Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 75541

II. 26 NOTICES OF COMMENCEMENT FROM: 11/10/04 TO 11/30/04—Continued

Case No. Received Date Commencement 

Notice End Date Chemical 

P–04–0648 11/10/04 10/22/04 (G) Amine functional epoxy resin salted with organic acid 

P–04–0672 11/15/04 11/05/04 (G) Isocyanate functional polyester urethane polymer 

P–04–0691 11/15/04 11/05/04 (G) Urethane acrylic hybrid polymer 

P–04–0712 11/23/04 11/04/04 (G) Azole polymer 

P–04–0722 11/18/04 10/19/04 (G) Acrylic polymer 

P–04–0723 11/18/04 10/19/04 (G) Acrylic polymer 

P–04–0743 11/17/04 11/08/04 (G) Substituted phosphonic acid compounded with substituted urea 

P–04–0759 11/24/04 10/25/04 (G) Aliphatic polyamine 

P–04–0766 11/23/04 11/01/04 (G) Mineral/vegetable oil based alkyd 

P–04–0769 11/18/04 11/08/04 (G) Substituted methyl ester of octadecanoic acid 

P–04–0801 11/23/04 11/16/04 (G) Aluminum alkoxide complex 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Premanufacturer notices.

Dated: December 7, 2004. 

Vicki Simons, 

Acting Director, Information Management 

Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics.

[FR Doc. 04–27672 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7850–1] 

Notice of Availability of Draft National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) General Permits 

MAG910000 and NHG910000 for 

Discharges From Groundwater 

Remediation and Miscellaneous 

Surface Water Discharge Activities in 

the States of Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire and Indian Country Lands 

in the State of Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft 

NPDES General Permits MAG910000 

and NHG910000: Extension of Comment 

Period. 

SUMMARY: On Friday, November 2, 2004, 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

New England Regional Office (EPA–NE) 

published a Notice of Availability for 

the Draft National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permits MAG910000 and NHG910000 

for Discharges from Groundwater 

Remediation and Miscellaneous Surface 

Water Discharge Activities in the States 

of Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

and Indian Country Lands in the State 

of Massachusetts in the Federal Register

(69 FR 63531). In response to requests 

from sources that may be eligible for 

coverage under these general permits, 

EPA–NE is extending the comment 

period for these permits.

DATES: The comment period is being 

extended from December 17, 2004, to 

January 18, 2005. Comments must be 

received or postmarked by midnight on 

January 18, 2004. Interested persons 

may submit comments on the draft 

general permit as part of the 

administrative record to the EPA–NE at 

the address given below. Within the 

comment period, interested persons 

may also request in writing a public 

hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 

concerning the draft general permit. 

Such requests shall state the nature of 

the issues proposed to be raised at the 

hearing. A public hearing may be held 

at least thirty days after public notice 

whenever the Regional Administrator 

finds that response to this notice 

indicates significant public interest. In 

reaching a final decision on the draft 

permits, the Regional Administrator will 

respond to all significant comments and 

make responses available to the public 

at EPA–NE’s Boston office. All public 

comments or requests for a public 

hearing must be submitted to the 

address below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

hand delivered or mailed to: Roger A. 

Janson, Director, Municipal Permits 

Branch (CMP), EPA–NE, 1 Congress 

Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 

Massachusetts 02114–2023. 

EPA also requests that comments be 

sent via e-mail to 

Rapp.Steve@EPA.GOV. However, no 

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. A 

copy of all comments and supporting 

materials should also be submitted to: 

In MA: Mr. Paul Hogan, NPDES 

Permit Unit, MA Dept. of Env. 

Protection, 627 Main Street, Worcester, 

MA 01608. 

In NH: Mr. George Berlandi, NH Dept. 

of Env. Services, Wastewater 

Engineering Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, 

P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

The draft permit is based on an 

administrative record available for 

public review at the EPA address listed 

above. Copies of information in the 

record are available upon request. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Additional information concerning the 

draft permit may be obtained between 

the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday excluding holidays from: 

Steven Rapp, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

(CPE), Boston, MA 02114–2023, 

telephone: (617) 918–1551, e-mail: 

Rapp.Steve@EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft 

general permits may be viewed over the 

Internet via the EPA–Region 1 Web site. 

For dischargers in Massachusetts, see 

http://www.epa.gov/ne/npdes/

mass.html#dgp. For dischargers in New 

Hampshire, see http://www.epa.gov/ne/

npdes/newhampshire.html#dgp.

Dated: December 8, 2004. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 1.

[FR Doc. 04–27666 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OW–FRL–7849–4] 

Notice of Draft Aquatic Life Criteria for 

Selenium and Request for Scientific 

Information, Data, and Views

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft 

Aquatic Life Criteria Document for 

Selenium, and Request for Scientific 

Information, Data, and Views Pertaining 

to the Criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency announces the availability of a

75542 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 

draft aquatic life criteria document for 

selenium and requests scientific 

information, data, and views. The 

document contains draft water quality 

criteria recommendations for the 

protection of freshwater and saltwater 

aquatic life. EPA is soliciting 

information, data, and views on issues 

of science pertaining to the information 

the Agency used to derive the draft 

criteria. When completed and published 

in final form, the revised criteria will 

replace EPA’s current recommended 

aquatic life criteria for selenium. EPA’s 

recommended water quality criteria 

provide technical information for states 

and authorized tribes in adopting water 

quality standards, but themselves have 

no binding legal effect.

DATES: Scientific views, data, and 

information should be submitted by 

April 18, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Scientific information, data, 

and views may be submitted 

electronically, by mail, or through handdelivery/courier. Follow detailed 

instructions provided in section C of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Delos, e-mail 

delos.charles@epa.gov or postal address, 

Mail Code 4304T, U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 at (202) 566–1097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Which Entities Might Be Interested? 

Entities potentially interested in 

today’s notice are those that discharge 

or release selenium to surface waters, 

and federal, state, tribal, and local 

authorities that regulate selenium levels 

in surface water. Categories and entities 

interested in today’s notice include but 

are not limited to:

Category Examples of interested entities 

State/Local/Tribal 

Government.

States, municipalities, 

tribes. 

Industry ..................... Mining, coal-fired 

power generation. 

Agriculture ................. Irrigated agriculture. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table may also be 

interested.

B. How Can I Get Copies of the Draft 

Document and Related Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OW–2004–0019. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that are available 

for public viewing at the Water Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426. Alternatively, 

copies of the draft may be obtained from 

EPA’s Water Resource Center by phone 

at (202) 566–2426, or by e-mail to 

center.water.resource@epa.gov or by 

conventional mail to: EPA Water 

Resource Center, 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

2. Electronic Access. Use http://

www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/

aqlife.html to obtain the draft document. 

Use http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ to 

obtain this Federal Register document 

electronically. 

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 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 section B.1. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the 

appropriate docket identification 

number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as Confidential 

Business Information (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 section B.1. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that data, information, and 

views, 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 data or 

information contains copyrighted 

material, CBI, or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

When EPA identifies copyrighted 

material, EPA will provide a reference 

to that material in the version of the 

document that is placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. The entire 

printed document, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Data, information, and views 

submitted on computer disks that are 

mailed or delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Data, information, and views 

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 Do I Submit Scientific 

Information, Data, or Views? 

You may submit scientific 

information, data, or views 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page. 

1. Electronically. EPA recommends 

that you include your name and mailing 

address, or e-mail address or other 

contact information, particularly if you 

submit data in tables or figures. 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 and allows EPA to 

contact you in case EPA has technical 

difficulties reading your submission or 

needs further information on the 

substance of your submission. EPA’s 

policy is that EPA will not edit your 

submission, and any identifying or 

contact information provided in the 

body of the submission will be included 

in the official public docket, and made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If EPA cannot read your 

submission due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider it. 

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to submit data, 

information, and views to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving submissions. Go directly to

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 75543

EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket and follow the online 

instructions. Once in the system, select 

‘‘search,’’ and then key in Docket ID No. 

OW–2004–0019. 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.

ii. E-mail. Submissions may be sent 

by electronic mail (e-mail) to owdocket@epa.gov attention Docket ID No. 

OW–2004–0019. 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 directly to 

the Docket without going through EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail 

system automatically captures your email address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

submission that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may send 

your submission on a disk or CD ROM 

to the mailing address identified in 

section B.1. 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 an original and three 

copies of your submission to: Water 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW–

2004–0019. 

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier.

Deliver your submission to: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. OW–2004–0019. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation as 

identified in section B.1. 

D. What Are EPA Recommended Water 

Quality Criteria? 

An EPA recommended water quality 

criterion is a level of a pollutant or other 

measurable substance in water that, 

when met, will protect aquatic life and/

or human health. Section 304(a) of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to 

develop and publish and, from time to 

time, revise, recommended water 

quality criteria to accurately reflect the 

latest scientific knowledge. Water 

quality criteria developed under section 

304(a) provide guidance to states and 

tribes in adopting water quality criteria 

into their water quality standards under 

section 303(c). Once adopted by a state 

or tribe, the water quality standards 

then are a basis for developing 

regulatory controls on the discharge or 

release of pollutants and other 

alterations of water quality. EPA’s 

section 304(a) criteria also provide a 

scientific basis for EPA to develop any 

necessary federal water quality 

regulations under section 303(c) of the 

CWA. 

The draft criteria in today’s notice are 

based on the factors specified in section 

304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including 

the kind and extent of effects of the 

pollutant on human health and aquatic 

organisms. Under the Clean Water Act, 

the EPA can not consider the economic 

and technical feasibility of meeting the 

draft criteria in their development. 

Economic and technical feasibility 

factors are considered by states and 

tribes when they adopt water quality 

criteria into their water quality 

standards under section 303(c) of the 

Act and when states, tribes, and EPA 

consider variance requests for regulatory 

controls. Moreover, states and tribes 

may also consider alternative 

scientifically-defensible approaches to 

adopting criteria into their water quality 

standards that may be different from 

approaches presented by EPA in final 

water quality criteria published under 

section 304(a). 

E. What Is Selenium and Why Are We 

Concerned About It? 

Selenium is a naturally-occurring 

element that is nutritionally essential. 

However, it has been toxic to aquatic 

life and terrestrial wildlife where 

concentrations were excessive. Under 

real-world field conditions, aquatic life 

is exposed to selenium primarily 

through the diet. When the input of a 

toxic substance to an organism is greater 

than the rate at which the substance is 

lost, the organism is said to 

bioaccumulate that substance. Although 

selenium bioaccumulates in aquatic 

organisms, it is not significantly 

biomagnified. That is, concentrations do 

not increase significantly in aquatic 

organisms at each successive level of the 

food chain. For aquatic life, the lowest 

toxic thresholds (the smallest levels at 

which toxic effects are noticeable) are 

generally associated with effects on 

larval offspring of the adult fish that 

were exposed to excessive selenium or 

with effects on juvenile fish. 

Being a natural element, selenium is 

everywhere in the environment. 

Concerns about too much selenium in 

water have most often been associated 

with irrigation return flows from soils 

that are naturally high in selenium, ash 

pond discharges from coal-fired power 

plants (due to the selenium content of 

coal), and certain mining activities (due 

to exposure of selenium-bearing soil or 

rock to weathering). 

F. What Has EPA Done in the Past on 

the Aquatic Life Criteria for Selenium? 

EPA’s currently-recommended 

aquatic life water quality criteria for 

selenium were published in 1987. EPA 

made minor adjustments in the criteria 

concentrations when it converted the 

selenium criteria from a total 

recoverable (dissolved plus particulate) 

measurement basis to a dissolved 

measurement basis in 1995 and 1999 as 

follows: (a) In 60 FR 15366, March 23, 

1995, only for the Great Lakes Initiative; 

(b) in 60 FR 22228, May 4, 1995, only 

for the saltwater criteria; and (c) in 64 

FR 19781, April 22, 1999, optionally for 

freshwater nationwide. 

In 1996, EPA proposed but did not 

complete an additional change in the 

freshwater acute criterion for the Great 

Lakes system (61 FR 58444, November 

14, 1996). In 2000, EPA revoked the 

existing acute criterion for the Great 

Lakes system (65 FR 35283, June 2, 

2000) in response to a lawsuit 

challenging the use of a single acute 

criterion applicable to selenite and 

selenate, the two common chemical 

forms of selenium (see AISI v. EPA, 115 

F. 3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). 

EPA’s most recent compilation of 

criteria presents (a) the abovementioned 1996 GLI proposed 

freshwater acute criteria, (b) the 1987 

freshwater chronic criterion, and (c) the 

1987 saltwater acute and chronic 

criteria as converted to dissolved in 

1995. You can find the compilation at 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/

wqcriteria.html. 

In 1998 EPA held a peer consultation 

workshop to evaluate possible courses 

of action regarding the selenium aquatic 

life criterion and notified the public of 

our intent to review the selenium 

criteria. In 1999, EPA announced its 

intention to revise its national aquatic 

life criterion for selenium and requested 

data (64 FR 58409, October 29, 1999). 

In 2002, EPA prepared an early draft 

revision of its aquatic life criteria 

document and submitted it to peer 

review (Versar 2002, Lemly 2004). EPA 

considered the comments and 

suggestions submitted by the peer 

reviewers (U.S. EPA 2004b) and made 

many technical and scientific changes 

in response (U.S. EPA 2004a). In the 

future, EPA will review any scientific 

information, data, and views submitted 

in response to today’s notice. The 

Agency will also continue to work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and other key federal agencies 

to arrive at final water quality criteria

75544 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 

for selenium which are protective of 

aquatic life. 

Today’s announcement of the draft 

aquatic life criteria document for 

selenium has no effect on EPA’s human 

health criteria recommendation for 

selenium published in 2002 (see http:/

/epa.gov/waterscience/standards/

wqcriteria.html).

G. What Are the Draft Aquatic Life 

Criteria Values? 

The draft selenium criteria 

recommendations state that freshwater 

aquatic life should be protected under 

the following conditions: 

A. The concentration of selenium in 

whole-body fish tissue is not more than 

7.91 μg/g (micrograms per gram) dw 

(dry weight). This is the chronic 

exposure criterion. In addition, if 

whole-body fish tissue concentrations 

exceed 5.85 μg/g dw during summer or 

fall, fish tissue should be monitored 

during the winter to determine whether 

the selenium concentration exceeds 7.91 

μg/g dw. 

B. The 24-hour average concentration 

of total recoverable (dissolved and 

particulate) selenium in water seldom 

(e.g., not more than once in three years) 

exceeds 258 μg/L for selenite, and 

likewise seldom exceeds the numerical 

value given by 

exp(0.5812[ln(sulfate)]+3.357) for 

selenate. These are the acute exposure 

criteria. At an example sulfate 

concentration of 100 mg/L, the 24-hour 

average selenate concentration should 

not exceed 417 μg/L. Sulfate is a 

commonly measured water quality 

parameter that has been found to have 

a mitigating influence on the acute 

toxicity of the selenate form of 

selenium. 

Likewise, the draft selenium criteria 

recommendations state that saltwater 

aquatic life should be protected from 

acute effects of selenium if the 24-hour 

average concentration of selenite seldom 

exceeds 127 μg/L. Because selenium 

might be as chronically toxic to 

saltwater fishes as it is to freshwater 

fishes, the fish community should be 

monitored if selenium exceeds 5.85

μg/g dw in summer or fall or 7.91

μg/g dw during any season in the wholebody tissue of saltwater fishes. 

H. What Would the Draft Aquatic Life 

Criteria Recommendations Protect? 

The draft selenium criteria 

recommendations were derived from 

data on aquatic life and are intended to 

protect aquatic life. Specifically, the 

draft chronic exposure recommendation 

is designed to protect against mortality, 

reproductive interferences, and growth 

abnormalities in fish and other aquatic 

organisms due to long-term excessive 

exposure to selenium in the aquatic 

food chain. The draft acute exposure 

recommendations are designed to 

protect against lethality or 

immobilization of aquatic organisms 

due to brief elevated exposure to 

selenium in water. 

Although the draft recommendation 

took into account dietary exposure for 

aquatic life, no nationally-applicable 

scientific methodology yet exists to 

derive national water quality criteria to 

protect birds or terrestrial wildlife that 

consume fish, water, or aquatic plants 

and organisms that contain selenium. 

Therefore, this draft selenium 

recommendation is not designed to 

protect birds or terrestrial wildlife. 

(Similarly, EPA’s existing 1987 water 

quality criteria for selenium were not 

designed to protect birds or wildlife.) 

However, EPA is working with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and other 

interested federal agencies to develop 

selenium criteria protective of wildlife 

within the State of California. The 

California-specific wildlife criteria effort 

is separate from the national-scale draft 

aquatic life criteria announced in 

today’s notice. Its development is on a 

different time track; it involves analysis 

of toxicity data for aquatic-dependent 

wildlife (not aquatic life); and it is 

intended to apply only to California. 

I. How Do the Draft Aquatic Life 

Criteria Recommendations Differ From 

Previous Criteria Recommendations? 

In contrast to the existing 1987 

freshwater chronic criterion, which was 

expressed as a conventional water 

concentration, the draft freshwater 

chronic criterion sent to peer review in 

2002 and the draft criterion announced 

in today’s notice are each expressed as 

a whole-body fish tissue concentration 

(μg selenium per gram of fish tissue on 

a dry weight basis). At a given location 

or for a given water body, a fish tissue 

level of selenium can be used with a 

site-specific bioaccumulation factor to 

estimate the concentration of selenium 

in the water. A bioaccumulation factor 

is a measured or predicted ratio between 

the tissue concentration and the water 

concentration of a chemical, in this 

case, selenium. 

Early in the process of developing 

these draft criteria, EPA concluded, and 

the peer reviewers agreed that a fishtissue approach is better than a 

conventional water concentration 

approach to protect aquatic life from the 

chronic adverse effects of selenium. 

Because fish and aquatic invertebrates 

are exposed to selenium primarily 

through their diet rather than directly 

through water, the fish-tissue 

concentration better reflects site-specific 

exposure and risk than does the water 

concentration. Therefore, using the fishtissue approach allows users to consider 

site-specific factors in translating to a 

water concentration. 

However, consistent with the type of 

toxicity tests used for their derivation, 

the draft aquatic life criteria to protect 

against the acute effects of selenium in 

fresh water and salt water are expressed 

as traditional water concentrations (total 

recoverable selenium). Expanding the 

toxicity database with a substantial 

number of more recent acute toxicity 

tests yielded relatively little change in 

the freshwater selenite criterion, but 

yielded a substantial increase in the 

selenate criterion due to repeated 

retesting of an amphipod that formerly 

appeared to have an anomalously low 

LC50, and due to normalization of the 

acute data for sulfate concentration. 

Normalization of all acute test results 

for sulfate concentration reveals that 

some species formerly thought to be 

highly sensitive were actually tested at 

low sulfate. Including sulfate in the 

draft criteria formula assures their 

protection at low sulfate concentrations. 

Expansion of the database caused the 

saltwater selenite criterion to decrease 

because a scallop, formerly untested, 

was found to be highly sensitive. A 

saltwater chronic criterion is not 

presented in the draft announced today, 

because EPA lacks sufficient and 

appropriate data to derive one. 

J. Are There Particular Issues on Which 

EPA is Requesting Scientific 

Information, Data, and Views? 

EPA is requesting information, data, 

and views on all facets of the science 

supporting the draft criteria 

recommendations for selenium, but it is 

particularly interested in the following 

topics: 

1. The Appropriateness of Basing the 

Freshwater Chronic Criterion on a 

Tissue Concentration 

Because the same water concentration 

may yield different amounts of 

bioaccumulation and therefore different 

levels of risk at different sites, EPA 

developed this draft criterion as a fish 

tissue concentration to reduce the need 

for resetting the criterion on a site-bysite basis. Where translation from the 

tissue benchmark to a water 

concentration is needed, a 

bioaccumulation factor (BAF), which 

may vary substantially from site to site, 

would need to be established. 

Participants in the 1998 Peer 

Consultation Workshop suggested that a 

tissue-based approach for a selenium 

aquatic life criterion would be feasible

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 75545

(U.S. EPA 1998). The underlying 

concept is different from that used 

historically for developing aquatic life 

criteria that are applied to the water 

column, the surrounding environment 

shared by a range of aquatic species. 

Nevertheless, this tissue-based approach 

appears to be appropriate because, at 

concentrations not far above the draft 

criterion, selenium is toxic to the 

offspring (embryos, larvae, or juveniles) 

of sensitive species, but not to the adult 

fish that might be present and from 

which an environmental sample could 

be taken. 

EPA is requesting scientific 

information, data, and views on (a) the 

concept of protecting aquatic life by 

applying a criterion to whole-body fish 

tissue concentrations of selenium, (b) 

the appropriateness of applying a fish 

tissue-based water quality criterion 

uniformly across waterbodies to protect 

sensitive species, and (c) the possibility 

of applying the same criterion to 

invertebrate tissue where invertebrate 

samples are obtained with or in place of 

fish tissue samples. 

Because EPA has not yet made 

decisions on the form or values of its 

final water quality criteria for selenium, 

EPA has not yet developed 

implementation procedures. Therefore, 

EPA is also interested in scientific 

information, data, and views on (d) 

approaches for sampling tissues, and (e) 

available data for deriving localized 

BAF values for translating the tissue 

concentrations to water concentrations, 

where needed for pollution control 

decisions. 

2. Studies of Freshwater Aquatic Life 

Effects and Chronic Effect 

Concentrations 

Based on studies involving exposure 

through a contaminated diet, the genus 

mean chronic EC20 (concentration 

effecting 20% of test organisms) for 

effects on larval or juvenile common 

sunfish (Lepomis) was found to be 9.5 

μg/g dry weight whole body 

concentration of selenium in the adult 

parental fish or in the juveniles 

(depending on the study). This genus 

mean value is based on four studies. No 

data indicated that other genera were 

more sensitive than Lepomis. Useful 

chronic toxicity data were available for 

a rotifer (a small invertebrate), chinook 

salmon, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, 

fathead minnow, flannelmouth sucker, 

razorback sucker, stripped bass, and a 

mixture of sunfish.

One of the above studies was by 

Lemly (1993), who investigated 

overwinter survival of juvenile bluegill 

in the laboratory. This study consisted 

of a control (only background selenium 

exposure) and one elevated selenium 

exposure level, both subjected either to 

(a) a temperature regime of 20 °C for 180 

days, or (b) a temperature regime 

changing from 20 °C to 4 °C over the 

course of 60 days, and remaining at 4 °C 

for the remaining 120 days of the study. 

He observed substantially less survival 

when elevated selenium was combined 

with low temperature. The whole body 

concentration associated with mortality 

was 5.85 μg/g at Day 60 just prior to a 

significant increase in mortality, and 

7.91 μg/g later in the study during and 

subsequent to the death of 40% of the 

organisms. For the same selenium 

exposure at 20 °C, mortality was 6% and 

whole body concentrations were 5.74 

μg/g. Little mortality was observed at 

either temperature regime for 

unexposed organisms, but since there 

was only one selenium treatment, no 

concentration-response curve can be 

constructed. 

One possible implication of the Lemly 

(1993) study might be that effects on 

overwinter survival of juveniles occur at 

lower concentrations than do effects on 

reproduction or early life stages. In the 

Monticello macrocosm study, at 4 to 5°C 

overwinter conditions, reproductive 

success and adult bluegill overwinter 

survival were unaffected at 

concentrations higher than those of the 

Lemly (1993) study (Hermanutz et al.

1996, corrected by Tao et al. 1999, and 

peer reviewed in Versar 2000). 

Based on the Lemly (1993) results, to 

protect sensitive fish species under 

winter conditions, EPA has set the draft 

criterion at 7.91 μg/g, the concentration 

measured during the period of reduced 

survival, with the provision that winter 

monitoring should be performed if 

summer or fall tissue levels exceed 5.85 

μg/g, the concentration occurring prior 

to the period of reduced survival. Three 

of five peer reviewers of the 2002 draft 

questioned whether the results from 

only one study should be used as the 

basis for lowering the nationally 

recommended criteria from 9.5 μg/g to 

7.91 μg/g as EPA has done in this 

document. On the other hand, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (White 2002) has 

questioned whether 7.91 μg/g is 

sufficiently protective, citing the high 

mortality observed at that tissue 

concentration during the study. 

EPA is requesting scientific 

information, data, and views on (a) the 

most appropriate interpretation and use 

of the Lemly (1993) results, and its 

applicability to a range of climatic 

regimes and fisheries types and (b) other 

data that may be relevant to the winter 

exposure issue. Because EPA expects it 

has seen all the available laboratory 

studies relevant to the issue, it is 

particularly interested in field 

observations (such as age structure or 

species occurrence) that may be relevant 

to the selenium winter exposure issue 

under various climatic conditions. EPA 

is also requesting scientific information, 

data, and views on (c) approaches for 

accounting for different climatic 

conditions. 

3. Alternative Values for the Freshwater 

Chronic Criterion 

The current draft criteria document 

has set the aquatic life criterion for 

selenium at a whole body fish tissue 

concentration of 7.91 μg/g, with the 

provision that winter monitoring should 

be performed if summer or fall tissue 

levels exceed 5.85 μg/g. EPA is 

requesting information and analyses 

relevant to alternative fish tissue 

benchmarks. EPA will only consider 

analyses that have a formal, fully 

transparent, and reproducible derivation 

from laboratory or field data, where all 

the supporting information quantifies a 

toxic effect metric and an exposure 

metric. 

EPA is also receptive to formallyderived benchmarks applicable to other 

aquatic media, such as water, sediment, 

or prey tissue. Again, the derivations 

should be transparent and fully 

reproducible from laboratory or field 

data. 

4. Site-Specific Factors Affecting the 

Freshwater Chronic Criterion 

Expressing the chronic criterion as a 

tissue concentration rests on the 

assumption that there is reasonable 

geographic uniformity in the tissue 

threshold, while the BAF, and therefore 

the water concentration threshold, may 

vary considerably across sites. EPA 

believes that the route of exposure 

affects the tissue threshold. The same 

tissue concentration, if accumulated 

through water-only exposure, appears to 

be more toxic than if accumulated via 

diet. Fish provided with an 

uncontaminated diet and exposed to 

very high water concentrations of 

selenium (for example, 300 μg/L in the 

Cleveland et al. (1993) study) may show 

effects when whole body concentrations 

exceed only 4 μg/g. When exposed 

through a contaminated diet but 

essentially uncontaminated water in the 

same study, effects were not observed 

until tissue concentrations exceeded 

around 13 μg/g. 

Because EPA did not use studies 

involving uncontaminated diets coupled 

with high water exposures, the criterion 

assumes that the dominant 

environmental exposure route for the 

target species is dietary. Consistent with 

the views of the EPA peer consultation

75546 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 

workshop in 1998, EPA believes that 

this assumption corresponds to the realworld problems of selenium 

contamination. 

While recognizing that the BAF can 

vary from site to site, EPA is requesting 

scientific information, data, and views 

on the general approach of using a 

uniform tissue benchmark (expressed as 

total selenium concentration in whole 

body) without regard to site differences 

that might include: 

• The species to be protected,

• The type of water body, 

• The character of the food web, for 

example, autochthonous versus 

nonseleniferous allochthonous, 

• The form and concentration of 

selenium in the water or diet, 

• The form of selenium in the 

sampled tissue, 

• The nature of the selenium release, 

• Interactions with other trace 

elements, 

• Acclimation or adaptation, 

• Hormesis, 

• Climatic conditions, and 

• Any other relevant site factors. 

EPA is also requesting scientific 

information, data, and views relevant to 

the need for and appropriate basis for 

adjusting the tissue benchmark to 

account for site-specific factors. 

5. Saltwater Chronic Criterion 

For chronic exposure, we found no 

data that were useful for deriving a 

saltwater aquatic life criterion. 

However, selenium might be as toxic in 

the tissues of saltwater organisms as it 

is in the tissues of freshwater organisms. 

Therefore, the draft contains the 

cautionary recommendation that the 

status of the saltwater fish community 

be monitored if selenium exceeds 5.85 

μg/g dw in summer or fall or 7.91 dw 

during any season (same as the 

freshwater benchmarks) in the wholebody tissue of saltwater fishes. 

EPA is requesting scientific 

information, data, or views on (a) 

toxicity thresholds applicable to 

protecting saltwater organisms exposed 

to selenium through the food chain, or 

(b) the appropriateness of extending to 

saltwater what is known about 

freshwater toxicity thresholds. 

6. Acute Criteria Concentrations 

As discussed above, selenium toxicity 

problems have generally involved 

contamination of the food web. If the 

diet of the target species is not 

contaminated, very high water-column 

concentrations are needed to bring out 

effects, particularly when exposure is 

brief. As with bioaccumulative 

pollutants in general, acute toxicity (that 

is, toxicity from a brief sharp increase in 

the water concentration) is of less 

concern than chronic exposure through 

the food chain. 

Nevertheless, a large body of toxicity 

test data are available for brief wateronly exposure. Therefore, EPA was able 

to derive acute criteria to protect aquatic 

life against the toxic effects of that type 

of exposure to selenium. For ambient 

freshwater, the draft selenite or Se (IV) 

acute criterion is 258 μg/L, and the draft 

sulfate-dependent selenate or Se (VI) 

criterion ranges from 109 to 1590 μg/L 

at sulfate concentrations from 10 to 

1000 mg/L. For ambient saltwater the 

draft selenite acute criterion is 127 μg/

L. 

EPA is requesting scientific 

information, data, and views on the 

appropriateness of the draft values for 

the acute exposure criteria.

References 

Hermanutz, R.O., K.N. Allen, N.E. 

Detenbeck, and C.E. Stephan. 1996. Exposure 

to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) to 

selenium in outdoor experimental streams. 

U.S. EPA Report. Mid-Continent Ecology 

Division, Duluth, MN. 

Lemly, A.D. 1993. Metabolic stress during 

winter increases the toxicity of selenium to 

fish. Aquat. Toxicol. (Amsterdam) 27(1–

2):133–158. 

Lemly, D. 2004. Letter to Denise Keehner. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. June 22, 2004. 

Tao, J., P. Kellar, and W. Warren-Hicks. 

1999. Statistical analysis of selenium toxicity 

data. Report submitted for U.S. EPA, Health 

and Ecological Criteria Division. The Cadmus 

Group, Inc., Durnham, NC. 

U.S. EPA. 1998. Report on the peer 

consultation workshop on selenium aquatic 

toxicity and bioaccumulation. Office of 

Water. EPA–822–R–98–007. 

U.S. EPA. 2004a. Draft aquatic life water 

quality criterion for selenium—2004. Office 

of Water. EPA–822–D–04–001. 

U.S. EPA. 2004b. Draft response to peer 

review of 2002 update aquatic life water 

quality criteria for selenium. Office of Water. 

Versar. 2000. Peer review of statistical 

analysis of selenium toxicity data. Report 

submitted to U.S. EPA, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. 

Versar. 2002. Peer review of 2002 update 

aquatic life water quality criteria for 

selenium. Report submitted to U.S. EPA, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

White, W. 2002. Letter to Geoffrey H. 

Grubbs. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, California/Nevada 

Operations Office, Sacramento, CA. May 15, 

2002.

Dated: December 9, 2004. 

Geoffrey H. Grubbs, 

Director, Office of Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 04–27665 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System

SUMMARY: On June 15, 1984, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

delegated to the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (Board) its 

approval authority under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to 

approve of and assign OMB control 

numbers to collection of information 

requests and requirements conducted or 

sponsored by the Board under 

conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 

Appendix A.1. Board–approved 

collections of information are 

incorporated into the official OMB 

inventory of currently approved 

collections of information. Copies of the 

OMB 83–Is and supporting statements 

and approved collection of information 

instruments are placed into OMB’s 

public docket files. The Federal Reserve 

may not conduct or sponsor, and the 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection that has 

been extended, revised, or implemented 

on or after October 1, 1995, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Request for comment on information 

collection proposal 

The following information collection, 

which is being handled under this 

delegated authority, has received initial 

Board approval and is hereby published 

for comment. At the end of the comment 

period, the proposed information 

collection, along with an analysis of 

comments and recommendations 

received, will be submitted to the Board 

for final approval under OMB delegated 

authority. Comments are invited on the 

following: 

a. whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the Federal Reserve’s 

functions; including whether the 

information has practical utility; 

b. the accuracy of the Federal 

Reserve’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

c. ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

d. ways to minimize the burden of 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology.