42732 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

E. Information From Subcategory B/D

Facilities on Number of Operating Days

per Week

EPA is requesting information from

Subcategory B/D facilities concerning

the number of days per week of

operation at these facilities (does the

facility operate five days per week or

seven days per week.) The Agency

needs this information in order to

perform accurate compliance cost

estimates and economic impact

analyses. Subcategory B/D facilities

should supply this information as well

as facilities whose hours of operation

have changed since 1990.

F. Proposed Exclusion for Organic

Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic

Fibers (OCPSF) Manufacturers of Bulk

Pharmaceutical Intermediates and

Active Ingredients With Less Than 50%

Pharmaceutical Wastewater

EPA requests comment on the

exclusion of organic chemical

manufacturers covered by the OCPSF

regulation (40 CFR 414) that

manufacture pharmaceutical

intermediates and active ingredients

from the final pharmaceutical regulation

provided that the pharmaceutical

portion of the process wastewater is less

than 50 percent of the total process

wastewater. The Agency believes it may

not be necessary to cover the

pharmaceutical wastewater at these

facilities because most of the pollutants

that would be controlled by

pharmaceutical limitations and

standards are already being controlled

by the OCPSF limitations and standards.

The pollutants found in pharmaceutical

facility discharges and not specifically

regulated such as some of the water

soluble organics by the OCPSF

regulations are either not present in

wastewaters being discharged from the

type of pharmaceutical operations

occurring at these facilities or are well

treated by the biological treatment

systems found at these facilities or their

POTWs. The Agency emphasizes that

any process wastewater covered by such

an exclusion must be covered by OCPSF

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. EPA requests comments

concerning such an exclusion and any

information regarding the bases that

EPA has suggested to justify an

exclusion for these facilities.

G. Wastewater From Pilot Plant

Operations

EPA has received a number of

comments on its proposal to consider

wastewater from pilot plant operations

as production wastewater and not as

subcategory E (Research) wastewater.

The Agency solicits comments

specifically from facilities that will

experience difficulty with having to

treat pilot plant wastewater with their

normal production wastewater. EPA is

specifically interested in learning

details of the problems that might be

encountered in complying with the

proposal definition of pilot plant

wastewater.

H. Basis for Determining Which Cyanide

Standards Apply

EPA has developed two sets of

cyanide limitations and standards based

on hydrogen peroxide oxidation and

alkaline chlorination technologies. The

Agency is requesting suggestions from

commenters concerning what parameter

levels describing cyanide wastestreams

should be used to determine which

standards are appropriate. Individual

commenters have suggested that

cyanide wastestreams with high organic

content as evidenced by high COD and

TOC (total organic carbon) would be

more appropriately controlled by

standards based on alkaline

chlorination. EPA invites information

and comments concerning the

parameters and levels which could

determine which set of standards will

be appropriate for individual facilities.

Dated: August 1, 1997.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 97–20979 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50620C; FRL–5735–3]

RIN 2070–AB27

Butanamide, 2,2′-[3′dichloro[1,1′-

biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl) bisazobis N-2,3-

dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benximdazol-5-yl)-3-

oxo-; Proposed Significant New Use

Rule; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the

comment period for the proposed

significant new use rule (SNUR) for

butanamide, 2,2′-[3′,dichloro[1,1′-

biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bisazobis N-2,3-

dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benximdazol-5-yl)-3-

oxo-. As initially published in the

Federal Register of June 26, 1997 (62 FR

34424) (FRL–5723–4), the comments

were to be received on or before July 28,

1997. One commenter requested

additional time to research and submit

comments. EPA is therefore extending

the comment period 30 days in order to

give all interested persons the

opportunity to comment fully.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to EPA by August 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear

the appropriate docket control number

OPPTS–50620B. All comments should

be sent in triplicate to: OPPT Document

Control Officer (7407), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Rm. G–099, East Tower,

Washington, DC 20460.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: opptncic@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by (OPPTS–50620B).

No confidential business information

(CBI) should be submitted through email. Electronic comment on this

document may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

All comments which are claimed

confidential must be clearly marked as

such. Three additional sanitized copies

of any comments containing CBI must

also be submitted. Nonconfidential

versions of comments on the proposed

rule will be placed in the rulemaking

record and will be available for public

inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543B, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202)

554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–0551; e-mail:

TSCA-Hotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

extension of the comment period will

allow interested parties who intend to

comment on the proposed rule

additional time to consider their

response.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous materials, Recordkeeping

and reporting requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42733

Dated: August 1, 1997.

Ward Penberthy,

Acting Director, Chemical Control Division,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–20981 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[FRA Docket No. RST–90–1, Notice No. 6]

RIN 2130–AA75

Track Safety Standards

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

date and location of public hearing.

SUMMARY: By notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) published on July

3, 1997 (62 FR 36138), FRA proposed a

rule to revise the Federal track safety

standards. In that notice, FRA

announced that it would soon schedule

a public hearing to allow interested

parties the opportunity to comment on

issues addressed in the NPRM.

DATES: Public Hearings: The date of the

public hearing is Thursday, September

4, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C.

Any person wishing to participate in the

public hearing should notify the Docket

Clerk by telephone (202–632–3198) or

by mail at the address provided below

at least five working days prior to the

date of the hearing and submit three

copies of the oral statement that he or

she intends to make at the hearing. The

notification should identify who the

person represents and the particular

subject(s) the person plans to address.

The notification should also provide the

Docket Clerk with the participant’s

mailing address. FRA reserves the right

to limit participation in the hearings of

persons who fail to provide such

notification.

ADDRESSES: (1) Docket Clerk: Written

notification should identify the docket

number and must be submitted in

triplicate to the Docket Clerk, Office of

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad

Administration, RCC–10, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,

D.C. 20590.

(2) Public Hearings: The hearing will

be held in Room 2230 of U.S.

Department of Transportation

headquarters, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison H. MacDowell, Office of Safety

Assurance and Compliance, Federal

Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 25, Washington,

D.C. 20590 (telephone number: 202–

632–3344), or Nancy Lummen Lewis,

Esq., Office of Chief Counsel, Federal

Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,

D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202–632–3174).

S. Mark Lindsey,

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–21011 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 234

[FRA Docket No. RSGC–6; Notice No. 4]

RIN 2130–AA92

Selection and Installation of Grade

Crossing Warning Systems;

Termination of Rulemaking

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice terminates

rulemaking action in FRA Docket No.

FSGC–6. In its Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), FRA proposed to

prohibit railroads from unilaterally

selecting and installing highway-rail

grade crossing warning systems at

public highway-rail crossings. FRA also

proposed to require that railroads

furnish state highway authorities with

information necessary for state grade

crossing project planning and

prioritization purposes. Termination of

this rulemaking is based on public

comments and FRA’s determination that

railroad safety will not be best served by

issuance of such a regulation at this

time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce F. George, Director, Highway-Rail

Crossing and Trespasser Programs

Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (telephone 202–632–3305), or

Mark Tessler, Trial Attorney, Office of

Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

(telephone 202–632–3171).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

2, 1995, FRA published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 11649) an NPRM which

was meant to clarify the respective

responsibilities of railroads and state

and local governments regarding the

selection and installation of highwayrail grade crossing warning systems.

Public hearings were held on the

proposal on June 6 and 7, 1995. The

public comment period closed on June

14, 1995. However, FRA continued to

receive comments and to date has

received in excess of 3,000 comments in

this rulemaking. All comments have

been considered by FRA, including

those received after June 14, 1995, in

accord with FRA’s policy to consider

late filed comments to the extent

possible. A wide range of views were

expressed in the public hearings and in

written comments submitted to the

public docket. A high proportion of the

comments were form letters and

preprinted postcards expressing

opposition to the proposal.

Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM,

a school bus stopped at a highway-rail

grade crossing in Fox River Grove,

Illinois, was struck by a commuter train.

Seven students died. Following the

accident the Secretary of Transportation

established a Grade Crossing Safety

Task Force (Task Force) to build upon

the Department’s 1994 Rail-Highway

Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Task

Force reported its findings to the

Secretary on March 1, 1996. The

Executive Summary of the report stated

in part:

[T]he report recommends 24 specific

follow-on actions to address both physical

and procedural deficiencies. In practice, the

responsibility for public grade crossings

resides with State and local governments,

railroads, and transit agencies. Recognizing

the constrained budgets that are available to

the private sector and State and local

authorities, the report emphasizes rethinking

existing practices—not requiring new ones

from a regulatory approach. This reliance on

existing opportunities is emphasized by

recommendations that encourage grade

crossing safety through coordinated

inspections, law enforcement, and driver

education.

As the Task Force Report states, ‘‘[t]his

* * * report should not be viewed as a

surrogate for the Action Plan, but as a

supplement which focuses on the

planning, construction, maintenance,

operation, and inspection activities

involving rail crossings. The Task Force

directed its attention to those grade

crossing issues for which there were no

well-defined standards, practices, or

information. It was in these five

problem areas outside the scope of the

Action Plan, that the Task Force felt

additional improvements in grade

crossing safety could be made.’’

FRA is continuing its implementation

of the Action Plan’s recommendations

while at the same time it works to

ensure that the recommendations of the

Safety Task Force are carried out.