38828 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Notices

decision by the Agency on the

applications.

Products Containing Active Ingredients

Not Included in Any Previously

Registered Products

1. File Symbol: 68467-E. Applicant:

Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences

LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road,

Indianapolis, IN 46268. Product name:

Mycogen Brand Bt Cry1F Corn. Active

ingredient: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F

protein and the genetic material

necessary for its production (plasmid

insert PHI8999) in corn plants. Proposed

classification/Use: None. For full

commercial use.

2. File Symbol: 29964-G. Applicant:

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 7250

NW 62nd Avenue, P.O. Box 552,

Johnston, Iowa 50131-0552. Product

name: Pioneer Brand Bt Cry1F Corn.

Active ingredient: Bacillus thuringiensis

Cry1F protein and the genetic material

necessary for its production (plasmid

insert PHI8999) in corn plants. Proposed

classification/Use: None. For full

commercial use.

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for

Taking this Action?

Section 3(c)(4) of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), as amended.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pest.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–15722 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–50869; FRL–6592–5]

Issuance of an Experimental Use

Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an

experimental use permit (EUP) to the

following pesticide applicant. An EUP

permits use of a pesticide for

experimental or research purposes only

in accordance with the limitations in

the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Alan Reynolds, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7511C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Rm. 910W46,

CM #2, Arlington, VA, (703) 605–0515,

e-mail: reynolds.alan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. Although this action may be

of particular interest to those persons

who conduct or sponsor research on

pesticides, the Agency has not

attempted to describe all the specific

entities that may be affected by this

action. If you have any questions

regarding the information in this action,

consult the designated contact person

listed for the individual EUP.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

You may obtain electronic copies of

this document from the EPA Internet

Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On

the Home Page select ‘‘Laws and

Regulations’’ and then look up the entry

for this document under the ‘‘Federal

Register—Environmental Documents.’’

You can also go directly to the Federal

Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr/.

II. EUP

EPA has issued the following EUP:

524–EUP–91. Issuance. Monsanto

Company, 700 Chesterfield Parkway

North, St. Louis, MO 63198. This

experimental use permit allows the use

of 60.7 grams of the insecticidal Bacillus

thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein in seeds

shipped containing the plant-pesticide

(Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein

and the genetic material for its

production (Vector PV–GMBT01 and

Vector PV–GMBT02) in soybean) on

61.3 acres of soybean to evaluate the

control of soybean looper, stem borer,

and velvetbean caterpillar. The program

is authorized only in the States of

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,

Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North

Carolina, and Tennessee. The

experimental use permit is effective

from May 25, 2000 to May 31, 2001.

This permit is issued with the limitation

that all treated crops will be destroyed

or used for research purposes only.

Persons wishing to review this EUP

are referred to the designated contact

person. Inquiries concerning this permit

should be directed to the person cited

above. It is suggested that interested

persons call before visiting the EPA

office, so that the appropriate file may

be made available for inspection

purposes from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Experimental use permits.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–15721 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6720–5]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Application of Labor Standards

Provision in the Clean Water Act State

Revolving Fund program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement;

request for public comment and notice

of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is seeking

comment on a proposed settlement

agreement between the Agency and the

Building and Construction Trades

Department, AFL/CIO (Building Trades)

which would resolve a matter now

pending before the Department of

Labor’s Wage and Hour Division

Administrator. Under the proposed

settlement agreement, EPA would

prospectively apply the Davis-Bacon

Act’s prevailing wage rate requirements

in the Clean Water State Revolving

Fund (CWSRF) program established in

title VI of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, as amended (more

commonly known as the Clean Water

Act (CWA)), 33 U.S.C. 1381—1387, in

the same manner as they applied before

October 1, 1994.

Title VI of the CWA authorizes EPA

to award grants to capitalize state

revolving funds from which states, in

turn, award loans and other types of

assistance for the construction of

publicly owned treatment works and

other water quality projects.

Appropriations for the CWSRF program

were authorized only through fiscal year

1994, but Congress has continued to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Notices 38829

appropriate funds for the program each

year since.

CWA section 602(b)(6) required

publicly owned treatment works funded

with CWSRF assistance ‘‘directly made

available by [capitalization grants]’’ that

were ‘‘constructed in whole or in part

before fiscal year 1995’’ (emphasis

added) to comply with the requirements

of a number of other CWA provisions.

Among the provisions was CWA section

513, which applies Davis-Bacon Act

requirements to treatment works for

which grants are made under the CWA.

EPA interpreted the language of CWA

section 602(b)(6) as limiting the

application of the Davis-Bacon Act and

other requirements to CWSRF-funded

treatment works projects ‘‘constructed

in whole or in part before fiscal year

1995’’, and, in an August 8, 1995,

memorandum, announced that these

requirements would not apply to

CWSRF-assisted projects that begin

construction on or after October 1, 1994

(the beginning of Fiscal Year 1995). Two

years later, the Building and

Construction Trades Department

(‘‘Building Trades’’), AFL–CIO, asked

the Department of Labor’s Wage and

Hour Division (‘‘DOL’’) to rule that the

requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act

continue to apply to treatment works

projects funded with CWSRF loans

under CWA title VI. The Building

Trades argued that the Davis-Bacon Act

requirement applied to CWSRF-funded

projects as long as Congress

appropriated funds for the program.

EPA responded in opposition to the

Building Trades request for ruling.

EPA has closely considered the

relationship of CWA section 513 and

CWA section 602(b)(6) and the

arguments of the Building Trades in its

request for ruling. While the Agency’s

position to date rests on a reasonable

legal interpretation, EPA is now

persuaded of the appropriateness of the

view that CWA section 513 imposes a

continuing, independent obligation on

the Agency to ensure that Davis-Bacon

Act requirements apply to any grants

made under the CWA for treatment

works, including capitalization grants

made under title VI of the CWA. The

language of CWA section 602(b)(6) does

not relieve the Agency of this obligation.

Furthermore, as a matter of policy, the

Agency has determined that prevailing

wage rate requirements applicable to

federally-assisted construction projects

should continue to apply to federallyassisted treatment works construction in

the CWSRF program.

Consequently, EPA and the Building

Trades are proposing to enter into the

settlement agreement published with

this notice. Under the agreement, EPA

would include a condition in all

capitalization grant agreements entered

into between the Agency and the states

on or after January 1, 2001, requiring the

states to ensure that the requirements of

section 513 of the CWA will be applied

to publicly owned treatment works

receiving CWSRF assistance in the same

manner as they were applied before

October 1, 1994. In exchange for EPA’s

commitment, Building Trades would

agree not to pursue any further action

on this matter before DOL or any other

Federal administrative agency, or in

litigation.

For a period of forty-five (45) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, the Agency will receive written

comments relating to the proposed

settlement agreement from any persons.

A public meeting to discuss this

proposed settlement agreement will also

be held on Thursday, July 13, 2000,

from 2 to 4 PM, at the Washington Plaza

Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, Washington,

DC EPA may withdraw from the

proposed settlement agreement, or

withhold its agreement, if these

comments or consultations taking place

with state and local government

representatives, disclose considerations

that indicate that entering into the

settlement agreement would be

inappropriate, improper or inconsistent

with the requirements of the CWA.

Written comments should be sent to

Geoff Cooper, Finance and Operations

Law Office, Office of General Counsel

(2377A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460 (or they

may be e-mailed to

cooper.geoffrey@epamail.epa.gov.)

Questions about the July 13, 2000,

public meeting should be addressed to

Angela Cracchiolo, Office of Wastewater

Management, Office of Water (4204),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460 (or they may be

e-mailed to

cracchiolo.angela@epamail.epa.gov.)

Dated: June 14, 2000.

Gary S. Guzy,

General Counsel.

Proposed Settlement Agreement

Whereas, title VI of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, as amended

(more commonly known as the Clean

Water Act (CWA)), 33 U.S.C. 1381—

1387, authorizes the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants

to states to capitalize Clean Water State

Revolving Funds (CWSRF), from which

the states, in turn, make loans and other

types of assistance for the construction

of publicly owned treatment works and

other water quality projects and

activities;

Whereas, section 602(b)(6) of the

CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6), requires

states to ensure that publicly owned

treatment works ‘‘constructed in whole

or in part before fiscal year 1995 with

CWSRF funds directly made available

by’’ capitalization grants comply with

sixteen provisions of the CWA,

including section 513 of the CWA, 33

U.S.C. 1372, which applies Davis-Bacon

Act requirements to treatment works for

which grants are made under the CWA;

Whereas, EPA has not required states

to ensure that publicly owned treatment

works that began construction on or

after October 1, 1994, with CWSRF

assistance will comply with the

requirements identified in section

602(b)(6) of the CWA, including the

requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act;

Whereas, the Building and

Construction Trades Department, AFL–

CIO, (Building Trades), challenged this

position and requested a ruling by John

R. Fraser, Acting Administrator of the

Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and

Hour Division, that the requirements of

the Davis-Bacon Act continued to apply

to the construction of publicly owned

treatment works receiving CWSRF

assistance as long as Congress

appropriates funds for grants under title

VI of the CWA.

Whereas, Congress has continued to

appropriate funds for grants to states for

their CWSRF programs under the CWA;

Whereas, EPA replied in opposition to

the Building Trades request for ruling;

Whereas, EPA published this

settlement agreement in the Federal

Register along with a request for the

public to comment on whether EPA

should again apply section 513 of the

CWA to treatment works projects

assisted with CWSRF funds directly

made available by capitalization grants,

and consulted with state and local

government officials on the terms of this

agreement;

Whereas, EPA has carefully

considered the comments received on

the Federal Register Notice and the

comments provided by state and local

governments during the consultation

process;

And Whereas, EPA and the Building

Trades have determined that it is in the

public interest to resolve this matter

expeditiously;

It is therefore agreed that,

1. EPA will issue a memorandum to

its Regional Water Division Directors

directing them to include a condition in

all capitalization grant agreements

entered into between EPA and the states

under title VI of the CWA, on or after

January 1, 2001, requiring the states to

38830 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Notices

ensure that the requirements of section

513 of the CWA will be applied to

publicly owned treatment works

receiving CWSRF assistance under those

agreements in the same manner as

section 513 requirements were applied

before October 1, 1994.

2. The grant condition will require

states to ensure that the requirements of

section 513 of the CWA, and no other

requirements identified in section

602(b)(6) of the CWA, will apply only to

publicly-owned treatment works that

are funded with funds ‘‘directly made

available by’’ grants under title VI of the

CWA, as that phrase is defined at 40

CFR 35.3105(g).

3. The grant condition will be

included in all capitalization grant

agreements entered into between EPA

and the states under title VI of the CWA

on or after January 1, 2001;

4. The Building Trades and EPA will

submit this agreement to the

Administrator of the Wage and Hour

Division, DOL, with a joint request to

dismiss the administrative proceeding

on the Building Trades Department’s

request for ruling.

5. The Building Trades will not

pursue any further action on the matter

hereby resolved in this settlement

agreement, either before DOL or any

other Federal administrative agency, or

in litigation.

6. In the event that EPA does not

accomplish one or more of the items

specified in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3

above, the Building Trades sole remedy

will be to reinstitute its request for

ruling before the DOL.

7. Nothing in the terms of this

agreement shall be construed to limit or

modify the discretion accorded EPA by

the CWA or by general principles of

administrative law.

8. The undersigned representatives of

each party certify that they are fully

authorized by the parties they represent

to bind the respective parties to the

terms of this settlement agreement. This

settlement agreement will be deemed to

be executed when it has been signed by

the representatives of the parties below.

Agreed:

Gary S. Guzy,

General Counsel, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

20460.

Edward C. Sullivan,

President, Building and Construction Trades

Department, AFL–CIO, American Federation

of Labor/Congress of Industrial

Organizations, 1155 Fifteenth Street, N.W.,

4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005–2707.

[FR Doc. 00–15719 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6721–1]

Notice of Availability of Letter From

EPA to the State of Wisconsin

Pursuant to Section 118 of the Clean

Water Act and the Water Quality

Guidance for the Great Lakes System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a

June 13, 2000 letter written from Region

5 of the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) to the State of Wisconsin

finding that certain provisions adopted

as part of the State’s water quality

standards and National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits program are inconsistent with

section 118(c) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) and 40 CFR part 132. EPA’s

findings are described in the June 13,

2000 letter to Wisconsin. The letter also

expresses EPA’s belief that, with the

exceptions of those inconsistencies,

Wisconsin has otherwise adopted

requirements that are consistent with

the remainder of 40 CFR part 132. EPA

invites public comment on all aspects of

that letter, particularly on the findings

in the letter and on the course of action

that EPA proposes to take if the State

fails to adequately address EPA’s

findings.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by August 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on EPA’s

findings as described in the June 13,

2000 letter may be submitted to Mery

Jackson-Willis, Standards and Applied

Sciences Branch (WT–15J), Water

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. In

the alternative, EPA will accept

comments electronically. Comments

should be sent to the following Internet

E-mail address: jacksonwillis.mery@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted in an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

EPA will print electronic comments in

hard-copy paper form for the official

administrative record. EPA will attempt

to clarify electronic comments if there is

an apparent error in transmission.

Comments provided electronically will

be considered timely if they are

submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.

(Eastern time) August 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mery Jackson-Willis, Standards and

Applied Sciences Branch (WT–15J),

Water Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, or telephone her at (312) 886–

3717.

Copies of the June 13, 2000 letter

described above is available upon

request by contacting Ms. JacksonWillis. That letter and materials

submitted by the State in support of its

submission that EPA relied upon in

preparing that letter (i.e., the docket) are

available for review by appointment at:

EPA, Region 5, 77 W Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois (telephone 312–886–

3717); and the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, 101 South Webster

Street, Madison, Wisconsin (telephone:

608–267–2621). To access the docket

material in Chicago, call Ms. Mery

Jackson-Willis at (312) 886–3717

between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (central

time) (Monday-Friday); in Wisconsin,

call Mr. Robert Masnado at (608) 267–

7662 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

(central time).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

23, 1995, EPA published the Final

Water Quality Guidance for the Great

Lakes System (Guidance) pursuant to

section 118(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act,

33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2). (March 23, 1995,

60 FR 15366). The Guidance, which was

codified at 40 CFR Part 132, requires the

Great Lakes States to adopt and submit

to EPA for approval water quality

criteria, methodologies, policies and

procedures that are consistent with the

Guidance. 40 CFR 132.4 & 132.5. EPA is

required to approve of the State’s

submission within 90 days or notify the

State that EPA has determined that all

or part of the submission is inconsistent

with the Clean Water Act or the

Guidance and identify any necessary

changes to obtain EPA approval. If the

State fails to make the necessary

changes within 90 days, EPA must

publish a notice in the Federal Register

identifying the approved and

disapproved elements of the submission

and a final rule identifying the

provisions of Part 132 that shall apply

for discharges within the State.

EPA reviewed the submittals from

Wisconsin for consistency with the

Guidance in accordance with 40 CFR

131 and 132.5. EPA determined that

certain parts of Wisconsin’s submittal

are inconsistent with the requirements

of the CWA or 40 CFR Part 132 and will

be subject to EPA disapproval if not

corrected. On June 13, 2000, in a letter

from EPA Region 5 to the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, EPA

described in detail those provisions

determined to be inconsistent with the

Guidance and subject to disapproval if