Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68285

• Whether the adoption of the current 

versions would be controversial; and

• Whether the latest versions reduce 

risk more than the versions that are 

currently incorporated in OSHA 

standards. 

Various SDOs and other organizations 

responded and indicated their desire to 

assist OSHA in its effort to update its 

standards. Among the SDOs providing 

input were ANSI, the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA), the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), and the American 

Society for Testing and Materials. Other 

organizations such as Underwriters 

Laboratories, the American Petroleum 

Institute, the Compressed Gas 

Association, and the Abrasive Wheel 

Institute also responded. Many of the 

SDOs and other organizations provided 

OSHA with copies of the most recent 

versions of their referenced standard(s) 

and offered to provide technical 

assistance to the Agency in its analysis 

of the older and new standards. OSHA 

appreciates the willingness of these 

organizations to help us implement this 

project. 

Nearly all of the SDOs said that 

OSHA’s standards needed updating to 

reflect current versions of the consensus 

standards and that the current versions 

provided a higher level of safety to 

workers. In addition, many of the SDOs 

believe that OSHA’s efforts to update its 

standards to reflect current versions of 

the consensus standards will not elicit 

controversy. For example, the ASME 

said:

[We] believe that adoption of the current 

version of each of these standards by the 

Federal Government with the changes 

identified would be non-controversial. 

Similarly, it is our opinion that the current 

versions of ASME standards will provide a 

reduction in the risk of accidents and injuries 

as compared to earlier versions presently 

referenced in the CFR and will alleviate some 

of the confusion in the regulated industry. 

Moreover, in addition to the technological 

advances incorporated into updated 

standards, many of the products described in 

the older versions of standards are no longer 

available, or are very difficult to obtain. Ex. 

2–2, p. 2.

The NFPA noted that each of their 

documents has been updated ‘‘to reflect 

up-to-date terminology and current 

industry practices.’’ Ex. 2–3, App. B. 

The updated documents often cover 

technology that has been developed 

since the OSHA standard was 

promulgated. ‘‘Providing a state-of-theart document reflecting business 

practices of today promotes more of an 

understanding, appreciation and the 

much-necessary buy-in by the users of 

the regulations, thereby reducing risk.’’

Ex. 2–3, App. B. 

The NFPA also thought the updated 

references ‘‘would be largely noncontroversial since the documents are 

ANSI consensus standards.’’ Ex. 2–3, 

App. B. In addition, the NFPA said that 

‘‘[w]ith the interested parties 

participating in the process to write 

documents, and with the respective 

affected industries and their insurance 

companies currently using NFPA 

documents, there is little controversy 

with OSHA referencing the most 

updated NFPA codes and standards.’’

Ex. 2–3, App. B. The NFPA also said 

that for those OSHA standards that 

contain word-for-word text from NFPA 

codes and standards, OSHA should 

consider replacing the text ‘‘with a 

simple reference to the applicable 

primary NFPA document.’’ Ex. 2–3, 

App. B. 

OSHA is undertaking a series of 

regulatory projects to update its 

standards to reflect the current versions 

of consensus standards. These 

regulatory projects will include 

updating or revoking outdated 

consensus standards incorporated by 

reference, and updating regulatory text 

of current OSHA rules that were 

adopted directly from the language of 

outdated consensus standards. OSHA 

will use a variety of regulatory 

approaches in this effort, including: 

1. Notice and comment rulemaking.

OSHA intends to initiate formal (notice 

and comment) rulemaking to update or 

revoke references to outdated consensus 

standards in instances where OSHA 

anticipates that the action would either 

impose compliance costs or raise 

significant issues. OSHA will also use 

traditional notice and comment 

rulemaking to update OSHA provisions 

that were derived directly from the text 

of outdated consensus standards. OSHA 

is already using this technique to update 

its electrical installation standards in 

Subpart S of Part 1910 (proposed rule 

published April 5, 2004, 69 FR 17774) 

and expects to publish a proposed rule 

in the near future for Subpart V (power 

transmission and distribution lines and 

equipment) of Part 1926. 

2. Direct final rulemaking. OSHA will 

use direct final rulemaking to update or 

revoke, as appropriate, references to 

outdated consensus standards where the 

regulatory change is non-controversial, 

equally protective, and does not impose 

significant new compliance costs. 

3. Technical amendments. Where 

appropriate, OSHA intends to issue 

technical amendments to update 

references that are currently 

incorporated into OSHA standards and 

that only provide information to the 

regulated community. Such references 

impose no compliance obligations and 

can be updated without notice and 

comment procedures. 

OSHA welcomes comments on this 

update effort generally, as well as 

specific suggestions on which projects 

OSHA should pursue first. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of John L. Henshaw, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. It 

is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 

8 of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2002 (67 

FR 65008), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 17 day of 

November 2004. 

John L. Henshaw, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 04–26047 Filed 11–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 938 

[PA–124–FOR] 

Pennsylvania Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the public 

comment period on a proposed 

amendment to the Pennsylvania 

regulatory program (the ‘‘Pennsylvania 

program’’) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). Since the close of 

the comment period, Pennsylvania has 

provided explanatory information in 

response to two letters, as amended, we 

sent requesting clarification with regard 

to its proposed amendment. 

Pennsylvania has also withdrawn 

portions of its original amendment and 

has requested that we consider some 

existing statutes and regulatory 

provisions as part of the amendment. 

Pennsylvania has also indicated its 

intent to further revise portions of the 

amendment. We are accepting 

comments on the specific changes noted 

below only.

DATES: We will accept written 

comments on this proposal until 4 p.m., 

(local time) December 9, 2004.

68286 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PA–124–FOR, by any of 

the following methods: 

• E-mail: grieger@osmre.gov. Include 

PA–124–FOR in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: George Rieger, 

Director, Pittsburgh Field Division, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, Harrisburg 

Transportation Center, Third Floor, 

Suite 3C, 4th and Market Streets, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document.

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review copies of the Pennsylvania 

program, this amendment, and all 

written comments received in response 

to this document at the address listed 

below during normal business hours, 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

holidays. You may receive one free copy 

of the amendment by contacting OSM’s 

Pittsburgh Field Division.

George Rieger, Director, Pittsburgh Field 

Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Harrisburg Transportation Center, 

Third Floor, Suite 3C, 4th and Market 

Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17101, E-mail: grieger@osmre.gov,

Telephone: (717) 782–4036. 

Joseph P. Pizarchik, Director, Bureau of 

Mining and Reclamation, 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Rachel 

Carson State Office Building, PO Box 

8461, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105–8461, Telephone: (717) 787–

5103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Rieger, Telephone: (717) 782–

4036, E-mail: grieger@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program 

II. Description of the Proposed Action 

III. Public Comment Procedures

I. Background on the Pennsylvania 

Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of the Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to the Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the 

Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. 

You can find background information 

on the Pennsylvania program, including 

the Secretary’s findings, the disposition 

of comments, and conditions of 

approval of the Pennsylvania program 

in the July 30, 1982, Federal Register

(47 FR 33050). You can also find later 

actions concerning the Pennsylvania 

program and program amendments at 30 

CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.15 and 938.16. 

II. Description of the Proposed Action 

By letter dated December 18, 1998 

(Administrative Record No. PA 853.01), 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a proposed amendment to its 

program pursuant to various issues 

including bonding, remining and 

reclamation, postmining discharges, and 

water supply protection/replacement. 

The proposal included two documents: 

‘‘Provisions of Pennsylvania’s Statute—

Surface Mining Conservation and 

Reclamation Act—Submitted for 

Program Amendment’’ and ‘‘Provisions 

of Pennsylvania’s Regulations—25 Pa. 

Code Chapters 86–90—Submitted for 

Program Amendment.’’

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the March 12, 

1999, Federal Register (64 FR 12269), 

and in the same document invited 

public comment and provided an 

opportunity for a public hearing on the 

adequacy of the proposed amendment. 

The public comment period closed on 

April 12, 1999. Please refer to the March 

12, 1999, Federal Register for additional 

background information. In the July 8, 

1999, Federal Register (64 FR 36828), 

we reopened the comment period in 

response to a June 1, 1999, letter 

(Administrative Record No. PA 853.11) 

from PADEP regarding deletion of the 

definition of the term ‘‘best professional 

judgment’’ at 25 Pa. Code 87.202 and 25 

Pa. Code 88.502, and the deletion of 

subsections 25 Pa. Code 87.207(b) and 

25 Pa. Code 88.507(b). The reopened 

comment period closed on July 23, 

1999. 

By letters dated September 22, 1999 

(Administrative Record No. PA 853.14), 

and April 6, 2000 (Administrative 

Record No. PA 853.17), we requested 

clarification from Pennsylvania on 

various aspects of its amendment. In an 

October 3, 2002, letter to Pennsylvania 

(Administrative Record No. PA 853.22), 

we indicated that some of the issues in 

our September 22, 1999, and April 6, 

2000, letters were no longer valid and 

that we were withdrawing our request 

for clarification of those issues. The 

conclusions in this letter were the result 

of our internal deliberations; we did not 

remove our request for clarification of 

these issues as the result of information 

from any other source. Since the 

issuance of the October 3, 2002, letter, 

we have had numerous meetings with 

Pennsylvania to discuss the items 

remaining from the September 22, 1999, 

and the April 6, 2000, letters. 

The meetings with Pennsylvania 

resulted in Pennsylvania providing 

information to us to clarify the meaning 

of various parts of its amendment. We 

prepared a document listing those 

clarifications and placed it in the 

administrative record (Administrative 

Record No. PA 853.25). Copies of that 

document can be obtained from OSM’s 

Harrisburg Office at the address noted 

above. The parts of Pennsylvania 

Surface Mining Conservation and 

Reclamation Act (PASMCRA) that we 

received clarifications on include: 

Sections 4(d); 4(d)(2); 4(g)(1) and (3); 

4.2(f)(2) and (3); 4.13; 18(a.1); and 18.9. 

We received clarifications from 

Pennsylvania on the following 

regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 86: 

Sections 86.151(c); 86.158(e) and (f); 

86.168; 86.174(a); 86.252 (definition of 

‘‘remining area’’); 86.253(b)(2)–(4); and 

86.354. Finally, we received 

clarifications from Pennsylvania on the 

following portions of 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 87: 87.119(d) and (e). We are 

seeking comment on the clarifications 

PADEP provided to us of these sections. 

Additionally, Pennsylvania submitted 

two letters to us modifying the 

December 18, 1998, amendment. Those 

letters were dated December 23, 2003 

(Administrative Record No. PA 853.23), 

and April 13, 2004 (Administrative 

Record No. PA 853.24). 

In the December 23, 2003, letter, 

Pennsylvania noted that in the 1998 

amendment submission it had proposed 

the removal of certain language in 25 Pa. 

Code Chapters 87–90 including: 

Sections 87.102; 87.103; 87.207(b); 

88.92; 88.93; 88.187; 88.188; 88.292; 

88.293; 88.507(b); 89.52; 89.53; 90.102; 

and 90.103 which provide effluent 

limits for discharges from areas 

disturbed by coal mining activities. In 

the 1998 amendment, Pennsylvania also 

requested the definition of the phrase, 

‘‘dry weather flow’’ in 25 Pa. Code 87.1, 

88.1, 89.5, and 90.1 and the definition 

of the phrase, ‘‘best professional 

judgment’’ in Sections 87.202 and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68287

88.502 be removed from the approved 

program. In the December 23, 2003, 

letter, Pennsylvania revised the 1998 

amendment as submitted to retain, as 

part of its approved program, the above 

referenced regulations which provide 

effluent limits and the definitions of 

‘‘dry weather flow’’ and ‘‘best 

professional judgment.’’ Therefore, we 

consider those portions of the 1998 

amendment submission as withdrawn 

and they will not be considered further 

in this rulemaking. No comments will 

be accepted with regard to these areas.

Also in the December 23, 2003, letter 

Pennsylvania indicated that the 1998 

program amendment had included 

Sections 4(g.1), 4(g.2), and 4(g.3) of 

PASMCRA relating to minimal impact 

postmining discharges and the release of 

bonds on mine sites with discharges. 

Pennsylvania noted in that letter that 

since the definition of minimal impact 

postmining discharges and the 

regulations for postmining discharges 

were not included in the program 

amendment, it was requesting that these 

sections of PASMCRA be removed from 

the proposed amendment. Pennsylvania 

noted in the letter that it was intending 

to submit these sections along with the 

associated regulations as a separate 

program amendment. Therefore, these 

sections are also withdrawn and will 

not be considered further in this 

rulemaking. No comments will be 

accepted with regard to these areas. 

In the April 13, 2004, letter, 

Pennsylvania notified us that it wished 

to withdraw Section 18(a.4) of 

PASMCRA from consideration under 

the 1998 program amendment because 

the areas suitable for reclamation by 

remining program has not yet been 

developed. Therefore, this section will 

not be considered further in this 

rulemaking. No comments will be 

accepted with regard to these areas. 

Also in its April 13, 2004, letter 

Pennsylvania requested that we 

consider for approval Sections 4.10 and 

4.11 of PASMCRA and the 

corresponding regulations at 25 Pa. 

Code Sections 86.251 through 86.270. 

These sections of the statute and 

regulations provide for Pennsylvania’s 

Remining Operators Assistance 

Program. This program provides 

incentives to operators to undertake 

reclamation and remining of abandoned 

mine lands and bond forfeiture sites. 

These provisions are now included in 

this rulemaking action and we are 

seeking comment with regard to these 

sections of PASMCRA and 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 86. 

In the April 13, 2004, letter, and its 

attachment, Pennsylvania also notified 

us that it intends to address outstanding 

issues in this amendment relating to: De 

minimis cost increases for a replacement 

water supply; temporary replacement of 

water supply; waivers for water supply 

replacement; adequate versus equivalent 

water supply; operation and 

maintenance costs for replaced water 

supplies; financial guarantees to 

operators to reclaim abandoned mine 

lands through remining; and, operator 

cost recovery, through additional 

regulation changes. While Pennsylvania 

has indicated that it intends to further 

revise those portions of the pending 

package, it has not withdrawn those 

portions and has asked that we proceed 

with a decision. Since we received no 

changes or clarifications from the 

original amendment with regard to these 

areas, we are not reopening the 

comment period for them. 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 

732.17(h), we are seeking your 

comments on whether the information 

described above satisfies the applicable 

program approval criteria of 30 CFR 

732.15. If we approve the amendment, 

it will become part of the State program. 

Written Comments 

Send your written or electronic 

comments to OSM at the address given 

above. Your written comments should 

be specific, pertain only to the issues 

proposed in this rulemaking, and 

include explanations in support of your 

recommendations. We will not 

necessarily consider or respond to your 

comments when developing the final 

rule if they are received after the close 

of the comment period (see DATES). We 

will make every attempt to log all 

comments into the administrative 

record, but comments delivered to an 

address other than the Harrisburg Office 

may not be logged in. 

Electronic Comments 

Please submit Internet comments as 

an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use 

of special characters and any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

SATS No. PA–124–FOR’’ and your 

name and return address in your 

Internet message. If you do not receive 

a confirmation that we have received 

your Internet message, contact the 

Harrisburg Office at (717) 782–4036. 

Availability of Comments 

We will make comments, including 

names and addresses of respondents, 

available for public review during 

normal business hours. We will not 

consider anonymous comments. If 

individual respondents request 

confidentiality, we will honor their 

request to the extent allowable by law. 

Individual respondents who wish to 

withhold their name or address from 

public review, except for the city or 

town, must state this prominently at the 

beginning of their comments. We will 

make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public review in their entirety.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 9, 2004. 

Brent Wahlquist, 

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional 

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 04–25971 Filed 11–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0142; FRL–7686–4]

Trifluralin; Proposed Pesticide 

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

establish a tolerance for residues of 

trifluralin in mint oil under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The 

amendment substantially rewrote 

section 408 of FFDCA. As a result, the 

revisions made it necessary, once again, 

to establish tolerances on certain 

commodities, such as mint oils, that had 

previously been deemed unnecessary.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 24, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number OPP–2004–0142, by one of the 

following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments.

• Agency Website: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET, 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments.

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,