2954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a

proposed prospective purchaser

agreement associated with the OronogoDuenweg Mining Belt Superfund Site,

located in Jasper County, Missouri, was

executed by the Agency on December

29, 1999. The Site is part of an inactive

lead and zinc mining area known as the

Tri-State Mining District. The Site

encompasses approximately 270 square

miles, with large volumes of abandoned

and uncontrolled mining wastes spread

throughout the Site. The mining wastes

at the Site contain elevated levels of

lead, which is a hazardous substance as

defined by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1986 (‘‘CERCLA’’).

The Prospective Purchaser Agreement

would resolve certain potential EPA

claims under CERCLA against the

Missouri Highway Transportation

Commission (‘‘MHTC’’), the prospective

purchaser (‘‘the purchaser’’).

The settlement requires the purchaser

to utilize large quantities of materials

from past mining activities as fill, which

would become part of the construction

of the ‘‘Rangeline Bypass.’’ The

purchaser must ensure that upon

completion of construction, clean cover

is in place over all mine materials. The

purchaser will handle the mine material

in accordance with a work plan that is

designed to ensure that contamination is

not spread during construction. The

purchaser agrees to provide to EPA

access to the property. EPA may at any

time conduct an inspection of the

property, including sampling, to ensure

the work is being performed in

accordance with the work plan.

For thirty (30) days following the date

of publication of this document, the

Agency will receive written comments

relating to the proposed settlement.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before February 18,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should

reference the ‘‘Oronogo-Duenweg

Mining Belt Superfund Site’’ and should

be forwarded to D. Mark Doolan,

Remedial Project Manager, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101. A copy of the

proposed agreement may be obtained

from Venessa Cobbs (913) 551–7630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Cozad, Senior Associate Regional

Counsel, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, 901

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas

66101, (913) 551–7587.

Dated: January 4, 2000.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

[FR Doc. 00–1213 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6526–3]

Water Quality Criteria: Notice of Draft

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape

Cod to Cape Hatteras

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod

to Cape Hatteras.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 304(a)(1)

of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the

Environmental Protection Agency

announces the availability of a draft

document titled, Draft Ambient Water

Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen

(Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.

The EPA is considering using the values

presented in this document as its

recommended national 304(a) criteria

for dissolved oxygen in saltwater. These

304(a) criteria would provide

recommended guidance values for

States, Territories, and authorized

Tribes to use in adopting water quality

criteria to protect aquatic life from acute

and chronic effects of low dissolved

oxygen. Under the CWA, States,

Territories, and Tribes are to adopt

water quality criteria to protect

designated uses. As the document is

currently written, these water quality

criteria would apply only to the

Virginian Province (Cape Cod to Cape

Hatteras), but with appropriate

modifications, they may be applicable to

other regions. While these criteria

would constitute EPA’s scientific

recommendations regarding ambient

concentrations of dissolved oxygen that

protect saltwater aquatic life, these

criteria are not regulations; thus they

would not impose legally binding

requirements on EPA, States,

Territories, Tribes, or the public, and

might not apply to a particular situation

based upon the circumstances. State,

Territories, and authorized Tribes retain

the discretion to adopt, where

appropriate, other scientifically

defensible water quality standards that

differ from these recommendations. EPA

may change these 304(a) criteria in the

future.

These draft criteria were under

development prior to the Agency’s

revision and implementation of its

current processes for notice of data

availability and criteria development

(see Federal Register, December 10,

1998, 63 FR 68354 and in the EPA

document titled, National

Recommended Water Quality—

Correction EPA 822–Z–99–001, April

1999). As indicated in the December 10,

1998 FR document, the Agency believes

it is important to provide the public

with an opportunity to submit scientific

information on draft criteria, even

though we are not required to invite nor

respond to specific issues. Therefore,

EPA will review and consider

significant scientific information

submitted by the public that might not

have otherwise been identified during

development of these criteria, or in the

external peer review. The external peer

review comments and EPA’s responses

are available in the Water Docket. After

review of the submitted significant

scientific information, EPA will publish

a revised document, or publish a

document indicating its decision not to

revise the document.

This draft document has been

approved for publication by the Office

of Science and Technology, Office of

Water, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Mention of trade names or

commercial products does not

constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use.

DATES: All significant scientific

information must be submitted to the

Agency within 45 days after publication

of this document in the Federal Register

under docket number W–99–22. The

Administrative Record supporting this

guidance document, including results of

the peer review is available at the Water

Docket, Room EB–57, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460 on Monday

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m. For access to docket materials call

(202) 260–3027 for an appointment. A

reasonable fee will be charged for

photocopies. Any scientific information

submitted should be adequately

documented and contain enough

supporting information to indicate that

acceptable and scientifically defensible

procedures were used and that the

results are likely reliable.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the complete

document, titled Draft Ambient Water

Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen

(Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras

can be obtained from EPA’s Water

Resource Center by phone at 202–260–

7786, or by e-mail to center.waterresources@epa.gov or by conventional

mail to EPA Water Resource Center, RC–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices 2955

4100, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460. Alternatively, consult

www.epa.gov/OST/standards/ for

download availability.

An original and two copies of written

significant scientific information should

be submitted within 45 days after

publication in the Federal Register, and

addressed to W–99–22, Saltwater

Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Clerk; Water

Docket (MC–4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Issues may be submitted electronically

in ASCII or Word Perfect 5.1, 5.2, 6.1,

or 8.0 formats to OW–

Docket@epamail.epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik

L. Winchester, USEPA, Health and

Ecological Criteria Division (4304),

Office of Science and Technology, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; or

call (202) 260–6107; fax (202) 260–1036;

or e-mail winchester.erik@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

Section 304(a)(2) of the CWA calls for

information on the conditions necessary

‘‘to restore and maintain biological

integrity of all * * * waters, for the

protection and propagation of shellfish,

fish and wildlife, to allow recreational

activities in and on the water, and to

measure and classify water quality.’’

The EPA has not previously issued

saltwater criteria for dissolved oxygen

(D.O.) because, until recently, the

available effects information was

insufficient. This draft document is the

result of a research effort to produce

sufficient information to support the

development of saltwater D.O. criteria.

The draft water quality criteria

presented herein represent EPA’s best

estimates, based on the data available, of

D.O. concentrations necessary to protect

aquatic life and uses associated with

aquatic life.

Overview of the Problem

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program (EMAP) for the

estuaries in the Virginian Province

(defined as Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras)

has shown that 25% of the area of the

Province is exposed to some degree to

D.O. concentrations less than 5 mg/L.

EMAP also has generated field

observations that correlate many of the

biologically degraded benthic areas with

low D.O. in the lower water column.

These two reports serve to emphasize

that low D.O. (hypoxia) is a major

concern within the Virginian Province.

Hypoxia is defined in this document as

the reduction of D.O. concentrations

below air saturation. Even though

hypoxia is a major concern, a strong

technical basis for developing

benchmarks for low D.O. effects has

been lacking until recently.

In the Virginian Province, hypoxia is

essentially a warm water phenomenon.

In the southern portions of the Province,

such as the Chesapeake Bay and its

tributaries, reduced D.O. may occur any

time between May and October; in the

more northern coastal and estuarine

waters, it may occur at any time from

late June into September. Hypoxic

events can occur on seasonal or diel

(daily) time scales. Seasonal hypoxia

often develops as a consequence of

water column stratification, which

prevents mixing of well oxygenated

surface water with deeper water. Diel

cycles of hypoxia often occur in nonstratified shallow habitats where

nighttime respiration temporarily

depletes D.O. Hypoxia may also persist

more or less continuously over a season

(with or without a cyclic component) or

be episodic (i.e., of irregular occurrence

and indefinite duration). The fauna

most at risk from hypoxic exposure in

the Virginian Province are primarily

summer inhabitants of subpycnocline

(i.e., bottom) waters.

Biological Effects of Low Dissolved

Oxygen

Oxygen is essential in aerobic

organisms for the electron transport

system of mitochondria. Oxygen

insufficiency at the mitochondria results

in reduction in cellular energy and a

subsequent loss of ion balance in

cellular and circulatory fluids. If oxygen

insufficiency persists, death will

ultimately occur, although some aerobic

animals also possess anaerobic

metabolic pathways, which can delay

lethality for short time periods (minutes

to days). The animals most sensitive to

hypoxia are those inhabiting well

oxygenated environments.

Overview of the Protection Approach

The approach to determine D.O.

criteria to protect saltwater animals

within the Virginian Province takes into

account both continuous (i.e.,

persistent) and cyclic (e.g., diel, tidal, or

episodic) exposures to low D.O. The

continuous situation considers exposure

durations of 24 hours or greater. Criteria

for cyclic situations would cover

hypoxic exposures of less than 24 hours,

but which may be repeated over a series

of days. Both scenarios cover three areas

of protection (summarized here, and

explained in more detail in the

document):

(1) Protection for juvenile and adult

survival,

(2) Protection for chronic (growth)

effects, and

(3) Protection for larval recruitment

effects (estimated with a generic model).

The approach to derive these draft

water quality criteria combines features

of traditional water quality criteria with

a new biological framework that

integrates time (replacing the concept of

an averaging period) and establishes

separate protection limits for different

life stages (i.e., larvae versus juveniles

and adults). Where practical, data were

selected and analyzed in manners

consistent with the Guidelines for

Deriving Numerical National Water

Quality Criteria for the Protection of

Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses

(hereafter referred to as the Guidelines).

With the three areas of protection in

mind, the draft saltwater D.O. criteria

segregate effects on juveniles and adults

from those on larvae. The survival data

on the sensitivity of the former are

handled in a traditional Guidelines

manner. The cumulative effects of low

D.O. on larval recruitment to the

juvenile life stage, on the other hand,

would address survival effects on

larvae. In the draft document the

recommended approach for deriving

D.O. criteria uses a mathematical model

to evaluate the effect of D.O. conditions

on larvae by tracking intensity and

duration effects across the larval

recruitment season. Protection for larvae

of all species is provided by using data

for a sensitive aquatic organism (larval

stage of the Say mud crab, Dyspanopeus

sayi). The model is used to generate a

draft D.O. criterion for larval survival as

a function of time.

For the reasons listed above, the

recommended draft D.O. criteria

approach deviates somewhat from

EPA’s traditional approach for toxic

chemicals outlined in the Guidelines.

However, where practical, data selection

and analysis procedures are consistent

with the Guidelines. Although most of

the terminology and the calculation

procedures are the same, knowledge of

the Guidelines is useful for a more

complete understanding of how these

draft D.O. criteria are derived.

The draft juvenile/adult survival and

the growth criteria would provide useful

screening boundaries within which to

judge the D.O. status of a given site. If

the D.O. conditions are above the

chronic growth criterion (4.8 mg/L),

then this site would meet objectives for

protection. If the D.O. conditions are

below the juvenile/adult survival

criterion (2.3 mg/L), then this site would

not meet objectives for protection. When

the D.O. conditions are between these

two values, then the site would require

evaluation, using the model, of duration

and intensity of hypoxia to determine

2956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices

suitability of habitat for the larval

recruitment objective.

The draft D.O. criteria are based

entirely on laboratory findings.

However, field observations support the

findings of laboratory studies. Field

acute effects occurred in juvenile and

adult animals at <2.0 mg/L, which

would be predicted based on the <2.3

mg/L juvenile/adult criterion. In the

field, behavioral effects generally

occurred within the range where many

of the laboratory sublethal effects

occurred. However, an important

limitation of using field observations to

describe D.O. protection is the absence

of field observations on the survival and

growth of hypoxic sensitive larvae. This

type of information is critical since two

of the three goals for protection are

derived from responses of larvae.

Implementation Overview

Implementation of draft D.O. criteria

may be slightly different from that of

chemical toxicants, but not for reasons

associated with either biological effects

or exposure. The primary reason that

D.O. might be implemented differently

from toxic compounds is because

controlling the effects of low D.O. is not

accomplished by directly regulating

D.O. Rather, hypoxia is a symptom of a

problem, not the direct problem. Thus

dissolved oxygen would be regulated

primarily through the control of

nutrients ( e.g., nitrogen and

phosphorus) and oxygen demanding

wastes. As a stressor, D.O. also differs

from most toxic compounds in that

there can be a large natural component

to the cause of hypoxic conditions in

any given water body. Dissolved oxygen

criteria may be appropriately used in a

risk assessment framework. The draft

criteria and management approach

presented in this document could be

used to compare D.O. conditions among

areas and determine if D.O. conditions

would be adequate to support aquatic

life. Environmental managers could

determine which sites need the most

attention, and what is the spatial and

temporal extent of hypoxic problems

from one year to the next. Finally,

environmental planners could use the

draft approach to evaluate how

conditions would improve under

different management scenarios, helping

them make better management

decisions.

Limitations of the Document

The geographic scope of the draft

criteria are limited to the Virginian

Province of the Atlantic coast of the

United States (i.e., southern Cape Cod,

MA, to Cape Hatteras, NC). The draft

document provides the necessary

information for environmental planners

and regulators within the Virginian

Province to address the question: are the

D.O. conditions at a given site sufficient

to protect coastal or estuarine aquatic

life? The approach outlined in the draft

document could be used to evaluate

existing localized D.O. standards or

management goals or establish new

ones. The draft criteria do not address

direct behavioral responses (i.e.,

avoidance) or the ecological

consequences of behavioral responses,

such as increased or decreased

predation rates or altered community

structure, nor do they address the issue

of spatial significance of a D.O. problem.

In addition, as with all criteria, the draft

criteria do not account for changes in

sensitivity to low D.O. that accompany

other stresses, such as high temperature,

extremes of salinity, or toxicants. Chief

among these concerns would be high

temperature because high temperature

and low D.O. often appear together. Low

D.O. would be more lethal at water

temperatures approaching the upper

thermal limit for species. The limits

provided in the draft document should

be sufficient under most conditions

where aquatic organisms are not

otherwise unduly stressed.

The draft criteria for the Virginian

Province may be over- or underprotective of aquatic life in other

regions. However, the approach used to

develop the draft criteria is considered

to be applicable to other regions with

appropriate regional modifications.

Organism adaptations to lower oxygen

requirements may have occurred in

locations where oxygen concentrations

have historically been reduced due to

high temperatures, or in systems with

non-anthropogenic high oxygen

demand. Conversely, organisms in

another region could be adapted to

colder temperature and higher dissolved

oxygen regimes than those covered in

the document, and thus may have

different sensitivity to dissolved oxygen

concentrations. In addition, effects of

hypoxia may vary latitudinally, or sitespecifically, particularly as reproductive

seasons determine exposure risks for

sensitive early life stages. For these

reasons, an environmental risk manager

would be to carefully evaluate water

quality and biological conditions within

the specific location and decide if the

Virginian Province criteria would apply

or if region- or site-specific

considerations would need to be made.

Endangered or Threatened Species

Policy Recommendations

When a threatened or endangered

species occurs at a site and sufficient

data indicate that it is sensitive at

concentrations below the recommended

criteria, it would be appropriate to

consider deriving a site-specific

criterion.

Future Addendum and Applications

In addition to publishing this

document, an addendum will be

published in the near future that will

specifically address implementation

issues. In the current draft document,

implementation issues are discussed in

a more general manner, summarizing

important issues that environmental

managers should consider in adopting

and implementation of D.O. water

quality standards. The addendum will

provide a more detailed discussion of

implementation issues by using real

world example data sets. Application of

this guidance to marine waters outside

the Virginian Province will also be

discussed. As a component of the

addendum, EPA will also publish a

computer program that will allow Sates

and other users to calculate D.O. criteria

values for coastal and estuarine animals.

The program will be based on the

models discussed in the criteria

document and will contain a graphic

user interface. EPA anticipates

publication of the Addendum and

computer model to occur sometime in

2000.

EPA believes the approach used to

develop the draft criteria can be applied,

with minor modifications and regional

specific data, to derive D.O. criteria for

other coastal and estuarine regions of

the United States. Therefore, in the

future, EPA plans to prepare similar

D.O. criteria for other provinces based

on this approach. At such time, EPA

will publish a Notice of Data

Availability and formally request

submission of data from parties

interested in the development of D.O.

criteria for other provinces.

Dated: January 10, 2000.

Geoffrey H. Grubbs,

Director, Office of Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 00–1211 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[DA 00–43]

Auction of Licenses in the 747–762 and

777–792 MHz Bands Scheduled for

May 10, 2000; Report No. AUC–99–31–

A (Auction No. 31)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.