Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35283

only if the beneficiary applies for an

increase within one year of that date.

(2) If a claimant reopens a previously

disallowed claim based on corrected

military records, VA will award the

benefit from the latest of the following

dates: the date the veteran or beneficiary

applied for a correction of the military

records; the date the disallowed claim

was filed; or, the date one year before

the date of receipt of the reopened

claim.

(f) Reductions and discontinuances.

VA will generally reduce or discontinue

awards according to the facts found

except as provided in §§ 3.105 and

3.114(b).

(1) If benefits were paid erroneously

because of beneficiary error, VA will

reduce or discontinue benefits as of the

effective date of the erroneous award.

(2) If benefits were paid erroneously

because of administrative error, VA will

reduce or discontinue benefits as of the

date of last payment.

* * * * *

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805, 1806, 5110,

5112.

PART 17—MEDICAL

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721 unless

otherwise noted.

2. The authority citation at the end of

§ 17.901 is revised to read as follows:

§ 17.901 Definitions.

* * * * *

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), 1801–1806,

Pub. L. 105–114.

3. The authority citation at the end of

§ 17.902 is revised to read as follows:

§ 17.902 Preauthorization.

* * * * *

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), 1801–1806,

Pub. L. 105–114.

4. The authority citation at the end of

§ 17.903 is revised to read as follows:

§ 17.903 Payment.

* * * * *

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), 1801–1806,

Pub. L. 105–114.

PART 21—VOCATIONAL

REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION

Subpart M—Vocational Training and

Rehabilitation for Vietnam Veterans’

Children With Spina Bifida

1. The authority citation for part 21,

subpart M continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 512, 1151

note, 1801–1806, 5112, unless otherwise

noted.

2. The authority citation at the end of

§ 21.8012 is revised to read as follows:

§ 21.8012 Definitions and abbreviations.

* * * * *

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), 1801, 1804,

Pub. L. 105–114.

3. The authority citation at the end of

§ 21.8014 is revised to read as follows:

§ 21.8014 Application.

* * * * *

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), 1801, 1804,

Public Law 105–114).

[FR Doc. 00–13660 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 132

[FRL–6707–7]

RIN 2040–AC08

Revocation of the Selenium Criterion

Maximum Concentration for the Final

Water Quality Guidance for the Great

Lakes System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Partial revocation of final rule.

SUMMARY: In March 1995, EPA

promulgated acute and chronic aquatic

life criteria for selenium as part of the

Final Water Quality Guidance for the

Great Lakes System (40 CFR part 132).

In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit issued

an order vacating the acute criterion for

selenium. AISI v. EPA, 115 F. 3d 979

(1997) (order dated September 10,

1996). EPA did not immediately publish

a notice removing the vacated acute

criterion from the Code of Federal

Regulations because it anticipated

promulgating a new acute criterion

within one year. Although EPA

proposed a new criterion in November

1996, it has not yet promulgated a final

criterion. Based on comments received

on the proposal, as well as earlier

comments EPA had received on the

methodology used to develop the

national selenium criteria, EPA decided

to subject the selenium criteria

methodology to a broader workgroup

and peer review process. While the

selenium workgroup and peer reviewers

have made good progress they are still

months away from making final

recommendations on the acute criterion

for selenium. In the meantime, to avoid

potential confusion about the status of

the vacated acute criterion, EPA has

decided to remove it from the final

Great Lakes Guidance in 40 CFR part

132. EPA plans to propose a new

replacement acute criterion once the

workgroup and peer review process is

complete. In the interim, EPA is

recommending that States and Tribes

rely on the chronic aquatic life criterion

for selenium in setting permit limits.

Today’s action will not affect that

chronic aquatic life criterion.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

and earlier rulemakings concerning the

Water Quality Guidance for the Great

Lakes System, including the proposal,

public comments in response to the

proposal, other major supporting

documents, and the index to the docket

are available for inspection and copying

at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 by

appointment only. Appointments may

be made by calling Mary Willis Jackson

(telephone 312–886–3717).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Morris (4301), U.S. EPA, Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460

(202–260–0312).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

A. Potentially Affected Entities

Citizens concerned with water quality

in the Great Lakes System may be

interested in this rulemaking. Also,

entities potentially affected by today’s

action are those discharging or

intending to discharge selenium to

waters of the United States in the Great

Lakes System. Categories and entities

that may ultimately be affected include:

35284 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Category Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry ...................................................... Industries discharging or intending to discharge selenium to waters in the Great Lakes System as

defined in 40 CFR 132.2.

Municipalities ............................................. Publicly owned treatment works discharging or intending to discharge selenium to waters of the

Great Lakes System as defined in 40 CFR 132.2.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be affected by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be affected.

To determine whether your facility is

affected by this action, you should

carefully examine the definition of

‘‘Great Lakes System’’ in 40 CFR 132.2

and examine the preamble to 40 CFR

part 132, which describes the part 132

regulations. See 60 FR 15366 (March

23,1995). If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Background

On March 23, 1995, EPA promulgated

the Final Water Quality Guidance for

the Great Lakes System (Guidance)

required under section 118(c)(2) of the

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2).

See 60 FR 15366 (March 23, 1995). The

Guidance protects the waters of the

Great Lakes and their tributaries by

establishing water quality criteria for 29

pollutants to protect aquatic life,

wildlife and human health, and detailed

methodologies to develop criteria for

additional pollutants. It also establishes

implementation procedures to help

Great Lakes States and Tribes develop

more consistent, enforceable waterquality based effluent limits in

discharge permits, as well as more

consistent total maximum daily loads

for the Great Lakes System. For a

description of the environmental

significance of the Great Lakes System

and the serious environmental threats it

faces (particularly from persistent,

bioaccumulative chemicals), see the

April 16, 1993, preamble to the

proposed Guidance (58 FR 20802).

The ambient water quality criteria

included in the Guidance to protect

aquatic life set maximum ambient

concentrations for harmful pollutants to

be met in all waters in the Great Lakes

System. See 40 CFR part 132, Tables 1

and 2. Great Lakes States and Tribes

were required to adopt criteria

consistent with EPA’s criteria by March

1997. CWA section 118(c)(2)(c). If any

State or Tribe fails to adopt criteria, EPA

must promulgate criteria applying in

that State or Tribe’s jurisdiction. Id.

Once the criteria take effect, permits for

discharges of such pollutants into the

Great Lakes System must include limits

as necessary to attain the criteria.

EPA promulgated aquatic life criteria

for 15 toxic pollutants including

selenium. The selenium criterion was

based on field data from Belews Lake in

North Carolina. The chronic criterion, or

Criterion Continuous Concentration

(CCC), was set at 5 micrograms per liter

(μg/L) (the concentration of selenium in

a portion of Belews Lake where no

chronic effects were observed). The

acute criterion, or Criterion Maximum

Concentration (CMC), was calculated as

19.34 μg/L (by multiplying the CCC by

a laboratory-derived acute to chronic

ratio and dividing by two). The total

recoverable criteria published for

selenium in part 132 were derived with

the same data as provided in the criteria

document, ‘‘Ambient Water Quality

Criteria for Selenium—1987’’ (EPA 440/

5–87–008).

Several industries and trade

associations challenged the acute

aquatic life criterion, or CMC, for

selenium. AISI v. EPA, 115 F. 3d 979

(1997). Among the issues they raised

was that inorganic selenium has two

oxidation states, selenite and selenate,

that have different toxicities to aquatic

life, and that EPA erred by promulgating

a single acute criterion that failed to

properly account for the two oxidation

states. EPA re-examined the issue, and

decided, that it would be in the public

interest to propose and provide an

opportunity to comment on a new

approach for deriving a CMC for

selenium that takes into account not

only the different toxicities of the two

oxidation states described above, but

also new data indicating that all forms

of selenium are additive. EPA requested

the reviewing Court to remand the acute

criterion to allow EPA to propose

revisions. On September 19, 1996, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit issued an order

vacating the acute criterion.

C. Decision to Remove the Aquatic Life

CMC for Selenium

EPA proposed a revised CMC for

aquatic life for selenium on November

14, 1996 (61 FR 58444). Because EPA

intended to promulgate a new selenium

criterion soon after its 1996 proposal,

EPA did not immediately withdraw the

vacated regulation from the Code of

Federal Regulations as is its normal

practice. However, based on comments

received on the proposal, as well as

earlier comments EPA had received on

the methodology used to develop the

national selenium criteria, EPA decided

to subject the selenium criteria

methodology to a broader workgroup

and peer review process. While the

selenium workgroup and peer reviewers

have made good progress they are still

months away from making final

recommendations on the selenium

CMC. At least one member of the public

has raised concern that, since the

criterion continues to appear in the

CFR, it appears to remain in effect. EPA

agrees that the criterion is not in effect,

and, since EPA has not been able to

replace it promptly, removing it will

reduce the potential for confusion.

Therefore, EPA has decided to withdraw

the selenium CMC from part 132, Table

1(a).

EPA plans to propose a new selenium

CMC for the Great Lakes Guidance once

the workgroup and peer review process

is complete. EPA is not removing the

1995 CCC for selenium codified in Table

2(a) to part 132. EPA is not withdrawing

the Clean Water Act section 304(a)

criteria document for either the acute or

the chronic criterion for selenium

recommended for use in the national

program because criteria developed for

the national program are guidance and

States and Tribes may adopt other

criteria that are scientifically defensible.

‘‘Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Selenium—1987’’ (EPA 440/5–87–008).

EPA will consider revising the national

document after the workgroup and peer

reviewers complete their work, and

sometime later EPA will propose a new

Great Lakes criterion. The Court’s order

does not affect the status of either the

1995 CCC for the Guidance or any

portion of the national criteria

document.

D. Consequences of Today’s Action

As a result of today’s action, States

and Tribes need not adopt or submit to

EPA for review an aquatic life CMC for

selenium for waters of the Great Lakes

Basin. In the interim, EPA is

recommending that States and Tribes

rely on the aquatic life CCC for selenium

in Table 2(a) of part 132 when setting

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35285

permit limits. States and Tribes have

submitted aquatic life CCC for selenium

that are as protective as the 1995

Guidance CCC for selenium.

II. ‘‘Good Cause’’ Under the

Administrative Procedure Act

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for making today’s rule final without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because EPA finds it

‘‘unnecessary’’ to provide an

opportunity to comment on the strictly

legal issue of the impact of the AISI

decision on the March 1995 selenium

CMC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit issued an

order vacating the acute criterion for

selenium in 1996. This rule merely

removes the criterion from the CFR to

eliminate confusion. Thus, notice and

public procedure are contrary to the

public interest. EPA finds that this

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B). For this reason, EPA has also

determined that it has ‘‘good cause’’

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make the rule

immediately effective upon publication.

III. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

IV. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act (5

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a rule

effective sooner than otherwise

provided by the CRA if the agency

makes a good cause finding that notice

and public procedure is impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest. This determination must be

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has

made such a good cause finding,

including the reasons therefore, and

established an effective date of June 2,

2000. EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996

Because the Agency has made a ‘‘good

cause’’ finding that this action is not

subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute (see

section II), it is not subject to the

regulatory flexibility provisions of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.).

VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Because the Agency has made a ‘‘good

cause’’ finding that this action is not

subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute (see

section II), it is not subject to sections

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public

Law 104–4).

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no information collection

requirements in this final rule and

therefore there is no need to obtain

OMB approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VIII. Executive Order 13132:

Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of the Executive

Order 13132, EPA may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Because the

AISI Court vacated the aquatic life CMC

for selenium in 1996, EPA is removing

it from the final Great Lakes Guidance

in 40 CFR part 132. As a result, States

and Tribes need not adopt or submit to

EPA for review an aquatic life CMC for

selenium for waters of the Great Lakes

Basin as part of their part 132

submission. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

IX. Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination With

Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

35286 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the Tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected Tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments nor does it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on them. Today’s final rule only

withdraws the selenium CMC from part

132, Table 1(a) of the final Great Lakes

Guidance. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

X. Executive Order 13045 on Protection

of Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to the

Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866. In addition, this

rule does not concern an environmental

health or safety risks that EPA has

reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. This

final rule merely removes the aquatic

life CMC for selenium from part 132,

Table 1(a) of the Guidance, consistent

with the 1996 Court order vacating the

acute (CMC) criterion for selenium. In

the interim, EPA is recommending that

States and Tribes rely on the aquatic life

CCC for selenium in Table 2(a) of part

132 when setting permit limits. States

and Tribes have submitted aquatic life

CCC for selenium that are as protective

as the 1995 Guidance CCC for selenium.

XI. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impracticable. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 132

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Great Lakes, Indians-lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Water

pollution control.

Dated: May 25, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble Title 40, Chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 132—WATER QUALITY

GUIDANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES

SYSTEM

1. The authority citation for part 132

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

2. Table 1(a) to part 132 is amended

by removing the entry for selenium.

[FR Doc. 00–13771 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

41 CFR Parts 51–8, 51–9, and 51–10

Change in Committee Mailing Address

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Committee is making

changes in its regulations to correct its

mailing address after a recent office

move.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800,

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

John Heyer (703) 603–0665. Copies of

this notice will be made available on

request in computer diskette format.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Committee is amending those

provisions of its regulations which state

its mailing address, as the address

changed on May 12, 2000. The

provisions appear in the Committee’s

Freedom of Information Act, Privacy

Act, and nondiscrimination regulations

at 41 CFR parts 51–8, 51–9, and 51–10

respectively. This amendment is exempt

under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) from noticeand-comment rulemaking because it is a

matter of internal agency management.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule is exempt from the

Regulatory Flexibility Act because it

does not meet the definition of a ‘‘rule’’

in that Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply to this final rule because it

contains no new information collection

or recordkeeping requirements as

defined in that Act and its regulations.

Executive Order No. 12866

The Committee has been exempted

from the regulatory review requirements

of the Executive Order by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Additionally, this final rule is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in the Executive Order.

List of Subjects

41 CFR Part 51–8

Freedom of information.

41 CFR Part 51–9

Privacy.