48856 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices

any significant contamination of

potential drinking water sources.

Therefore, Zeneca concludes that

potential exposures from residues of

fomesafen in drinking water added to

the current dietary exposure will not

present significant risk to the U.S.

population.

4. Non-dietary exposure. Since

fomesafen is not registered for

residential or turf uses, exposures from

other than dietary or occupational

sources are extremely unlikely. At this

time there are no reliable data to assess

the potential risk from non-dietary

sources.

D. Cumulative Effects

Fomesafen is a diphenyl ether class of

chemicals. At this time, EPA has not

made a determination that fomesafen

and other compounds have a common

mechanism of toxicity resulting in

cumulative effects. Therefore, aggregate

exposure is evaluated on the uses of

fomesafen only.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. The Reference

Dose (RfD) for fomesafen has not been

established by the Agency’s. For

purposes of this action, the RfD is

calculated at 0.0025 mg/kg of body

weight/day. The RfD is based on a

NOEL of 0.25 mg/kg/day from the rat

feeding/carcinogenicity study and an

uncertainty factor of 100. The ARC for

the overall U.S. population from

established tolerances and the proposed

tolerance for snap beans utilizes 1.4% of

the RfD. EPA generally has no concern

for exposures below 100% of the RfD.

The upper-bound carcinogenic risk

from established tolerance on soybeans

and the proposed tolerance for snap

beans is calculated at 1.56 x 10–6 for the

U.S. population, based on the available

market share data. The upper-bound

carcinogenic risk from the proposed use

on snap beans is calculated at 1.4 x 10–6.

Therefore, Zeneca believes that the

potential cancer risk from residues of

fomesafen resulting from the combined

established tolerance on soybeans and

the proposed tolerance for snap beans is

negligible.

2. Infants and children. Zeneca noted

that the potential for additional

sensitivity for infants and children to

residues of fomesafen have been

considered based on the threegeneration reproductive study in rats

and the developmental toxicity studies

in rat and rabbit. Zeneca concluded that

fomesafen showed no evidence of

reproductive toxicity and caused no

developmental toxicity in the rabbit or

in the rat.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA

may apply an additional safety factor for

infants and children in the case of

threshold effects to account for pre- and

post-natal toxicity and the completeness

of the database. Based on the current

toxicological data requirements, the

database relative to pre- and post-natal

effects for children is complete for

fomesafen. Zeneca AG Products

concludes that there is reasonable

certainty that no harm will result to

infants and children from aggregate

exposure to fomesafen.

F. International Tolerances

There are no Codex Maximum

Residue Levels established for

fomesafen residues.

[FR Doc. 97–24692 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PF–763; FRL–5742–9]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

initial filing of pesticide petitions

proposing the establishment of

regulations for residues of certain

pesticide chemicals in or on various

food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number PF–763, must be

received on or before October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail submit written

comments to: Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch (7506C),

Information Resources and Services

Division, Office of Pesticides Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person bring comments to: Rm. 1132,

CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by following

the instructions under

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’

No confidential business information

should be submitted through e-mail.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). CBI should not be submitted

through e-mail. Information marked as

CBI will not be disclosed except in

accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment

that does not contain CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Beth Edwards, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: Rm. 206, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202,

(703) 305–5400; e-mail:

edwards.beth@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received pesticide petitions as follows

proposing the establishment and/or

amendment of regulations for residues

of certain pesticide chemicals in or on

various food commodities under section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.

EPA has determined that these petitions

contain data or information regarding

the elements set forth in section

408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully

evaluated the sufficiency of the

submitted data at this time or whether

the data supports granting of the

petition. Additional data may be needed

before EPA rules on the petition.

The official record for this notice of

filing, as well as the public version, has

been established for this notice of filing

under docket control number [PF–763]

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The official

record is located at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comment 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

the docket number [pf–763] and

appropriate petition number. Electronic

comments on this notice may be filed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices 48857

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Agricultural commodities, Food

additives, Feed additives, Pesticides and

pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated:September 8,1997

James Jones, Acting

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Summaries of Petitions

Petitioner summaries of the pesticide

petitions are printed below as required

by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The

summaries of the petitions were

prepared by the petitioners and

represent the views of the petitioners.

EPA is publishing the petition

summaries verbatim without editing

them in any way. The petition summary

announces the availability of a

description of the analytical methods

available to EPA for the detection and

measurement of the pesticide chemical

residues or an explanation of why no

such method is needed.

E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.

PP 7F4859

EPA has received a pesticide petition

(PP 7F4859) from E.I. duPont de

Nemours & Co.(DuPont), P.O. Box

80038, Wilmington, DE 19880–0038,

proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic

Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR

part 180 by establishing a tolerance for

residues of esfenvalerate, (Asana XL

Insecticide), ((S)-cyano-(3-

phenoxyphenyl)methyl (S)-4-chloroalpha-(1-methylethyl) benzeneacetate in

or on the raw agricultural commodity,

pistachios. The enforcement analytical

method for determining residues is gas

chromatography with nitrogen

phosphorus detection. EPA has

determined that the petition contains

data or information regarding the

elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of

the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully

evaluated the sufficiency of the

submitted data at this time or whether

the data supports granting of the

petition. Additional data may be needed

before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism

and chemical nature of residues of

fenvalerate in plants is adequately

understood. The fate of fenvalerate has

been extensively studied using

radioactive tracers in plant and animal

metabolism/nature of the residue

studies previously submitted to the

Agency. These studies have

demonstrated that the parent compound

is the only residue of toxicological

significance.

2. Analytical method. There is a

practical analytical method utilizing

electron-capture gas chromotography

(MRID No. 43567101) available for

enforcement with a limit of detection

that allows monitoring food with

residues at or above tolerance levels.

3. Magnitude of residues. Current

tolerances are based on the sum of all

isomers of fenvalerate. Fenvalerate is a

racemic mixture of four isomers (about

25% each). This product was registered

as Pydrin. However, since 1992, an S,Sisomer enriched formulation, Asana

(esfenvalerate), has been the only

fenvalerate formulation sold in the U.S.

Since the S,S-isomer is the

insecticidally active isomer, the use rate

for Asana is 4 times lower than that for

Pydrin. A petition is pending (PP–

34F4329), to convert tolerances based

on the use rates for Asana (still to be

expressed as the sum of all isomers).

Bridging studies have shown Asana

residues to be 3–4 times lower than

Pydrin residues.

A magnitude of residue study on

pistachio was conducted at 5 sites in

California where climate, soil type, and

other conditions are typical of those

found where Asana may be used on

pistachio nuts for insect control. At each

site, Asana was applied 2 times at 0.10

lb ai/A by foliar broadcast spray, 7 days

apart, for a maximum rate of 0.20 lb ai/

A/season. Treatments were also made at

twice the maximum proposed label rate

at each site. Pistachio samples were

collected 0 and 1 day after the last

application. The mean esfenvalerate

residue found at the proposed label rate

of 0.20 lb ai/A/season with a PHI of 1

day was 0.031 ppm +/- 0.012 ppm.

These results support the proposed

tolerance of 0.10 ppm.

Since there are no processed

commodities of pistachios, processing

studies were not conducted. In addition,

pistachios are not an animal feed item

and, therefore, secondary residues will

not be an issue.

B. Toxicological Profile

The following studies have been

submitted to EPA:

1. Acute toxicity. A rat acute oral

study on esfenvalerate technical with an

LD50 of 87.2 mg/kg (MRID 00144973). A

rabbit acute dermal study on

esfenvalerate with an LD50 of >2000 mg/

kg (MRID 00156508). Acute inhalation

on technical grade a.i. waived due to

negligible vapor pressure. A primary eye

irritation test using esfenvalerate in the

rabbit which showed mild irritation

(conjunctivitis) that cleared by day 7

(MRID 00156509). A primary dermal

irritation test using esfenvalerate in the

rabbit which showed minimal irritation

that reversed within 72 hours after

treatment (MRID 00156510). A dermal

sensitization test on esfenvalerate in

guinea pigs which showed no

sensitization (MRID 41215203).

2. Genotoxicity. Esfenvalerate was not

mutagenic in reverse mutation assays in

Salmonella and E. Coli (MRID

413163010) or in HGPRT in vitro assay

in Chinese hamster lung cells (MRID

41316302). Esfenvalerate did not induce

chromosome aberrations in an in vitro

assay in Chinese hamster ovary cells

(MRID 41215204). Esfenvalerate did not

induce micronuclei in bone marrow of

mice given up to 150 mg/kg

intraperitoneally (MRID 41316303).

Esfenvalerate did not induce

unscheduled DNA synthesis in HeLa

cells (MRID 41316304).

3. Reproductive and developmental

toxicity. A pilot developmental study in

the rat with doses of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and

20 mg/kg/day esfenvalerate (MRID

43211502). The maternal NOEL was 3

mg/kg/day based on maternal clinical

signs of abnormal gait or mobility at 4

mg/kg/day and above. A developmental

study in the rat with doses of 0, 2.5, 5,

10, and 20 mg/kg/day esfenvalerate by

gavage (MRID 43211504). There was no

maternal NOEL but a maternal NOEL

was established in the pilot study.

Maternal signs observed at 2.5 mg/kg/

day were erratic jerking and extension

of forelimbs, rapid side-to-side head

movement and excessive grooming.

There were no fetal or developmental

effects in either study at 20 mg/kg/day,

the highest dose tested. Therefore, the

fetal/developmental NOEL was >20 mg/

kg/day.

A pilot developmental study in the

rabbit with doses of 0, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5, and

20 mg/kg/day esfenvalerate by gavage

(MRID 43211501). The maternal NOEL

was 2 mg/kg/day based on excessive

grooming at 3 mg/kg/day and above. A

developmental study in the rabbit with

doses of 0, 3, 10, and 20 mg/kg/day

esfenvalerate by gavage (MRID

43211503). There was no maternal

NOEL but a maternal NOEL was

established in the pilot study. There

were no fetal or developmental effects

in either study at the highest dose

tested. Therefore, the fetal/

developmental NOEL was >20 mg/kg/

day.

A 2–generation feeding study with

esfenvalerate in the rat at dietary levels

of 0, 75, 100, or 300 ppm. The high
48858 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices

dietary concentration was lowered to

150 ppm for the second generation. Very

mild body weight effects and sores at 75

ppm in both generations were

considered secondary effects caused by

scratching related to skin stimulation

from dermal exposure. Therefore 75

ppm (4.2 mg/kg/day for first generation

parental males, 5.6 mg/kg/day for first

generation parental females, 6.0 mg/kg/

day for second generation parental

males, and 7.3 mg/kg/day for second

generation parental females) was

considered an NOAEL for both adult

rats and their offspring. Effects were

observed in adults and pups of both

generations at 100 ppm and above. Pups

were no more sensitive than adult

animals (MRID 43489001).

4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90–day

feeding study in rats conducted at 0, 75,

100, 125, and 300 ppm esfenvalerate

with a NOEL of 125 ppm (6.3 mg/kg/

day). This study provided intermediate

dose levels to supplement a 90–day

feeding study in rats conducted at 0, 50,

150, 300 and 500 ppm esfenvalerate

with a NOEL of 50 ppm (2.5 mg/kg/day)

based on jerky leg movements at 150

ppm (7.5 mg/kg/day) and above (MRID

00151030).

A 90–day feeding study in mice

conducted at 0, 50, 150, and 500 ppm

esfenvalerate and 2,000 ppm fenvalerate

with a NOEL of 50 ppm esfenvalerate

(10.5 mg/kg/day) based on lower

glucose and triglycerides at 150 ppm.

Neurologic symptoms were observed

with 500 ppm esfenvalerate and 2,000

ppm fenvalerate (MRID 41359701).

Three month subchronic study in

dogs is satisfied by 1–year oral study in

dogs, in which the NOEL was 200 ppm

(5 mg/kg/day) (MRID’s 00265247,

403375601, and 40799501).

A 21–day dermal study in rabbits

with fenvalerate conducted at 100, 300,

and 1,000 mg/kg/day of fenvalerate with

an NOEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day fenvalerate

(MRID 42325101).

5. Chronic toxicity. A 1–year study in

which dogs were fed 0, 25, 50, or 200

ppm esfenvalerate with no treatment

related effects at any dietary level. The

NOEL was 200 ppm (5 mg/kg/day).

(MRID’s 00265247, 40375601,

40799501). An effect level for dietary

administration of esfenvalerate for dogs

of 300 ppm had been established earlier

in the 2–week pilot study used to select

dose levels for the chronic dog study

(MRID 40376501).

A 20–month study with fenvalerate in

mice fed 0, 10, 30, 100, and 300 ppm

fenvalerate. The NOEL was 30 ppm

(6mg/kg/day) based on red blood cell

effects and granulomatous changes at

100 ppm. Fenvalerate was not

carcinogenic at any concentration

(MRID 00093662).

An 18–month study with

esfenvalerate in mice fed 0, 35, 150, and

350 ppm esfenvalerate. Mice fed the 350

ppm dose were sacrificed within the

first 2 months of the study, after

excessive morbidity and mortality due

to self-trauma induced by

pharmacological effects on dermal

sensory nerves. Therefore, data

collected from the 350 ppm group were

not used in the evaluation of the

oncogenic potential of esfenvalerate.

The NOEL was 35 ppm (4.29 and 5.75

mg/kg/day for males and females,

respectively) based on lower body

weight and body weight gain at 150

ppm. Esfenvalerate was not

carcinogenic at either the 35 ppm or 150

ppm concentrations (MRID 44260601).

A 2–year study with fenvalerate in

rats fed 1, 5, 25, and 250 ppm. A 1,000

ppm group was added to establish an

effect level. The NOEL was 250 ppm

(12.5 mg/kg/day). At 1,000 ppm, hind

limb weakness, lower body weight, and

higher organ-to-body weight ratios were

observed. Fenvalerate was not

carcinogenic at any concentration

(MRID’s 00079877, 00082007).

6. Animal metabolism. After oral

dosing, fenvalerate was eliminated from

rats within 5 days after dosing. The

metabolic pathway involved cleavage of

the ester linkage followed by

hydroxylation, oxidation, and

conjugation of the acid and alcohol

moieties.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The parent

molecule is the only moiety of

toxicological significance which needs

regulation in plant and animal

commodities.

8. Other potential toxicology

considerations - endocrine effects.

Estrogenic effects have not been

observed in any studies conducted on

fenvalerate or esfenvalerate. In

subchronic or chronic studies there

were no lesions in reproductive systems

of males or females. In the recent

reproduction study with esfenvalerate,

full histopathological examination of

the pituitary and the reproductive

systems of males and females was

conducted. There were no compoundrelated gross or histopathological

effects. There were also no compoundrelated changes in any measures of

reproductive performance including

mating, fertility, or gestation indices or

gestation length in either generation.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. For purposes of

assessing dietary exposure, chronic and

acute dietary assessments have been

conducted using all existing and

pending tolerances for esfenvalerate.

The toxocological endpoints used in

both dietary assessments are derived

from maternal NOEL’s of 2.0 mg/kg/day

from rat and rabbit teratology studies.

There were no fetal effects.

2. Food. A chronic dietary exposure

assessment using anticipated residues

and assuming that 100% of all crops are

treated, found the percentages of the

Reference Dose (RfD) utilized by the two

most sensitive sub-populations to be

44% (Non-Nursing Infants <1 yr.) and

48% (Children 1–6 yrs.). This

assessment also included all food

tolerances for incidental food handling

establishments which were set at 0.05

ppm (the limit of quantitation) since

there were no detectable residues. The

results have been adjusted from the

study previously submitted (MRID

43639301) to reflect the new Reference

Dose (RfD) selected by EPA.

The Tier 3 acute dietary assessment

has been rerun to incorporate current

EPA thinking on processing studies and

secondary residues that has arisen since

the original study was submitted (MRID

44197701). The most sensitive subpopulations were determined to be:

Non-Nursing Infants (< 1 yr.) with a

Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 914 at the

95th percentile of exposure and an MOE

of 254 at the 99th percentile of exposure;

and Children (1–6 yrs.) with an MOE of

698 at the 95th percentile of exposure

and 321 at the 99th percentile. The

MOE’s for the general population were

1,803 at the 95th percentile of exposure

and 676 at the 99th percentile. This

analysis used field trial residue data and

market share data for the percent of crop

treated. It also used Monte Carlo

sampling and applied appropriate

processing factors for apple juice and

apple juice concentrate. Monte Carlo

distribution was also used for meat and

milk residues. Food handling

establishment commodities were not

included in the analysis because EPA

methodology does not include them in

Tier 3 exposure modeling.

3. Drinking water. Esfenvalerate is

immobile in soil and, therefore, will not

leach into groundwater. Additionally,

due to the insolubility and lipophilic

nature of esfenvalerate, any residues in

surface water will rapidly and tightly

bind to soil particles and remain with

sediment, therefore not contributing to

potential dietary exposure from

drinking water. In addition, a screening

evaluation of leaching potential of

esfenvalerate has been conducted using

DuPont’s Tier 1 Ground Water Exposure

Model (TIGEM, Version 12/30/96)

which is based on results from EPA’s

Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM,

Version 2.0). Based on this screening
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Notices 48859

assessment, the potential concentrations

of esfenvalerate in shallow ground water

are judged to be negligible.

4. Non-dietary exposure. Dietary

exposure is the only significant route of

chronic non-occupational exposure to

esfenvalerate. However, esfenvalerate is

registered for non-crop uses including

spray treatments in and around

commercial and residential areas,

treatments for control of ectoparasites

on pets, home care products including

foggers, pressurized sprays, crack and

crevice treatments, lawn and garden

sprays, and pet and pet bedding sprays.

For the non-agricultural products, the

very low amounts of active ingredient

they contain, combined with the low

vapor pressure (1.5 x 10–9 mm Mercury

at 25° C.) and low dermal penetration,

would result in minimal inhalation and

dermal exposure.

D. Cumulative Effects

The potential for cumulative effects of

esfenvalerate and other pyrethroid

insecticides that have a common

mechanism of toxicity must also be

considered. While risk assessment

methodology has not been developed to

estimate cumulative exposure to

multiple pyrethroids, their similar

insecticidal efficacy results in the

substitution of one pyrethroid for

another, rather than addition of

pyrethroids. Because of the breadth of

exposures included in the assumptions

for esfenvalerate risk assessment, it is

unlikely that there will be significant

additive exposure to other pyrethroids.

These issues are extremely complex

and require an extensive evaluation of a

wealth of proprietary and published

data across a broad range of pyrethroid

insecticides in order to provide a

scientifically sound interpretation upon

which to base any regulatory judgments.

The Pyrethroid Working Group is

currently awaiting guidance from the

Agency on cumulative effects. They

anticipate having some preliminary

evaluation data available for the Agency

by August, 1997. For any interim

decisions, the Agency should take into

consideration the relatively benign

toxicological profiles of pyrethroid

insecticides and their long history of

safe use.

E. Safety Determination

Both the chronic and acute

toxicological endpoints are derived from

maternal NOEL’s of 2.0 mg/kg/day in

developmental studies in rats and

rabbits. There were no fetal effects.

Therefore, the safety factor used for

protection of adults is fully appropriate

for the protection of infants and

children; no additional safety factor is

necessary.

1. U.S. population. A chronic dietary

exposure assessment using anticipated

residues and assuming that 100% of all

crops are treated, found the percentage

of the Reference Dose (RfD) utilized by

the General Population to be 16%.

There is generally no concern for

exposures below 100% of the RfD

because the RfD represents the level at

or below which daily aggregate dietary

exposure over a lifetime will not pose

appreciable risks to human health.

Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty

that no harm will result from aggregate

exposure to esfenvalerate residues.

A Tier 3 acute dietary exposure

assessment found the General

Population to have MOE’s of 1,803 at

the 95th percentile of exposure and 676

at the 99th percentile of exposure. These

values were generated using actual field

trial residues and market share data for

percentage of crop treated. These results

depict an accurate exposure pattern at

an exaggerated daily dietary exposure

rate. Thus, there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result from

aggregate exposure to esfenvalerate

residues.

2. Infants and children. The chronic

dietary assessment using the same

assumptions described above, found the

two most sensitive sub-populations to

be non-nursing infants (<1 yr.) and

children (1–6 yrs.) utilizing 44% and

48% of the RfD, respectively. In the Tier

3 acute dietary assessment that was

rerun using the assumptions described

above, non-nursing infants were found

to have an MOE of 914 at the 95th

percentile of exposure and an MOE of

254 at the 99th percentile. Children (1–

6 yrs.) were determined to have an MOE

of 698 at the 95th percentile and 321 at

the 99th percentile. Therefore, there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to

esfenvalerate residues.

F. International Tolerances

Codex maximum residue levels

(MRL’s) have been established for

residues of fenvalerate on a number of

crops that also have U.S. tolerances.

Several of these MRL’s are different than

the proposed U.S. tolerances for

esfenvalerate. Therefore, some

harmonization of these maximum

residue levels is still needed.

[FR Doc. 97–24691 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

(FRL–5893–1)

Draft Report of the National

Performance Measures Strategy

(‘‘Measures Strategy’’)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of the draft

report of the National Performance

Measures Strategy and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance (OECA)

announces the availability of and

requests for comment on, the Draft

Report of the National Performance

Measures Strategy (‘‘Measures

Strategy’’). The Measures Strategy was

initiated by OECA in January of 1997

‘‘to develop and implement an

enhanced set of performance measures

for EPA’s enforcement and compliance

assurance program.’’ Since January,

public meetings and roundtable

sessions, consultations with experts,

and reviews of studies and articles have

occurred. Ideas were offered by

representatives of regulated industries

or companies, national and local

environmental organizations,

environmental justice advocates, state

environmental protection agencies and

associations, state Attorneys General

offices, federal oversight and

management agencies, federal regulatory

and law enforcement agencies,

environmental policy institutes,

Congressional staff, academic experts,

DOJ representatives, and EPA regional

and headquarters managers and staff.

EPA has reviewed the ideas and

suggestions that have been offered from

these sources, and from that review a

proposed set of performance measures

has been developed.

The report describes the need for

enhanced measures, key ideas from

interested parties, general findings

about performance measurement, a

proposed measurement framework, and

a set of performance measures and

possible implementation steps.

Stakeholders are invited and

encouraged to offer comment on the

draft report through written submission.

EPA will review these comments, revise

the report and the proposed measures (if

necessary), and distribute a final report

by the end of October with the

performance measures OECA intends to

implement. In some cases, EPA may

initiate further steps to study alternative

measures that require more analysis or