33262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

occurred in a critical developmental

study. On July 31, 1998, EPA requested

both NRDC and BASF to comment on

whether these developments affected

the revised hearing requests. In separate

letters dated September 9, 1998, BASF

and NRDC took opposite positions on

the viability of the hearing requests.

NRDC contended that these

developments ‘‘have virtually no effect

on the pending objections and hearing

request.’’ BASF argued that the hearing

requests were either moot or not

justified.

In August 1999, NRDC filed two

declarations that NRDC asserted

‘‘substantiated the data gaps described

in NRDC’s submissions.’’ In a letter

accompanying these declarations, NRDC

stated that the declarations made an

evidentiary hearing on its objections

unnecessary. Accordingly, by that letter,

NRDC withdrew its hearing requests

and asked that EPA rule on its

objections as submitted.

IV. Order Responding to Objections

The tolerance for vinclozolin on

succulent beans to which NRDC filed

objections has now expired. NRDC’s

objections to that tolerance are thus

moot and are therefore denied.

The fact that EPA did not

substantively respond to NRDC’s

objections during the existence of the

tolerance does not mean that EPA did

not consider these objections. To the

contrary, NRDC’s objections related

directly to changes in the way EPA now

assesses the risk vinclozolin poses. For

example, the centerpiece of NRDC’s

objections was a challenge to EPA’s

decision in approving the tolerance that

the additional tenfold factor for the

protection of infants and children was

unnecessary to assure to safety to

infants and children. Following NRDC’s

objections, that decision has been

revised on two occasions since the

issuance of the succulent bean

tolerance. First, as detailed in EPA’s

July 31, 1998 letter to NRDC, EPA

scientists recommended that EPA use

the additional tenfold safety factor for

the protection of children in conducting

its assessment of in utero acute risk to

the human fetus. That position

remained unsatisfactory to NRDC and

its August 1999 declarations, in essence,

argued that the tenfold factor should be

applied more broadly. After considering

the declarations and the attached

scientific literature, EPA scientists

recommended that due to, among other

things, the lack of neurotoxicity data,

the additional tenfold factor should be

used in all risk assessments for

vinclozolin.

V. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

As indicated previously, this action

announces the Agency’s final decision

regarding an objection filed under

section 408 of FFDCA. As such, this

action is an adjudication and not a rule.

The regulatory assessment requirements

imposed on rulemakings do not,

therefore, apply to this action.

VI. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply

because this action is not a rule for

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection.

Dated: May 19, 2000.

Marcia E. Mulkey,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–12962 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 209 and 230

[FRA Docket No. RSSL–98–1, Notice No.

5]

Inspection and Maintenance Standards

for Steam Locomotives

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: On November 17, 1999, FRA

published the final rule on inspection

and maintenance of steam locomotives

(65 FR 62828). The Inspection and

Maintenance Standards for Steam

Locomotives, Title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), parts 209 and 230,

which took effect on January 18, 2000,

sets forth new inspection and

implementation requirements. FRA is

holding a public meeting to explain the

implementation schedule and general

requirements for inspection and

maintenance of steam locomotives

under the rule. This meeting will also

provide interested parties with the

opportunity to discuss the rule and ask

questions of the presenters. All parties

interested in the new rule on inspection

and maintenance of steam locomotives

are invited to attend this meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July

27, 2000, at 8 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on

July 27, 2000, in room 570 of the Bishop

Henry Whipple Federal Building, One

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

55111–4007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Scerbo, Motive Power &

Equipment Specialist, Office of

Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue

NW, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone 202–493–6249); or

Paul F. Byrnes, Trial Attorney, Office of

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20590

(202–493–6032).

Grady C. Cothen,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 00–12950 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P