45560 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

EPA is printing a summary of each 

pesticide petition received under 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a, proposing the establishment or 

amendment of regulations in 40 CFR 

part 180 for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various food 

commodities. EPA has determined that 

this pesticide petition contains data or 

information regarding the elements set 

forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); 

however, EPA has not fully evaluated 

the sufficiency of the submitted data at 

this time or whether the data support 

granting of the pesticide petition. 

Additional data may be needed before 

EPA rules on this pesticide petition. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a 

summary of the petition included in this 

notice, prepared by the petitioner along 

with a description of the analytical 

method available for the detection and 

measurement of the pesticide chemical 

residues is available on EPA’s Electronic 

Docket at http://www.regulations.gov/. 

To locate this information on the home 

page of EPA’s Electronic Docket, select 

‘‘Quick Search’’ and type the OPP 

docket ID number. Once the search has 

located the docket, clicking on the 

‘‘Docket ID’’ will bring up a list of all 

documents in the docket for the 

pesticide including the petition 

summary. 

1. PP 6E7078. Syngenta Crop 

Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, 

Greensboro, NC 27410, proposes to 

establish an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the phosphoric acid tris(2-ethyl 

hexyl) ester, CAS Reg. No. 78–42–2, in 

or on food commodities. Because this 

petition is a request for an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without numerical limitations, no 

analytical method is required. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 26, 2006. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 06–6686 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0656, FRL–8207–3] 

Notice of Draft Guidance for 

Implementing the January 2001 

Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: EPA announces the 

availability of draft guidance for 

implementing the water quality 

criterion for methylmercury and 

requests comments on the draft 

guidance. The draft document provides 

technical guidance to states, territories, 

and authorized tribes exercising 

responsibility under Clean Water Act 

(CWA) section 303(c) on how to use 

EPA’s fish tissue-based methylmercury 

criterion recommendation in developing 

their own water quality standards for 

methylmercury and in implementing 

these standards in Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) and National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits. The guidance 

document does not impose any legally 

binding requirements on any entity. It 

provides various technical and policy 

approaches to implementing the 

criterion. These approaches are 

recommendations only. States, 

territories and authorized tribes may 

choose to implement other technicallysound approaches that are consistent 

with the CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 10, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OW–2006–0656, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of four copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of four 

copies. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW–2006–0656. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or owdocket@epa.gov. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices 45561 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW, Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426). 

Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered 

damage due to flooding during the last week 

of June 2006. The Docket Center is 

continuing to operate. However, during the 

cleanup, there will be temporary changes to 

Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, 

and hours of operation for people who wish 

to make hand deliveries or visit the Public 

Reading Room to view documents. Consult 

EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 

(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm 

for current information on docket operations, 

locations and telephone numbers. The 

Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail 

and the procedure for submitting comments 

to www.regulations.gov are not affected by 

the flooding and will remain the same. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Pendergast, Standards and Health 

Protection Division, Office of Water, 

(4305T), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC, 20460; telephone 

number: 202–566–0398; fax number: 

202–566–0409; e-mail address: 

Pendergast.jim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially interested in 

today’s notice are those that discharge 

or release mercury and methylmercury 

to surface waters, and federal, state, 

tribal, and local authorities that regulate 

methylmercury levels in surface water. 

Categories and entities interested in 

today’s notice include but are not 

limited to: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

State/Local/Tribal 

Government.

States, municipalities, 

tribes. 

Industry ..................... Mining, coal-fired 

power generation, 

other industries 

using mercury in 

their processing 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table may also be 

interested. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI). In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the docket number and 

other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page 

number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background and Today’s Action 

A. What Is Methylmercury and Why Are 

We Concerned About It? 

Mercury occurs naturally in the 

earth’s crust and cycles in the 

environment as part of both natural and 

human-induced activities. The amount 

of mercury mobilized and released into 

the biosphere has increased since the 

beginning of the industrial age. Most of 

the mercury in the atmosphere is 

elemental mercury vapor, which 

circulates in the atmosphere for up to a 

year, and, hence, can be widely 

dispersed and transported thousands of 

miles from sources of emission. Most of 

the mercury in water, soil, sediments, 

plants, and animals is in the form of 

inorganic mercury salts and organic 

forms of mercury (e.g., methylmercury). 

Methylmercury most often results from 

microbial activity in wetlands, the water 

column, and sediments and is the form 

of mercury that presents the greatest risk 

to human health. Divalent mercury, 

when bound to airborne particles, is 

readily removed from the atmosphere by 

precipitation and is also dry deposited. 

Even after it deposits, mercury 

commonly returns to the atmosphere 

either as a gas or associated with 

particles, and redeposits elsewhere. As 

mercury cycles between the atmosphere, 

land, and water, mercury undergoes a 

series of complex chemical and physical 

transformations, many of which are not 

completely understood. 

Exposure to methylmercury can result 

in a variety of health effects in humans. 

Children who are exposed to low 

concentrations of methylmercury 

prenatally might be at risk of poor 

performance on neurobehavioral tests, 

such as those measuring attention, fine 

motor function, language skills, visualspatial abilities, and verbal memory. 

(NRC 2000, USEPA 2002, USEPA 2005). 

The primary route by which the U.S. 

population is exposed to methylmercury 

is through the consumption of fish 

containing methylmercury. For most 

people, methylmercury exposure from 

consumption of fish and shellfish is not 

a health concern. Yet, the exposure 

levels at which neurological effects have 

been observed in children can occur via 

maternal consumption of fish (rather 

than high-dose poisoning episodes) 

(USEPA 2005). The risks from 

methylmercury in fish and shellfish 

depend on the amount of fish and 

shellfish eaten and the levels of 

methylmercury in the fish and shellfish. 

Therefore, the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

are advising women who may become 

pregnant, pregnant women, nursing 

mothers, and young children to avoid 

some types of fish and eat fish and 

shellfish that are lower in 

methylmercury. You can find more 

information about this joint Federal 

advisory on EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish. 

In 2000, the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS)/National Research 

Council (NRC) reviewed the health 

studies on methylmercury (NRC 2000). 

In its review of the literature, NRC 

found neurodevelopmental effects to be 

the most sensitive endpoints and 

appropriate for establishing a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
45562 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices 

methylmercury Reference Dose (RfD) 

(NRC 2000). EPA defines an RfD as ‘‘an 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

daily oral exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. On the basis of the 

NRC report, EPA established an RfD of 

0.0001 mg/kg per day (0.0001 milligram 

of methylmercury per day for each 

kilogram of a person’s body mass) in 

2001 (USEPA 2002). EPA believes that 

exposures at or below the RfD are 

unlikely to be associated with 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects. It 

is important to note, however, that the 

RfD does not define an exposure level 

corresponding to zero risk; 

methylmercury exposure near or below 

the RfD could pose a very low level of 

risk that EPA deems to be nonappreciable. It is also important to note 

that the RfD does not define a bright 

line, above which individuals are at risk 

of adverse effects (USEPA 2005). NAS 

determined that EPA’s RfD ‘‘is a 

scientifically justified level for the 

protection of public health.’’

With regard to other health effects of 

methylmercury, some recent 

epidemiological studies in men suggest 

that methylmercury is associated with a 

higher risk of acute myocardial 

infarction, coronary heart disease, and 

cardiovascular disease in some 

populations. Other recent studies have 

not observed this association. The 

studies that have observed an 

association suggest that the exposure to 

methylmercury might attenuate the 

beneficial effects of fish consumption 

(USEPA 2005). There also is some 

recent evidence that exposures of 

methylmercury might result in 

genotoxic or immunotoxic effects. Other 

research with less corroboration 

suggests that reproductive, renal, and 

hematological impacts could be of 

concern. There are insufficient human 

data to evaluate whether these effects 

are consistent with methylmercury 

exposure levels in the U.S. population 

(USEPA 2005). 

B. What Is the Current Methylmercury 

Criterion? 

In a January 8, 2001, Federal Register 

notice (66 FR 1344), EPA announced the 

availability of its recommended water 

quality criterion for methylmercury. The 

methylmercury water quality criterion is 

derived from the methylmercury RfD 

(described above) and data about the 

target population to be protected (i.e., 

exposure parameters and assumptions). 

The equation for calculating the 

methylmercury fish tissue residue water 

quality criterion for the protection of 

human health is: 

TRC

BW RfD RSC

FIi

i

= × − ( )

=

∑2

4

Where: 

TRC = Fish tissue residue criterion (mg 

methylmercury/kg fish tissue) for 

freshwater and estuarine fish and 

shellfish 

RfD = Reference Dose (based on non-cancer 

human health effects). For 

methylmercury the RfD is 0.0001 mg/kg 

BW-day (0.1 ug/kg BW-day) 

RSC = Relative source contribution 

(subtracted from the RfD to account for 

marine fish consumption) estimated to 

be 2.7 x 10–5 mg/kg BW-day 

BW = Human body weight default value of 

70kg (for adults) 

FI = Fish intake at trophic level (TL) i (i = 

2, 3, 4); total default intake is 0.0175 kg 

fish/day for general adult population. 

Trophic level breakouts for the general 

population are: TL2 = 0.0038 kg fish/day; 

TL3 = 0.0080 kg fish/day; and TL4 = 

0.0057 kg fish/day. 

This equation and all values used in 

the equation are described in Water 

Quality Criterion for the Protection of 

Human Health, Methylmercury (USEPA 

2001b). This equation is essentially the 

same equation used in the 2000 Human 

Health Methodology to calculate a water 

quality criterion for a pollutant that may 

cause non-cancer health effects, but is 

rearranged to solve for a protective 

concentration in fish tissue rather than 

in water. Thus, the equation does not 

include a bioaccumulation factor (BAF) 

or drinking water intake value 

(methylmercury exposure from drinking 

water is negligible (USEPA 2001a)). 

Incorporating the relevant values into 

the above equation, EPA obtained a fish 

tissue concentration (TRC) of 0.3 mg 

methylmercury/kg fish as the 

concentration in fish tissue that should 

not be exceeded. EPA’s preference is for 

states and authorized tribes to use local 

or regional consumption rates, if these 

would better reflect the target 

populations. 

C. What Is The Draft Implementation 

Guidance? 

In the 2001 Federal Register notice of 

the availability of EPA’s recommended 

water quality criterion for 

methylmercury, EPA stated that it 

would develop associated procedures 

and guidance for implementing the 

criterion. We are issuing that draft 

guidance today. The guidance will assist 

states in developing a water quality 

criterion for methylmercury in their 

water quality standards. States can 

either adopt EPA’s recommended 

criterion or another criterion that is 

scientifically defensible and consistent 

with the Act and its implementing 

regulations. 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2). 

This guidance document presents 

suggested approaches to criteria 

adoption and implementation. These 

approaches are recommendations and 

do not represent the only technically 

defensible approaches. The discussion 

in the guidance document is intended 

solely as guidance. This guidance does 

not change or, substitute for, applicable 

sections of the CWA or EPA’s 

regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. 

Thus, it does not impose legally binding 

requirements on EPA, states, authorized 

tribes, or the regulated community and 

may not apply to a particular situation. 

EPA, state, territorial, and tribal 

decision makers retain the discretion to 

adopt approaches on a case-by-case 

basis that differ from this guidance 

where appropriate. 

D. Why Did EPA Draft This Guidance? 

The methylmercury criterion is 

expressed as a fish and shellfish tissue 

value, and this raises both technical and 

programmatic implementation 

questions. EPA expects that, as a result 

of the revised methylmercury water 

quality criterion, together with a more 

sensitive method for detecting mercury 

in effluent and the water column, and 

increased monitoring of previously 

unmonitored waterbodies, the number 

of waterbodies that states report on 

CWA section 303(d) lists as impaired 

due to methylmercury contamination 

might continue to increase. 

Development of water quality standards, 

NPDES permits, and TMDLs present 

challenges because these activities 

typically have been based on a water 

concentration (e.g., as a measure of 

mercury levels in effluent). This 

guidance addresses issues associated 

with states and authorized tribes 

adopting the new water quality criterion 

into their water quality standards 

programs and implementation of the 

revised water quality criterion in 

TMDLs and NPDES permits. Further, 

because atmospheric deposition serves 

as a large source of mercury for many 

waterbodies, implementation of the 

criterion involves coordination across 

various media and program areas. 

E. What Does the Draft Guidance 

Recommend? 

For states and authorized tribes 

exercising responsibility under CWA 

section 303(c), this document provides 

technical guidance on how they might 

want to use the recommended 2001 fish 

tissue-based criterion to develop their 

own water quality standards for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN09AU06.006</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices 45563 

methylmercury. States and authorized 

tribes may decide to adopt the EPA 

recommended methylmercury fish 

tissue-based criterion based on the 

national default fish consumption rate 

or translate the tissue value to a water 

column value through use of 

methylmercury BAFs. If a state or 

authorized tribe decides to translate the 

fish tissue criterion to a water column 

criterion, EPA recommends three 

approaches for relating a concentration 

of methylmercury in fish tissue to a 

concentration of methylmercury in 

ambient water: (1) Deriving site-specific 

methylmercury BAFs; (2) using 

bioaccumulation models; and (3) using 

EPA’s draft default methylmercury 

BAFs. All three approaches have 

limitations, such as the amount of data 

necessary to develop a BAF. This 

guidance discusses the advantages and 

limitations of each approach. 

States and authorized tribes may also 

consider calculating their own fish 

tissue criteria or adopting site-specific 

criteria for methylmercury to reflect 

local or regional fish consumption rates 

or relative source contributions. This 

guidance also discusses variances and 

use attainability analyses relating to 

methylmercury. 

This document describes analytical 

methods for determining the 

concentrations of mercury and 

methylmercury in both tissue and water. 

These methods can detect mercury and 

methylmercury in tissue and water at 

very low levels—well below the levels 

of the previous criterion for mercury in 

the water column and the current 

criterion of methylmercury in fish 

tissue. This document also provides 

guidance for field sampling plans, 

laboratory analysis protocols, and data 

interpretation that is based on 

previously published EPA guidance on 

sampling strategies for contaminant 

monitoring. This guidance also 

describes how states can assess the 

attainment of water quality criteria and 

protection of designated uses by 

comparing sampling data to water 

quality criteria. 

This guidance also discusses 

approaches for the development of 

TMDLs for waterbodies impaired by 

mercury. This includes approaches for 

TMDLs for waterbodies where much of 

the mercury is from atmospheric 

sources and suggestions regarding how 

such TMDLs can take into account 

ongoing efforts to address sources of 

mercury, such as programs under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and pollution 

prevention activities. 

EPA’s Technical Support Document 

for Water Quality-based Toxics Control 

(TSD), EPA 505/2–90–001, explains 

how to implement criteria expressed in 

terms of pollutant concentrations in 

water in NPDES permits. States that 

decide to implement the methylmercury 

tissue criterion as a water concentration 

for NPDES permits should continue to 

use the TSD guidance. However, for 

states that decide to implement the 

methylmercury tissue criterion directly, 

that is, without translating it into a 

water column value, the TSD doesn’t 

provide relevant guidance. Today’s draft 

guidance also includes a recommended 

approach for directly incorporating the 

methylmercury tissue criterion in 

NPDES permits. 

F. Are There Particular Issues on Which 

EPA is Requesting Comment? 

EPA requests comments only on the 

draft methylmercury criterion 

implementation guidance. EPA is not 

requesting comments on the 2001 

methylmercury criterion itself. 

Although EPA solicits comment on the 

entire draft guidance, it is particularly 

interested in the following topics: 

1. Implementation Approach for NPDES 

Permits Where the Criterion Is 

Implemented as a Fish Tissue Value 

Today’s guidance presents a 

recommended approach for directly 

incorporating the methylmercury tissue 

criterion in NPDES permits. This 

approach does not rely upon a state 

developing a bioaccumulation factor to 

convert the methylmercury tissue 

criterion into a water concentration 

equivalent. The approach recommends 

that facilities that use, accept or receive 

mercury into their wastewaters develop 

mercury minimization plans. For 

discharges that are small contributors of 

mercury to a watershed or do not use 

mercury in their processes, the 

approach recommends that current 

permit effluent levels remain constant. 

EPA expects that most facilities will fall 

into this category due to significant 

loadings from other sources (e.g., air 

deposition, abandoned mines). For 

discharges that are significant 

contributors of mercury to a watershed 

and use mercury in their processes, the 

approach recommends that permit 

effluent limits ensure the attainment of 

water quality standards. EPA expects 

that few dischargers should fall into this 

category. For new or increased 

discharges, the approach recommends 

that permit effluent limits hold 

watershed loadings constant using 

antidegradation principles. 

EPA solicits comment on the 

recommendations for directly 

incorporating the methylmercury tissue 

criterion in NPDES permits. The draft 

guidance recommends that a permitting 

authority could reasonably conclude 

that reasonable potential exists if two 

conditions are present (1) The NPDES 

permitted discharger has mercury in its 

effluent at a quantifiable level and (2) 

fish tissue from the waterbody into 

which the discharger discharges exceeds 

the fish tissue water quality criterion. 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

alternate methods, based on using other 

information, for determining that there 

is reasonable potential to exceed the 

water quality standard where fish tissue 

data show that the methylmercury 

tissue criterion in a water quality 

standard is achieved. 

2. Applying Water Quality Variances on 

a Watershed or State-Wide Basis 

Traditionally, states establish water 

quality variances that are specific to a 

pollutant and a facility. EPA recognizes 

that, for mercury, there are situations 

where a number of NPDES dischargers 

are located in the same area or 

watershed and the justification 

supporting granting a variance applies 

to all of the dischargers. Two states, 

Ohio and Michigan, have already 

developed variances that apply to 

multiple discharges for mercury. 

Today’s guidance encourages states and 

authorized tribes to consider 

establishing a multiple-discharger 

variance for a group of dischargers 

collectively. 

EPA solicits comment on whether it 

should discuss multi-discharge, 

watershed, or state-wide variances in 

the final guidance. 

G. References Cited 

NRC (National Research Council). 2000. 

Toxicological effects of methylmercury. 

Committee on the Toxicological Effects of 

Methylmercury. National Academy Press. 

Washington, DC. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency). 1991. Technical Support 

Document for Water Quality-based Toxics 

Control. EPA 505/2–90–001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Water Enforcement and Permits and 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency). 2001a. Water quality criteria: 

Notice of Availability of water quality 

criterion for the protection of human 

health: Methylmercury. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Water, Washington, DC. Fed. Regist., 

66:1344. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency). 2001b. Water quality criterion for 

the protection of human health: 

Methylmercury. EPA–823–R–01–001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency). 2002. Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS). Methylmercury. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
45564 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 2006 / Notices 

of Research and Development, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency). 2005. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

of the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Final 

Report. EPA–452/R–05–003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Strategies and Standards Division, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Dated: August 3, 2006. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. 06–6803 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Public Information Collections 

Approved by Office of Management 

and Budget 

August 1, 2006. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) has received Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for the following public 

information collections pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Zenji Nakazawa, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, 

(202) 418–0600 or via the Internet at 

Zenji.Nakazawa@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0783. 

OMB Approval date: January 31, 2006. 

Expiration Date: January 31, 2009. 

Title: Section 90.176, Coordinator 

notification requirements on frequencies 

below 512 MHz or at 764–776/794–806 

MHz. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 3,900 

responses; 1,950 total annual burden 

hours; .50 hours average per respondent. 

Needs and Uses: Section 90.176 

requires each Private Land Mobile 

frequency coordinator to provide, 

within one business day, a listing of 

their frequency recommendations to all 

other frequency coordinators in their 

respective pool, and, if requested, an 

engineering analysis. Any method can 

be used to ensure this compliance with 

the ‘‘one business day requirement’’ and 

must provide, at a minimum, the name 

of the applicant; frequency or 

frequencies recommended; antenna 

locations and heights; the effective 

radiated power; the type(s) of emission; 

the description of the service area; and 

the date and time of the 

recommendation. If a conflict in 

recommendations arises, the affected 

coordinators are jointly responsible for 

taking action to resolve the conflict, up 

to and including notifying the 

Commission that an application may 

have to be returned. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jacqueline R. Coles, 

Associate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–12993 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Public Information Collections 

Approved by Office of Management 

and Budget 

August 3, 2006. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) has received 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approval for the following public 

information collections pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Laurenzano, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–1359 

or via the Internet at plaurenz@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0855. 

OMB Approval Date: 7/27/2006. 

Expiration Date: 1/31/2007. 

Title: Telecommunications Reporting 

Worksheet, WC Docket No. 06–112, CC 

Docket No. 96–45. 

Form No.: FCC Forms 499 (FCC Forms 

499–A and 499–Q). 

Estimated Annual Burden: 17,465 

responses; 263,230 total annual burden 

hours; 10–25 hours per quarterly filing 

and 13.5–25 hours per annual filing per 

respondent. 

Needs and Uses: This collection was 

submitted as a revision to an existing 

collection to obtain emergency 

clearance for FCC Forms 499–A and 

499–Q (3060–0855). Universal Service 

obligations have been extended to 

interconnected Voice over Internet 

Protocol (interconnected VoIP) 

providers. The Commission requires 

telecommunications carriers and certain 

other providers of interstate 

telecommunications to contribute to the 

universal service fund. The Commission 

has found that interconnected VoIP 

providers are providers of interstate 

telecommunications. As such, the 

Commission has determined that 

interconnected VoIP providers must 

contribute to the universal service fund. 

By including interconnected VoIP 

providers in the contribution base, the 

Commission ensures that its 

contribution mechanism remains 

equitable, nondiscriminatory, and 

competitively neutral. The Commission 

determined that interconnected VoIP 

providers may contribute based on an 

interim safe harbor amount, under 

which interconnected VoIP providers 

treat 64.9 percent of their 

telecommunications revenues as 

interstate; their actual interstate enduser telecommunications revenues; or 

an estimate of their interstate end-user 

telecommunications revenues as 

determined by a traffic study, which 

must first be submitted to, then 

affirmatively approved by, the 

Commission. In addition, the 

Commission revised the interim 

wireless safe harbor that wireless 

providers may use to report their 

interstate revenues to 37.1 percent. The 

Commission also determined that, to the 

extent wireless providers report 

interstate telecommunications revenue 

based on traffic studies, in lieu of 

reporting revenues based on actual 

interstate end-user telecommunications 

revenues or based on the interim 

wireless safe harbor of 37.1 percent, 

such traffic studies must be filed with 

the Commission and the Universal 

Service Administrative Company. 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0859. 

OMB Approval Date: 6/23/2006. 

Expiration Date: 6/30/2009. 

Title: Suggested Guidelines for 

Petitons for Ruling Under Section 253 of 

the Communications Act. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 80 

Responses; 6,280 total annual burden 

hours; 63–125 hours per respondent. 

Needs and Uses: This collection was 

submitted to extend an existing 

collection. The collection establishes 

various procedural guidelines related to 

the Commission’s processing of 

petitions for preemption pursuant to 

Section 253 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. The Commission 

uses the information to discharge its 

statutory mandate relating to the 

preemption of state or local statutes or 

other state or local legal requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jacqueline R. Coles, 

Associate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–12994 Filed 8–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES