Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40559

recent test data to the record. We

welcome your comments on it.

C. Items Being Added to Both Records

Since the record closed, several

documents have been published

concerning the risk of dpm. This risk

information is applicable to both coal’s

and metal and nonmetal’s rulemakings.

The first item is a report by another

Federal authority updating information

discussed in the record. During the

hearings and post-hearing comments,

there was considerable discussion of an

October 1998 report of the Clean Air

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

reviewing an EPA Diesel Health

Assessment Document. This committee

has issued a new report (‘‘Review of

EPA’s Health Assessment Document for

Diesel Emissions’’ February 2000) on a

revised EPA Diesel Health Assessment

Document (EPA, Health Assessment

Document for Diesel Emissions, Office

of Research and Development, SAB

Review Draft, EPA–600/8–90/057D,

November 1999). Members of the

mining community participated actively

in the discussions leading to CASAC’s

newer report. Accordingly, we believe it

would be appropriate to update our

record to reflect any new information

covered by the revised EPA assessment

and the CASAC’s review of it. Members

of the mining community have

requested that we reopen the record for

this purpose.

The second item is a study by

Saverin, R. et al., ‘‘Diesel Exhaust and

Lung Cancer Mortality in Potash

Mining,’’ American Journal of Industrial

Medicine, 36:415–422 (1999). The

unpublished version of the study was

discussed at one of the hearings, and we

already have the unpublished version of

this study in the record. The published

version which differs slightly from the

earlier translation is now available and

it is normal practice to refer to the

published version of a study when that

version is available. Accordingly, we are

adding the published version to the

record and welcome your comments on

it.

The third item is an epidemiological

study investigating the association of

lung cancer with occupational

exposures to diesel emissions in

Germany. Bruske-Hohlfeld, I. et al.,

‘‘Lung Cancer Risk in Male Workers

Occupationally Exposed to Diesel Motor

Emissions in Germany,’’ American

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36:405–

414 (1999). The record of this

rulemaking includes a lengthy and

comprehensive list of relevant

epidemiological studies. These were

discussed in great detail by the mining

community during the hearings and

comment period. As a result, we believe

it would be inappropriate to leave this

recent epidemiological study out of the

record. Accordingly, we are adding this

study to the record and welcome your

comments on it.

The fourth item is a study concerning

human response to acute dpm

exposures. Salvi, Sundeep, et al.,

‘‘Acute Inflammatory Responses in the

Airways and Peripheral Blood After

Short-Term Exposure to Diesel Exhaust

in Health Human Volunteers,’’ Am. J.

Respir. Care Med. 159:702–709 (1999).

Again, the record of this rulemaking

includes a comprehensive list of

relevant studies in this regard, and they

were discussed by the mining

community during the hearings and

comment period. Since the Agency is

opening the record, the addition of this

recent study is appropriate.

Accordingly, this study is being added

to the record at this time.

Finally, in its review of the record, the

agency noted certain comments

suggesting that these commenters might

not have been aware of certain studies

that were part of the general scientific

literature covered by reviews which are

included and discussed in the record.

Accordingly, the agency is placing

copies of two such studies directly into

the record under their own docket

numbers, and will accept any comments

on these studies. [Hou, S.M. et al.,

‘‘Relationship between hprt mutant

frequency, aromatic DNA adducts and

genotypes for GSTM1 and NAT2 in bus

maintenance workers,’’ Carcinogenesis,

16:1913–1917 (1995); and Ichinose, et

al., ‘‘Lung Carcinogenesis and

Formation of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine in Mice by Diesel

Exhaust Particles,’’ Carcinogenesis,

18:185–192 (1997).]

The agency wants to reassure the

mining community that since the

agency’s risk assessment covers

information relevant to both

underground coal mines and

underground metal and nonmetal

mines, any comments on the risk

assessment filed in one record have also

been placed in the other. In some cases,

commenters placed the comments in

both records just to be sure MSHA

would consider them, but not all did so.

The agency will follow this same policy

with respect to any comments on the

risk studies which are the subject of this

notice.

D. Time for Response

The Agency is opening the

rulemaking record for additional

comment on only the specific items

described above. The agency has

determined that in light of the limited

scope of this reopening, and the

extensive familiarity of the mining

community with the existing record on

the topics involved, the record will

remain open for comments on these

items for 30 days. The agency does not

foresee any extensions will be needed.

Accordingly, to facilitate comment by

the mining community, the agency will

be pleased to telefax or express mail

copies of any of the items involved

upon request.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Robert A. Elam,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety

and Health.

[FR Doc. 00–16561 Filed 6–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,

145, 146, and 147

[USCG–1998–3868]

RIN 2115–AF39

Outer Continental Shelf Activities

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is further

extending the period for public

comment on its notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on Outer

Continental Shelf Activities. We are

changing the deadline for receipt of

comments from July 5, 2000, to

November 30, 2000. Also, we are

changing the deadline for receipt of

comments by the Office of Management

and Budget on the proposed collectionof-information requirements from July 5,

2000, to November 30, 2000.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before November 30,

2000. Comments sent to OMB on

collection of information must reach

OMB on or before November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket,

please submit them by only one of the

following methods:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, (USCG–1998–3868), U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By hand to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

40560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

You may also mail comments on

collection of information to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this proposed rule, call Mr.

James M. Magill, Vessel and Facility

Operating Standards Division (G–MSO–

2), telephone 202–267–1082 or fax 202–

267–4570. For questions on viewing or

submitting material to the docket, call

Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets,

Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) on Outer Continental Shelf

Activities, published on December 7,

1999 (64 FR 68416), encouraged

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments by April 5, 2000. It

also invited comments on collection-ofinformation requirements to be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) by February 7, 2000.

We received a request to extend both of

those dates to July 5, 2000, and did so

by a notice of extension (65 FR 14226,

March 16, 2000). As a result of several

requests since that notice of extension,

we are again extending both dates until

November 30, 2000.

Persons submitting comments should

include their names and addresses,

identify this docket (USCG–1998–3868)

and the specific section of the NPRM to

which each comment applies, and give

the reason for each comment. You may

submit your comments and material by

mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic

means to the Docket Management

Facility at the address under

ADDRESSES; but please submit your

comments and material by only one

means. If you submit them by mail or

hand delivery, submit them in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit them by

mail and would like to know they

reached the Facility, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this NPRM in

view of them.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Director of Standards, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 00–16658 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–062–7221; A–1–FRL–6727–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Connecticut; Post-1996 Rate-ofProgress Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut. The revisions establish

post-1996 rate-of-progress plans,

including minor adjustments to the

1990 base year inventory, for the Greater

Hartford serious ozone nonattainment

area, and for the Connecticut portion of

the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut

(NY–NJ–CT) severe ozone

nonattainment area. The intended effect

of this action is to propose approval of

these SIP revisions as meeting the

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 31, 2000.

Public comments on this document are

requested and will be considered before

taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David B. Conroy, Chief, Air Quality

Planning Unit (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, Boston,

MA 02114–2023. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA, and at the

Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Air Management,

79 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert McConnell, (617) 918–1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?

B. Why was Connecticut required to reduce

its emissions of ozone forming pollutants?

C. Which specific air pollutants are

targeted by Connecticut’s plans?

D. What are the sources of these

pollutants?

E. What harmful effects can these

pollutants produce?

F. Should I be concerned if I live near an

industry that emits a significant amount of

these pollutants?

G. To what degree do Connecticut’s plans

reduce emissions?

H. What changes were made to

Connecticut’s base year inventory?

I. How will Connecticut achieve these

emission reductions?

J. Have these emission reductions

improved air quality in Connecticut?

K. Connecticut is downwind of many large

metropolitan areas. Do pollutants emitted in

other States affect air quality in Connecticut?

L. EPA recently required 22 eastern states,

including Connecticut, to develop plans that

will significantly reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions. Given that requirement, why is

approval of these plans needed?

M. Has Connecticut met its contingency

measure obligation?

N. Are conformity budgets contained in

these plans?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is proposing approval of post1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) emission

reduction plans, and minor revisions to

the 1990 base year inventory, submitted

by the State of Connecticut for the

Greater Hartford serious ozone

nonattainment area, and the

Connecticut portion of the NY–NJ–CT

severe ozone nonattainment area, which

is a multi-state ozone nonattainment

area, as revisions to Connecticut’s SIP.

Connecticut did not enter into an

agreement with New York and New

Jersey to do a multi-state ROP plan, and

therefore submitted a plan to reduce

emissions only in the Connecticut

portion of this area. EPA is proposing

action today only on the Connecticut

portion of the NY–NJ–CT post-1996

plan.

The post-1996 ROP plans document

how Connecticut complied with the

provisions of section 182(c)(2) of the

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act). These

sections of the Act require states

containing certain ozone nonattainment

areas develop strategies to reduce

emissions of the pollutants that react to

form ground level ozone.

B. Why Was Connecticut Required To

Reduce Its Emissions of Ozone Forming

Pollutants?

Connecticut was required to develop

plans to reduce ozone precursor

emissions because it contains ozone

nonattainment areas. A final rule

published by EPA on November 6, 1991

(56 FR 56694) designated portions of