team ( WTR   8), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105   3901, Telephone: ( 415) 972   3476 or FAX: ( 415) 947   3537 or E mail: R9_ LA3LA2disposal sites_ scoping@ epa. gov. SUMMARY: EPA intends to conduct public meetings and collect public comments in advance of preparing an EIS to designate LA   3 as a permanent ODMDS off Newport Bay, California. The EIS will also re evaluate an annual disposal volume limit for the existing LA   2 ODMDS, and how to minimize cumulative environmental impacts from two ODMDS in the region. NEED FOR ACTION: Dredging is essential for maintaining safe navigation in harbors and marinas in the Los Angeles County and Orange County region. Not all dredged materials are suitable for beneficial re use ( e. g., construction, wetlands restoration), and it is not feasible to use the existing LA   2 ODMDS for all projects in the region. The LA   3 ODMDS has been used by some Orange County projects in the past, but its `` interim'' status has expired. Therefore there is a need to designate LA   3 as a permanent ODMDS. ALTERNATIVES: The following proposed alternatives have been tentatively defined.   ` ` No Action''   Do not designate LA   3 as a permanent ODMDS, and continue to manage the existing LA   2 ODMDS without a designated maximum annual disposal volume limit.   ` ` Maximize Use of LA   2''   Do not designate LA   3 as a permanent ODMDS, but establish a maximum annual disposal volume limit for the LA   2 site adequate to meet the ocean disposal needs of all Los Angeles Orange County region projects.   ` ` Local Use of LA   3 and LA   2''   Designate LA   3 as a permanent ODMDS primarily for Orange County projects, and establish a higher maximum annual disposal volume limit for LA   2 to accommodate most Los Angeles area projects.   ` ` Maximize Use of LA   3''   Designate LA   3 as a permanent ODMDS with a maximum annual disposal limit to meet the ocean disposal needs of all Los Angeles Orange County region projects to the extent feasible, and establish an annual disposal volume limit for LA   2 to accommodate only those projects that could not feasibly use LA   3. SCOPING: EPA is requesting written comments from federal, state, and local governments, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and the general public on the need for action, the range of alternatives considered, and the potential impacts of the alternatives. Scoping comments will be accepted for 45 days, beginning with the date of this Notice. Public scoping meetings are scheduled at two locations on the following dates: 1. July 21, 2003, 2   4 p. m. and 7   9 p. m., in Orange County at the Upper Newport Bay Peter and Mary Muth Interpretive Center, 2301 University Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 ( corner of University Drive and Irvine Avenue). 2. July 22, 2003, 2   4 p. m. and 7   9 p. m., in Los Angeles County at the Port of Long Beach, 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, California 90802, on the 5th Floor Conference Room. Estimated Date of Draft EIS Release: February 2004.

Dated: June 30, 2003. Anne Norton Miller, Director, Office of Federal Activities. [ FR Doc. 03   16846 Filed 7   2   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0229; FRL   7315   4]

Pyridaben; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0229, must be received on or before August 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   3194; e mail address: brothers. shaja@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturer ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturer ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0229. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 18 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYN1. SGM 03JYN1 39943 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Notices facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0229. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0229. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0229. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0229. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 18 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYN1. SGM 03JYN1 39944 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Notices CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding theelements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 26, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petitions The petitioner summary of the pesticide petitions are printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petitions were prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4)

0E6068, 1E6226, 1E6303, 2E6457, and 2E6460 EPA has received pesticide petitions ( 0E6068, 1E6226, 1E6303, 2E6457, and 2E6460) from IR 4, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.494 by establishing tolerances for combined residues of pyridaben, 2 tert butyl 5( 4 tert butylbenzylthio) 4 chloropyridazin 3( 2H) one in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: strawberry at 2.5 parts per million ( ppm)( PP 0E6068); hop, dried cones at 10.0 ppm ( PP 1E6226); tomato at 0.2 ppm ( PP 1E6303); fruit, stone, group at 2.5 ppm ( PP 2E6457), papaya, black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, sapodilla, and star apple at 0.1 ppm ( PP 2E6460). Registration for tomato will be limited to greenhouse grown tomato based on the available residue data. The petitioner also proposes that established tolerances for nectarine, peach, plum, and prune at 2.5 ppm be deleted since they will be superceded by the tolerance for fruit, stone, group at 2.5 ppm. EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions. This summary has been prepared by the BASF Corporation.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. The residue of concern is pyridaben per se as specified in 40 CFR 180.494. 2. Analytical method. The proposed analytical method involves extraction, partition, clean up and detection of residues by gas chromatography/ electron capture detector ( gc/ ecd). 3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out in order to determine the magnitude of the residue in the following crops: Strawberries, hops, cherries ( to satisfy the requirements for a stone fruits group), and papaya. Two greenhouse tomato residue trials were conducted in Canada. Residue trials were carried out using the maximum label rate, the maximum number of applications, and the minimum preharvest interval for each crop or crop group.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute. In general, the acute toxicology studies conducted on technical grade pyridaben demonstrate that it has moderate to mild toxic effects. It was classified as Toxicity Category III based upon the acute oral lethal dose ( LD) 50 of 1,100 mg/ kg in male rats and 570 mg/ kg in female rats. The dermal LD50 in rabbits was greater than or equal to 2,000 mg/ kg ( Tox. Cat. III) and the inhalation lethal concentrations ( LC) 50 were 0.66 and 0.64 mg/ kg in male and female rats, respectively ( Tox Cat. III). The eye irritation study ( rabbits) produced slight ocular irritation ( Tox. Cat. III). Pyridaben was not a dermal irritant ( Tox. Cat. IV) or sensitizer. 2. Genotoxicity. Genotoxicity studies including Ames testing, in vitro cytogenicity ( chinese hamster lung cell), in vivo micronucleus assay ( mouse) and DNA damage/ repair ( E. coli) showed no genotoxic activity associated with pyridaben. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a developmental toxicity study, Sprague Dawley rats ( 22/ group) from Charles River, U. K., received Pyridaben ( 98.0% pure) via gavage at dose levels of 0, 2.5, 5.7, 13.0, or 30.0 milligram kilogram day ( mg/ kg/ day) from gestation day 6 through 15, inclusive. Maternal toxicity, observed at 13.0 and 30.0 mg/ kg/ day, consisted of decreased body weight/ weight gain and food consumption during the dosing period. Based on these effects, the maternal toxicity lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) is 13.0 mg/

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 18 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYN1. SGM 03JYN1 39945 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Notices kg/ day and the maternal toxicity no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) is 4.7 mg/ kg/ day ( 82% of 5.7 mg/ kg/ day based on concentration analysis). The developmental toxicity NOAEL is 13.0 mg/ kg/ day based on observed decreased fetal body weight and increased incomplete ossification in selected bones at 30.0 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL. New Zealand white rabbits ( 19 or 20/ group) were orally dosed with 0, 1.5, 5, or 15 mg/ kg/ day pyridaben from day 6 through 19 of gestation. Maternal toxicity was evidenced by a dosedependent decrease in body weight gain and food consumption at all dose levels. There was also increased incidences of abortions and clinical signs ( few feces) in the 15 mg/ kg/ day group. There was no evidence that the chemical had a developmental effect at any of the tested levels. The maternal NOAEL was < 1.5 mg/ kg/ day and the Maternal LOAEL was 1.5 mg/ kg/ day based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption at all dose levels. No developmental toxicity was observed at any dose level. Therefore, the NOAEL for developmental toxicity is greater than or equal to 15 mg/ kg/ day. In a standard two generation reproduction study, CD rats were administered pyridaben in the diet at doses of 0, 10, 28 or 80 ppm. The Parental/ Systemic NOAEL is 28 ppm ( 2.20 and 2.41 mg/ kg/ day for males and females, respectively). The parental/ systemic LOAEL is 80 ppm ( 6.31 and 7.82 mg/ kg/ day for males and females, respectively) based on decreased body weights, body weight gains and food efficiency. There was no effect on reproductive parameters on the dose levels tested. The reproductive NOAEL is   80 ppm in males and females. The reproductive LOAEL is > 80 ppm in males and females. 4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 21   day dermal study, rats received repeated topical applications of pyridaben ( 98% pure) to about 10% of the body surface area at dosages of 30, 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/ kg for 21 days. The treatment produced body weight decreases in the 300 mg/ kg/ day females and in the 1,000 mg/ kg/ day males and females. The NOAEL was 100 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 300 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased body weight gain in females. The toxicology endpoints from this study were selected by the Agency for short and intermediate term dermal risk assessments. 5. Chronic toxicity. In a 12   month chronic feeding study in dogs pyridaben was administered in capsules at dosages of 0, 1.0, 4.0, 16.0 or 32.0 mg/ kg/ day. All animals survived until the end of the study and there were no treatmentrelated changes in hematology, clinical chemistry, or urinalysis parameters. The NOAEL was determined to be < 1.0 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was   1.0 mg/ kg/ day based on increased incidences of clinical signs ( thinness, dehydration, diarrhea, emesis, soft stool, ptyalism, and relaxed nictitans) in treatment groups of both sexes and decreased body weight gain in females at 1.0 mg/ kg/ day. In a follow up study, Pyridaben was administered in capsules to beagle dogs at dosages of 0 and 0.5 mg/ kg/ day for 1 year. The NOAEL was determined to be < 0.5 mg/ kg/ day for males and females and the LOAEL was   0.5 mg/ kg/ day for males and females based on an increased incidence of clinical signs in both treated sexes and decreased weight gain in the treated females. Pyridaben was administered in the diet to CD 1 mice at dosages of 0, 2.5, 8.0, 25 or 80 ppm for 78 weeks. There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect of the chemical. The NOAEL was determined to be 25 ppm ( 2.78 mg/ kg/ day) for males and females and a LOAEL of 80 ppm ( 8.88 and 9.74 mg/ kg/ day for males and females, respectively). The LOAEL was determined to be 80 ppm for males and females based on decreased body weight gain, decreased food efficiency and changes in organ weights and histopathology ( males). Pyridaben was administered in the diet to groups of Wistar rats for 104 weeks at doses of 0, 4, 10, 28 or 80 ppm to assess carcinogenicity. Additional groups ( 35 animals/ sex/ dose) received doses of 0, 4, 10, 28 or 120 ppm for 104 weeks ( with an interim sacrifice at 53 weeks) to assess chronic toxicity. There was no treatment related neoplastic or non neoplastic pathology in either phase of the study. The NOAEL was determined to be 28 ppm in males ( 1.13 mg/ kg/ day) and 28 ppm ( 1.46 mg/ kg/ day) in females. The LOAEL was determined to be 120 ppm ( 5.00 mg/ kg/ day) in males and 120 ppm ( 6.52 mg/ kg/ day) in females based on decreased body weight gain in males and females and decreased ALT levels in males in the chronic toxicity phase. There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect of this chemical. 6. Animal metabolism. In an acceptable rat metabolism study by the oral route, pyridaben was mainly eliminated in the feces where 80   97% of the administered dose was excreted regardless of the dose or site of label ( pyridazinone or benzyl ring). Nearly 20% of the excreted residue in the feces was unmetabolized parent compound and there was some evidence of glucoronide conjugate( s) in the bile. The plasma levels following a single low oral dose ( 3 mg/ kg) peaked at 23 hours while peak levels at the high dose ( 30 mg/ kg) were at approximately 24 hours post dose due, at least in part, to enterhepatic circulation ( nearly 22   30% of an administered radioactive dose is excreted in bile within a period of 24 hours). Residual radioactivity was at or near background levels for most tissues by 72 to 168 hours. Generally, there seemed to be increased distribution to fat over time and, compared to other tissues, fat seemed to have relatively more residual radioactivity. Several metabolites, totaling up to 20   30, were resolved in urine and feces and some were structurally identified. 7. Metabolite toxicology. The nature of the residue in animals is adequately understood. The residue of concern is pyridaben and its metabolites PB   7, 2 tert butyl 5[ 4( 1 carboxy 1 methylethyl) benzylthio] 4 chloropyridazin 3( 2H) one and PB   9, 2 tert butyl 4 chloro 5[ 4( 1,1 dimethyl 2 hydroxyethyl) benzylthio] chloropyridazin 3( 2H) one as specified in 40 CFR 180.494. 8. Endocrine disruption. The most common toxicity endpoint across the various studies and test species was decreased body weight/ decreased body weight gain followed by decreased feed consumption and/ or feed efficiency. These effects were observed in the 13   week feeding study in mice, in a 13   week rat study, in two 13   week dog studies, in a 21   day rat dermal study, in a 28   day inhalation toxicity study in rats, in two 1   year feeding studies in dogs, in a 78   week feeding/ carcinogenicity study in mice, in a developmental toxicity study in rats, in two developmental studies in rabbits, and in a 2   year feeding carcinogenicity study in rats. The LOAELs were always based on decreases in body weight gain/ body weight decreases or decreases in food consumption. Other effects were sporadic and involved changes in certain clinical chemistry values or increases or decreases in organ weights. Thus, there is no indication that effects on the endocrine system were responsible for any of the observed effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U. S. population to residues of pyridaben ( BAS 300 I). Commodities ( crops and animal products) specified in 40 CFR 180.494 and all new/ updated crop tolerances were included in the dietary assessment ( citrus, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 18 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYN1. SGM 03JYN1 39946 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Notices cranberries, tree nuts, pistachio, papaya and similar fruit, strawberries, hops, green house tomatoes, and secondary residues in animal products meat, meat byproducts, fat  from cattle, goat, hog, horse, sheep). i. Food. Specific inputs and default values were considered in the pyridaben dietary assessment. Anticipated residue values from the raw agricultural commodities and the residue tolerances utilized in the assessment were multiplied by a factor of 2.3 to include all organosoluble residues of pyridaben. Tolerance values were assumed for pistachios, tree nuts, and secondary residues in meat, meat byproducts, fat, and milk. The 2.3 multiplication factor was not used for these animal commodities since the residues of concern ( pyridaben and its metabolites), as specified in 40 CFR 180.494 are well understood in animals. Default processing factors were used for all commodities except for those specified in Table 1 below. In addition, percent crop treated (% CT) values of 23, 5.8, and 11.4% were utilized for pome fruit, grapes, and citrus, respectively. These percent crop treated values were based on the 2000 to 2002 pyridaben peak sales year and peak acreage year. All other crops were considered to have 100% crop treated. TABLE 1.   PROCESS FACTORS USED IN THE PYRIDABEN DIETARY ASSESSMENT Commodity Process Process Factor Citrus washed juice 0.48 0.096 Apples/ Pears washed juice 0.68 0.09 Grapes juice dried 0.04 0.94 * Default processing factors were used for all other commodities.

ii. Drinking water. There are no established maximum contaminant levels or health advisory levels for residues of pyridaben ( BAS 300 I) or its metabolites in drinking water. The PRZM/ EXAMS and SciGrow models were used to estimate the maximum concentrations in surface and ground water, respectively. Pyridaben is immobile and thus unlikely to leach to groundwater. Results of environmental modeling indicate an estimated 0.215 ppm ( acute) and 0.020 ppm ( chronic) of pyridaben in surface water. 2. Non dietary exposure. Pyridaben ( BAS 300 I) is a plant protection product used to control insects. This product is not considered for residential use and therefore the aggregate exposure is a result of pyridaben residues in food and water.

D. Cumulative Effects The cumulative exposure to substances with common mechanism of toxicity must be considered. Currently at this time there is not available data to determine whether pyridaben has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, pyridaben does not appear to form a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. As a result, for the purposes of this tolerance action, it is assumed that pyridaben does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination 1. Acute. Exposure estimates for the pyridaben acute dietary assessment were well under 100% of the aPAD at the 99.9th percentile. The overall general population and the most sensitive subpopulation ( females 13   49 years) utilized < 11% and 14.5% of the acute population adjusted dose ( aPAD), respectively. Results from a Tier I dietary assessment of pyridaben residues in cranberries indicates the percent aPAD for children 1   6 years old and females 13   49 years old were < 3%. Therefore considering all current and pending commodities, including cranberries, the percent chronic reference dose (% cRfD) and percent chronic population dose (% cPAD) will be below 20% for all population subgroups. Further refinements including additional percent crop treated, processing factors, cooking factors, actual residue values for the remaining commodities ( where default values and tolerance levels were used for this assessment) would further reduce the exposure estimates.

TABLE 2. ACUTE DIETARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR FOR PYRIDABEN ( BAS 300 I)

Population Subgroups Exposure Estimate ( mg/ kg b. w. / day) % aRfD % aPAD Birth to 1 year 0.04488 8.98 8.98 1   2 years 0.0509 10.18 10.18 3   5 years 0.04339 8.68 8.68 1   6 years 0.03382 6.76 6.76 6   12 years 0.0300 6.00 6.00 13   19 years 0.01327 2.65 2.65 Females 13   49 years 0.01885 14.50 14.50 Males 20   49 years 0.01101 2.20 2.20 Adults 50+ years 0.01591 3.18 3.18 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 18 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYN1. SGM 03JYN1 39947 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2003 / Notices 2. Chronic. The estimated chronic dietary exposure for all current and pending commodities ( except cranberries) ranged from 15.6 to 77.3% for the cRfD and cPAD for all subpopulations. Results from a Tier I dietary assessment of pyridaben residues in cranberries indicates the percent cPAD for children 1   6 years old and females of childbearing years ( 13   49 years old) were 7.1% and 12.9%, respectively. Therefore considering all current and pending commodities, including cranberries, the % cRfD and % cPAD will be below 100% for all population subgroups. Further refinements including additional percent crop treated, processing factors, cooking factors, actual residue values for the remaining commodities ( that used default values and tolerance levels) would further reduce the exposure estimates.

TABLE 3.   CHRONIC DIETARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR PYRIDABEN ( BAS 300 I)

Population Subgroups Exposure Estimate mg/ kg b. w./ day) % cRfD % Cpad Birth to 1 year 0.00371 74.2 74.2 12 years 0.003867 77.34 77.34 35 years 0.002752 55.04 55.04 16 years 0.0031 62 62 6   12 years 0.002541 50.82 50.82 13   19 years 0.0009618 19.236 19.236 The aggregate exposure ( food and drinking water) of pyridaben will not exceed the U. S. EPA's level of concern ( 100% of RfD). Overall, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from either acute or chronic aggregate exposure of pyridaben residues as a result of use on citrus, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes, cranberries, tree nuts, pistachio, papaya ( and similar fruit), strawberries, hops, and green house tomatoes.

F. International Tolerances Maximum residue levels ( MRLs) have been established for pyridaben in Canada. No MRLs have been established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. [ FR Doc. 03   16930 Filed 7   2   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Special Executive Session DATE AND TIME: Thursday, July 3, 2003 at 10 a. m. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. STATUS: This meeting was closed to the public pursuant to 11 CFR 2.4( b)( 1).

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, July 8, 2003 at 10 a. m. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U. S. C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U. S. C. 437g, 438( b), and Title 26, U. S. C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular.

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, July 10, 2003 at 10 a. m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC ( ninth floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes. Draft Advisory Opinion 2003   12: Stop Taxpayer Money for Politicians Committee (`` STMP'') and Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona by counsel, Benjamin L. Ginsberg. Draft Advisory Opinion 2003   17: James W. Treffinger and Treffinger for Senate Committee by counsel, Karin Riecker. Routine Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone: ( 202) 694   1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission. [ FR Doc. 03   17026 Filed 7   1   03; 10: 46 am]

BILLING CODE 6715   01   M FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD [ No. 2003   N   05]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board. ACTION: Notice with request for comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 ( Privacy Act), the Federal Housing Finance Board ( Finance Board) is providing notice of its intent to amend its system of records to reflect agency reorganizations and regulatory changes and to add a new system of records covering Office of Inspector General investigative files. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the Finance Board is publishing an interim final rule with request for comments that revises the agency's Privacy Act regulation to reflect an agency reorganization in which responsibility and authority for running the agency's Privacy Act program was transferred to the Office of General Counsel. The Finance Board also is revising the rule to make it more `` user friendly'' by using plain language and, where appropriate, a question andanswer format. DATES: This amendment will become effective as proposed without further notice on August 4, 2003 unless comments dictate otherwise. The Finance Board will accept comments in writing on or before August 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Send comments by electronic mail to comments@ fhfb. gov,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 18 Jul 02, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JYN1. SGM 03JYN1