Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 5979

AI–3 ‘‘Contribute to the establishment 

and strengthening of scientific and 

technical networks;’’ and 

RT–3 ‘‘Facilitate the development of 

regional analyses, transboundary 

partnerships, actions, and monitoring.’’

16. The Strategic Plan should include 

evaluation of pesticide effects on 

biodiversity. The Responding to Threats 

(RT) section of the Strategic Plan, in 

particular RT–3, identifies threats 

associated with pesticide use as a 

Priority Area for Action. In addition, 

cross-program coordination with the 

CEC’s Sound Management of Chemicals 

(SMOC) program will also aid in 

evaluating these effects on biodiversity. 

Such cross-program coordination within 

the CEC is being discussed as an 

important management tool and the 

United States BCWG supports this type 

of coordination. 

17. The Strategic Plan should include 

an evaluation of global warming and 

climate change effects on biodiversity.

United States climate change policy is 

in the hands of dedicated specialized 

national negotiating teams outside the 

scope of our nation’s BCWG. More 

significantly, the CEC budget is not 

adequate to address the complexity of 

this topic. Other international fora are 

more appropriate to address the climate 

change subject. For example, a task 

force to the Convention for Biological 

Diversity is examining the effects of 

climate change on biodiversity. The 

United States BCWG recognizes the 

possible effects that changes in climate 

might generate, but agreed that this 

topic should be addressed through other 

international conventions. 

18. The Strategic Plan should support 

work on invasive species and link to the 

CEC’s Law and Policy Program. The 

United States BCWG acknowledges 

commenter’s appreciation for the 

inclusion of invasive species in the 

Strategic Plan. Invasive species will be 

an important focus for the CEC. We also 

agree that it is desirable to link 

management activities to address threats 

from invasive species through 

coordination with CEC’s other 

programs.

19. The Strategic Plan should address 

loss and degradation of habitat, 

specifically due to oil and gas 

development. The threat of oil and gas 

development is partly addressed in 

Priority Area for Action RT–3 

(‘‘Facilitate the development of regional 

analyses, transboundary partnerships, 

actions, and monitoring that will 

address the problems caused by the 

release of substances to land, air and 

water in North America as they impact 

important habitats and migratory and 

transboundary species, and facilitate the 

development of recovery actions in a 

collaborative fashion.’’). In addition, oil 

and gas development concerns may also 

be address under RT–1 (‘‘Support and 

promote trinational or regional efforts to 

identify threats facing North American 

ecosystems, habitats, and species; and 

establish priorities for responding to 

these threats.’’). The United States 

BCWG appreciates the commenter’s 

perspective on this topic. 

20. The Strategic Plan neglects 

agricultural policy and its effects of 

trade policy. Given the finite resources 

and the CEC’s fixed budget, it may be 

desirable to not commit to every 

complex policy issue available. 

Agricultural policy, often contentious 

among governments, even without 

factoring in environmental aspects, is a 

complex arena. The CEC may be 

stretched to address this sensitive and 

dynamic landscape of issues in which 

its impact may be constrained. It may be 

difficult to influence each party’s 

domestic agricultural policy. It may be 

impossible to alter trinational 

agricultural policies. However, there is 

room in the Strategic Plan, and through 

linkages with other CEC programs to 

examine agricultural policy effects on 

the environment. Considerations of 

agricultural policy potentially fit into 

the Biodiversity Conservation and Trade 

goal (BT 1–5). The CEC Environment, 

Economy, and Trade program, which 

has invested in analyses of the 

environmental effects of the trade 

liberalization, is a logical linkage for 

this subject. 

21. Analyze the importance of the 

effects of trade on North American 

Biodiversity. The United States BCWG 

appreciates interest in evaluations of the 

impacts of Trade on biodiversity. We 

draw the commenter’s attention to 

CEC’s report titled: ‘‘The Environmental 

Effects of Free Trade,’’ http://cec.org/

pubs_docs/scope/

index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=14, http:/

/cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/111–03–

05_en.pdf. The CEC has already been 

working on this issue, albeit in general 

terms as far as the parameters 

representing the environment. It is 

difficult to extract the effects of trade 

liberalization from multiple alternative 

social, economic, and environmental 

factors that also influence biodiversity. 

Also, biodiversity has not been 

quantified in adequate detail or scale to 

allow rigorous regional evaluations, 

which forces investigators to rely on 

extremely broad indices. The CEC’s 

Conservation of Biodiversity Program 

will coordinate closely with the 

Environment, Economy, and Trade 

Program to address this multivariate and 

important topic. 

Access to the Document: The Strategic 

Plan may be viewed on the CEC’s Web 

site at: http://www.cec.org/

programs_projects/conserv_biodiv.

Copies of the Strategic Plan may be 

obtained by contacting Patrick Cotter via 

mail at: Office of International Affairs 

(2260R), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; via fax at 

(202) 565–2409; or via e-mail at 

Cotter.Patrick@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick Cotter by telephone at (202) 

564–6414 or by e-mail at 

Cotter.Patrick@epa.gov.

C. Thomas McCully, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for 

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–2713 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7619–6] 

Integrating Ecological Risk 

Assessment and Economic Analysis in 

Watersheds: a Conceptual Approach 

and Three Case Studies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of a final report titled, 

Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment 

and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: 

a Conceptual Approach and Three Case 

Studies (EPA/600/R–03/140R), which 

was prepared by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) National 

Center for Environmental Assessment 

(NCEA) of the Office of Research and 

Development (ORD).

ADDRESSES: The document will be made 

available electronically through the 

NCEA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/

ncea). A limited number of paper copies 

will be available from the EPA’s 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications (NSCEP), 

PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; 

telephone: 1–800–490–9198 or 513–

489–8190; facsimile: 513–489–8695. 

Please provide your name, your mailing 

address, the title and the EPA number 

of the requested publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Technical Information Staff, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment/

Cincinnati Office (MS–117), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 26 

W. Martin Luther King Drive, 

Cincinnati, OH 56428; Telephone: 513–

5980 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 

569–7257; fax: 513–569–7475; e-mail: 

nceadc.comment@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document reports on a program of 

research to investigate the integration of 

ecological risk assessment (ERA) and 

economics, with an emphasis on the 

watershed as the scale for analysis. In 

1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency initiated watershed ERA (W–

ERA) in five watersheds to evaluate the 

feasibility and utility of this approach. 

In 1999, economic case studies were 

funded in conjunction with three of 

those W–ERAs: the Big Darby Creek 

watershed in central Ohio, the Clinch 

Valley (Clinch and Powell River 

watersheds) in southwestern Virginia 

and northeastern Tennessee, and the 

central Platte River floodplain in 

Nebraska. The ecological settings, and 

the analytical approaches used, differed 

among the three locations, but each 

study introduced economists to the ERA 

process and required the interpretation 

of ecological risks in economic terms. A 

workshop was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, 

in 2001 to review progress on those 

studies, to discuss environmental 

problems involving other watershed 

settings, and to discuss the ideal 

characteristics of a generalized approach 

for conducting studies of this type. 

Based on the workshop results, a 

conceptual approach for the integration 

of ERA and economic analysis in 

watersheds was developed. The 

objectives of this document (by chapter) 

are: to set forth the rationale, 

limitations, and contributions of the 

document (Chapter 1); to create a 

context for understanding by a diverse, 

technical audience (Chapter 2); to 

present a conceptual approach for 

integrating ERA and economics in the 

context of watershed management 

(Chapter 3); to present and critically 

evaluate the methods and findings of 

the three watershed case studies 

(Chapters 4–6); and to identify research 

needed to improve the integration of 

ERA and economic analysis in 

watersheds (Chapter 7). This report is 

unique in its focus on the problem of 

ERA-economic integration and the 

watershed management context and in 

its presentation of case studies. The 

conceptual approach is used as a basis 

of discussion of each case study to 

illustrate how its particular 

methodological advances and insights 

could be used to fullest advantage, both 

in the watershed studied and in future 

integration efforts.

Dated: January 28, 2004. 

Peter W. Preuss, 

Director, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment.

[FR Doc. 04–2714 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

[OPPT–2004–0072]; FRL–7344–2]

Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and 

Status Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Section 5 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 

any person who intends to manufacture 

(defined by statute to include import) a 

new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on 

the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and 

comply with the statutory provisions 

pertaining to the manufacture of new 

chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 

5(d)(3) of TSC, EPA is required to 

publish a notice of receipt of a 

premanufacture notice (PMN) or an 

application for a test marketing 

exemption (TME), and to publish 

periodic status reports on the chemicals 

under review and the receipt of notices 

of commencement to manufacture those 

chemicals. This status report, which 

covers the period from December 26, 

2003 to January 16, 2004, consists of the 

PMNs and TME’s both pending or 

expired, and the notices of 

commencement to manufacture a new 

chemical that the Agency has received 

under TSCA section 5 during this time 

period.

DATES: Comments identified by the 

docket ID number OPPT–2004–0072 

and the specific PMN number or TME 

number, must be received on or before 

March 10, 2004.

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:

Barbara Cunningham, Director, 

Environmental Assistance Division, 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics (7408M), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001; telephone number: (202) 554–

1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public 

in general. As such, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe the specific 

entities that this action may apply to. 

Although others may be affected, this 

action applies directly to the submitter 

of the premanufacture notices addressed 

in the action. 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 

OPPT–2004–0072. 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 

EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading 

Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA 

Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The EPA 

Docket Center Reading Room telephone 

number is (202) 566–1744 and the 

telephone number for the OPPT Docket, 

which is located in EPA Docket Center, 

is (202) 566–0280.

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.