Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices 71317

Table 2: Response Mechanisms Used by EPA

and the States—This May Vary From State

to State

A. Verbal comments recorded during a

public meeting, forum, workshop, focus

group session or stakeholder meeting.

B. Telephone hotline.

C. Telephone survey/questionnaire.

D. Written comments submitted for a

public meeting, forum, workshop, focus

group session or stakeholder meeting.

E. Formal written comments sent to EPA in

response to a Federal Register Notice.

F. Written comments sent to EPA by Fax,

e-mail, listserv e-mail, or through e-mail to

an electronic bulletin board.

G. Feedback forms located on websites.

H. Surveys and/or questionnaires sent

through U.S. mail, e-mail or FAX.

The IPB will list the stakeholder and

public involvement method(s) expected

to be used for each of the products that

provide opportunities for stakeholder/

public involvement. Table 3 below

provides a template that EPA and the

states plan to use for each of the

significant information products listed

in the IPB.

Table 3: Information that will be Included in

the IPB about Products that Provide an

Opportunity for Stakeholder and/or Public

Involvement

Title:

[The name of the significant information

product. Please note that titles may be

subject to change for some products

under development.]

Description:

[A brief explanation that provides a basic

understanding of the purpose and

content of the significant information

product.]

Contact:

[Phone number to use to get further

information about the product and/or the

stakeholder/public involvement process.

When practical, a specific contact name

will be listed and/or an e-mail address.]

Expected Release Date:

[When the product is expected to be made

available to the public. Please note that

such dates are the best estimates

available to date; schedules are subject to

change.]

Comment Period:

[The start and end date of the public

comment period; OR the date that the

comment period ends if the comment

period has already begun. Please note

that the public comment period may

differ from the time frames provided for

other types of stakeholder/public

involvement.]

Stakeholder/Public Involvement Methods:

[The method(s) that EPA or the states plans

to use to obtain stakeholder/public input

and/or feedback on a specific significant

information product—see examples of

Stakeholder and Public Involvement

Methods in Table 1 above.]

How to Access the Draft Product (if

available):

[The various electronic and non-electronic

ways that stakeholders and the public

can use to access a draft copy and/or

prototype of the product.]

At What Stage in the Development of a

Product Can I Get Involved?

The timeframe for the development of

each significant information product

varies, and thus the time frame for

obtaining public involvement varies as

well. Some software models, for

example, require early and close

collaboration with one or more groups

of stakeholders in order to produce an

initial version of the product. Other

products, such as technical or scientific

reports, often require the use of a

scientific peer review process before any

stakeholder and/or public input may be

obtained. In some cases, various

methods of stakeholder/public

involvement may be used during

different stages of a product’s

development. Some input may be

sought early in the development of a

product to determine how best to meet

the needs of the product’s expected

primary users. Then at a later stage in

the product’s development, it may be

possible to obtain additional feedback

on a draft copy or prototype of the

product.

EPA and the states will provide

information in the IPB about the timing

of the product’s development, along

with the timeframe for submitting

public comments. Information regarding

specific dates for public meetings,

workshops, forums, etc. may be

obtained about specific products by

contacting the number listed under each

product description.

Can I View a Draft Copy or Prototype of

Products Under Development?

Where possible, every effort will be

made on the IPB website to include

website links to draft copies and/or

prototypes of EPA and some state

products under development. Those

without access to the Internet can obtain

hard copies of draft products listed in

the IPB by contacting the number listed

for obtaining further information. Please

note that there will not always be a draft

copy or prototype available for every

product under development.

VIII. Stakeholder and Public

Involvement Opportunities for State

Significant Information Products

The states generally use the same type

of stakeholder and public involvement

methods as EPA, which are described in

Tables 1 and 2. While states may

provide a range of opportunities for

stakeholder and public involvement, not

all opportunities listed in Tables 1 and

2 may be available in all states. As with

EPA products, information regarding

specific information and dates for

public meetings, workshops, forums,

etc. may be obtained, when available,

about specific products through the

contact information listed under

appropriate product descriptions.

IX. IPB Publication Schedule

EPA and ECOS struggled with how

best to ensure that those without access

to the Internet would be able to access

information on the IPB that is just as up

to date as those with access to the Web.

We are interested in receiving

comments regarding the

recommendation below.

Under the EPA/ECOS

recommendation, the IPB would be

available on the Web www.epa.gov/

ipbpages and in hard copy format. Both

the website and the hard copy would be

fully updated every six months. In

between the six-month publications, the

website would be refreshed every three

months with material that cannot wait

for the next official update cycle. This

might include incorporating a new

product that has a short development

time period, and/or correcting vital

information (for example, a change in

comment period dates) relating to an

existing product in the IPB. A contact

phone number would be provided for

non-Web users to obtain information

about any changes made to the IPB in

between each six-month hard copy

publication. When new or updated

information is added to the IPB, it will

be highlighted both in hard copy and on

the website.

Dated: November 22, 2000

Elaine G. Stanley,

Director, Office of Information Analysis and

Access.

[FR Doc. 00–30544 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6909–8]

Water Quality Criteria: Notice of

Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality

Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen

(Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of ambient

aquatic life water quality criteria for

dissolved oxygen (saltwater): Cape Cod

to Cape Hatteras.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 304(a)(1)

of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the

Environmental Protection Agency

announces the availability of the

71318 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices

completed document titled, Ambient

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for

Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod

to Cape Hatteras. The document

contains EPA’s recommended national

304(a) criteria for dissolved oxygen in

saltwater to protect aquatic life. These

water quality criteria recommendations

apply to coastal waters (waters within

the territorial seas, defined as within

three miles from shore under section

502(8) of the CWA) of the Virginian

Province (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras).

However, with appropriate

modifications they may be applicable to

coastal waters (as defined under section

502(8) of the CWA) in other provinces

of the United States. Under the CWA,

States, Territories, and Tribes are to

adopt water quality criteria to protect

designated uses. EPA has promulgated

regulations to implement this

requirement (see 40 CFR part 141).

EPA’s recommended water quality

criteria do not substitute for the Act or

regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.

Thus, EPA’s recommended water

quality criteria do not impose legallybinding requirements. States,

Territories, and authorized Tribes retain

the discretion to adopt, where

appropriate, other scientifically

defensible water quality standards that

differ from these recommendations. EPA

may change these section 304(a) criteria

recommendations in the future.

Because these criteria were under

development prior to the Agency’s

revision and implementation of its

current processes for notice of data

availability and criteria development

(see Federal Register, December 10,

1998, 63 FR 68354 and in the EPA

document titled, National

Recommended Water Quality—

Correction EPA 822–Z–99–001, April

1999), and because EPA believes it is

important to invite and consider public

input in development of draft criteria,

we enabled the public to submit

significant scientific information and

views to EPA (see Federal Register,

January 19, 2000, 65 FR 2954) that

might not have otherwise been

identified during development of these

criteria. EPA has reviewed the scientific

information and views submitted by the

public and has made revisions to the

criteria where appropriate. Even though

we are not required to respond to

specific issues submitted by the public,

we have provided a brief summary of

some of the issues that lead to a

revision, along with our response, in the

section titled Supplementary

Information.

This document has been approved for

publication by the Office of Science and

Technology, Office of Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Mention of trade names or commercial

products does not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for

use.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the complete

document, titled: Ambient Aquatic Life

Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved

Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape

Hatteras can be obtained from EPA’s

National Service Center for

Environmental Publications (NSCEP) 1–

800–490–9198. Alternatively, the

document and related fact sheet can be

obtained from EPA’s web site at

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/

standards/dissolved/ on the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions regarding the development of

the criteria contact Erik L. Winchester,

USEPA, Health and Ecological Criteria

Division (4304), Office of Science and

Technology, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;

or call (202) 260–6107; fax (202) 260–

1036; or e-mail

winchester.erik@epa.gov. For questions

regarding implementation issues under

State water quality standards programs

contact Jim Keating, USEPA, Standards

and Health Protection Division, (202)

260–3845; or email

keating.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

Section 304(a)(2) of the CWA calls for

information on the conditions necessary

‘‘to restore and maintain biological

integrity of all * * * waters, for the

protection and propagation of shellfish,

fish and wildlife, to allow recreational

activities in and on the water, and to

measure and classify water quality.’’

EPA has not previously issued saltwater

criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO)

because, until recently, the available

effects information was insufficient.

This criteria document is the result of

an extensive multi-year research effort

to produce sufficient information to

support the development of saltwater

DO criteria. The water quality criteria

presented in the document represent

EPA’s best estimates, based on the data

available, of DO concentrations

necessary to protect aquatic life and

uses associated with aquatic life.

Overview of the Problem

Hypoxia is defined in this document

as the reduction of DO concentrations in

water below air saturation. Oxygen is

essential in aerobic organisms for the

proper functioning of cellular processes.

When hypoxia exists, organisms may get

an insufficient amount of oxygen into

their system which results in reduction

in cellular energy and a subsequent loss

of ion balance in cellular and

circulatory fluids. If oxygen

insufficiency persists, death will

ultimately occur, although some aerobic

animals also possess anaerobic

metabolic pathways, which can delay

lethality for short time periods (minutes

to days). The animals most sensitive to

hypoxia are those inhabiting well

oxygenated environments which are not

normally exposed to low DO levels.

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program (EMAP) for the

estuaries in the Virginian Province

(defined as Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras)

has shown that 25% of the area of the

Province is exposed to some degree to

DO concentrations less than 5 mg/L.

Persistent DO levels below 5 mg/L can

have an adverse effect on various life

stages of aquatic organism. EMAP also

has generated field observations that

correlate many of the biologically

degraded benthic areas with low DO in

the lower water column. These two

reports serve to emphasize that low DO

(hypoxia) is a major concern within the

Virginian Province. Even though

hypoxia is a major concern for many

waters, a strong technical basis for

developing benchmarks for low DO

effects has been lacking until recently.

In the Virginian Province, hypoxia is

essentially a warm water phenomenon.

In the southern portions of the Province,

such as the Chesapeake Bay and its

tributaries, reduced DO may occur any

time between May and October; in the

more northern coastal and estuarine

waters, it may occur at any time from

late June into September. Hypoxic

events can occur on seasonal or diel

(daily) time scales. Seasonal hypoxia

often develops as a consequence of

water column stratification, which

prevents mixing of well oxygenated

surface water with deeper water. Diel

cycles of hypoxia often occur in nonstratified shallow habitats where

nighttime respiration temporarily

depletes DO levels. Hypoxia may also

persist more or less continuously over a

season (with or without a cyclic

component) or be episodic (i.e., of

irregular occurrence and indefinite

duration). The fauna most at risk from

hypoxic exposure in the Virginian

Province are primarily summer

inhabitants of subpycnocline (i.e.,

bottom) waters.

Overview of the Protection Approach

The approach to determine DO

criteria to protect saltwater animals

within the Virginian Province takes into

account both continuous (i.e.,

persistent) and cyclic (e.g., diel, tidal, or

episodic) exposures to low levels of DO.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices 71319

The continuous situation considers

exposure durations of 24 hours or

greater. Criteria for cyclic situations

cover hypoxic exposures of less than 24

hours, but which may be repeated over

a series of days. Both scenarios cover

three areas of protection that are

summarized here, and explained in

more detail in the criteria document: (1)

Protection for juvenile and adult

survival; (2) Protection for chronic

(growth) effects; and (3) Protection for

larval recruitment effects (estimated

with a generic recruitment model).

The approach to derive these DO

water quality criteria combines features

of traditional water quality criteria with

a new biological framework that uses a

mathematical model to integrate time

(replacing the concept of an averaging

period) and establish protection limits

for different life stages (i.e., larvae

versus juveniles and adults). Where

practical, data were selected and

analyzed in manners consistent with the

Guidelines for Deriving Numerical

National Water Quality Criteria for the

Protection of Aquatic Organisms and

Their Uses (hereafter referred to as the

Guidelines).

The saltwater DO criteria segregate

effects on juveniles and adults from

those on larvae. The survival data on the

sensitivity of the juveniles and adults

are handled in a traditional Guidelines

manner. To address cumulative effects

of low DO on larval recruitment to the

juvenile life stage (i.e., larval survival as

a function of time), the new biological

approach to deriving criteria uses a

mathematical model that evaluates the

effect of DO conditions on larvae by

tracking intensity and duration of effects

across the larval recruitment season.

Protection for larvae of all species is

provided by using toxicological data on

the larval stages of nine sensitive

aquatic organisms.

The approach used to derive the new

DO criteria deviates somewhat from

EPA’s traditional approach for toxic

chemicals outlined in the Guidelines.

However, where practical, data selection

and analysis procedures are consistent

with the Guidelines. Most of the

terminology and the calculation

procedures are the same, but one should

consult the Guidelines for a more

complete understanding of how these

DO criteria were derived.

The juvenile/adult survival and the

growth criteria provide boundaries

within which to judge the DO status of

a given site. If the DO conditions are

above the chronic growth criterion (4.8

mg/L), then this site would meet

objectives for protection. If the DO

conditions are below the juvenile/adult

survival criterion (2.3 mg/L), then this

site would not meet objectives for

protection. When the DO conditions are

between these two values, then the site

would require evaluation using the

larval recruitment model that integrates

duration and intensity of hypoxia to

determine suitability of habitat for the

larval recruitment objective.

The DO criteria are based entirely on

laboratory findings. Field observations

on the impact of low DO levels support

the findings of laboratory studies. Field

acute effects occurred in juvenile and

adult animals at <2.0 mg/L, which

would be predicted based on the 2.3

mg/L juvenile/adult criterion. In the

field, behavioral effects generally

occurred within the range where many

of the laboratory sublethal effects

occurred.

Revisions to the Draft Document

Approximately half of the views and

information submitted by the public on

the draft DO criteria addressed science

or technical issues, and the other half

addressed implementation issues. EPA

considered only the science issues when

making revisions to the criteria. EPA

will review the implementation issues

when developing future implementation

guidance. The more significant revisions

due to science issues are summarized

here.

First, some commentors indicated that

the larval recruitment model should not

be based on the mud crab (Dyspanopeus

sayi) alone. Based on further review of

the toxicity information for other

species, we have revised the doseresponse curve in Figure 5 by using a

final acute value (FAV) approach (see

the Guidelines) to generate a new final

larval survival curve that reflects

responses of all nine species tested.

Figures 5a and 5b have been replaced by

a ‘‘Final Larval Survival Curve’’, and

Figure 5c has been removed. These

changes to the larval recruitment

approach necessitated that changes also

be made to Figures 6, 7, 12, 14 and 17.

Overall, these changes had minimal

effect on the criteria. The point (4.64

mg/L) at which the larval recruitment

curve levels off in the revised criteria is

only slightly greater than the point (4.45

mg/L) in the draft document.

Second, some commentors raised

issues about the effect that differences

in larval life history requirements

among species in the Virginian Province

might have on the applicability of the

larval recruitment model across species

and regions in the Province. The

consideration of all nine species in

development of the larval recruitment

model addresses this issue. Also, in an

appendix we added an assessment of

sensitivity that might be expected with

the life history model parameters D

(duration of larval development) and R

(length of larval recruitment season).

The sensitivity analysis was performed

using the individual larval recruitment

curve for the mud crab. The sensitivity

of the model to these two parameters

was evaluated by increasing or

decreasing D while holding R constant,

by holding L constant and increasing R,

and varying both D and R at the same

time. A range of values were chosen for

this analysis that we believe encompass

a reasonable range in species-specific

larval life history requirements in the

Virginian Province, and because the

upper and lower ranges are relatively

extreme values that can test the overall

assumptions and sensitivity of the

model. The results indicate that the DO

curve associated with no greater than 5

percent cumulative impairment of

seasonal larval recruitment is most

sensitive to a simultaneous decrease in

D and increase in R. Under these

conditions, the protective DO value at

44 days (the length of mud crab larval

development season) decreases. This

evaluation shows that the model can

easily be adjusted to account for

latitudinal variations in life larval life

history requirements, or even seasonal

variations in timing of hypoxia events

concurrent with larval development

periods. The results also indicate the

Virginia Province criteria are protective

of most species under most conditions,

but that in some site-specific situations

they may be overprotective. In the

absence of site-specific data that would

suggest a lower level of DO may be

acceptable, EPA believes that in order to

ensure that most organisms and their

uses are protected it is appropriate to

derive Province-wide criteria that may

be overprotective in some cases.

Third, some commentors suggested

that the 5 percent cumulative reduction

in larval seasonal recruitment may be

too low a protection goal. EPA

disagrees. Larval life stages are

important and this protection goal is

meant to protect them at a critical point

in their development and transition to

the juvenile life stage, which for many

species corresponds to times of the year

when hypoxia conditions occur. We

selected this Province-wide protection

goal because it is consistent with the

approach outlined in the 1985

Guidelines for deriving ambient aquatic

life water quality criteria, because 5

percent is also consistent with the level

of protection afforded to juvenile and

adult life stages, and because, in

absence of data that suggests otherwise,

this level of reduced larval recruitment

from DO alone is believed to be

71320 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices

protective of most species. EPA

recognizes that large losses of larval life

stages occur naturally, and that many

species may be able to withstand a

greater than 5 percent loss of larvae,

from low DO or otherwise, without an

appreciable effect on juvenile

recruitment. On the other hand, this

may not be the case for certain highly

sensitive species or populations that are

already highly stressed, for example an

endangered species. This may also not

be the case where there are other

important natural or anthropogenic

stressors that contribute to a loss of the

larval life stage. In such situations, it

may be that a 5 percent loss in larval

recruitment from DO alone is not

protective enough, and environmental

risk managers may need to evaluate the

Province-wide 5 percent protection goal

in light of their site-specific factors that

may contribute to a cumulative loss in

seasonal larval recruitment. Also in

response to this issue, an appendix was

added to the document that shows, by

using the mud crab as an example, how

the larval recruitment criterion would

change if the acceptable percentage

impairment was increased. This

example demonstrates the flexibility in

the criteria approach and how one

might change the protection goals on a

site-specific basis should States and

authorized Tribes choose to do so and

have the data to support such a change,

while still protecting designated uses.

EPA believes the 5 percent cumulative

reduction level in seasonal larval

recruitment is appropriate and

protective of populations in the

Virginian Province in absence of data

that suggest otherwise.

Implementation Overview

Implementation of DO criteria may be

slightly different from that of chemical

toxicants, but not for reasons associated

with either biological effects or

exposure. The primary reason that DO

might be implemented differently from

toxic compounds is because controlling

the effects of low DO is not

accomplished by directly regulating DO.

Rather, hypoxia is a symptom of a

problem, not the direct problem. Thus

DO would be regulated primarily

through the control of nutrients (e.g.,

nitrogen and phosphorus) and oxygen

demanding wastes. As a stressor, DO

also differs from most toxic compounds

in that there can be a large natural

component to the cause of hypoxic

conditions in any given water body.

The DO criteria may also be

appropriately used in a risk assessment

framework. The criteria and

management approach presented in the

document could be used to compare DO

conditions among areas and determine

if DO conditions would be adequate to

support aquatic life. Using the criteria,

environmental managers could

determine which sites need the most

attention and what are the spatial and

temporal extent of hypoxic problems

from one year to the next.

Environmental planners could also use

the criteria in a risk assessment

framework to evaluate how conditions

would improve under different

management scenarios, helping them

make better management decisions.

EPA recommends that States and

authorized Tribes within the Virginian

Province adopt numeric DO criteria for

saltwater applicable at all times of the

year for all marine waters designated for

the protection of aquatic life or for

waters whose existing uses include

aquatic life. States and Tribes may adopt

numeric criteria based on EPA’s

ambient water quality criteria for DO,

such criteria modified to reflect sitespecific conditions, or other

scientifically defensible methods, 40

CFR 131.11(b)(1). States and Tribes

should adopt narrative criteria where

numeric criteria cannot be established

or to supplement numeric criteria, 40

CFR 131.11(b)(2). Because EPA has

issued recommended section 304(a)

criteria for DO, numeric criteria for DO

can be established. Numeric criteria for

DO can be implemented in NPDES

permits by determining the need for and

calculating specific limits for oxygen

demanding wastes and nutrients that

spur excess algal growth and subsequent

decay of aquatic plants. Such criteria

also serve as a definitive benchmark for

determining impairment of waters for

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listing

purposes and then as a starting point for

establishing TMDL’s, wasteload

allocations for point sources, and load

allocations for nonpoint sources.

To take full advantage of the

flexibility allowed in the DO criteria

methodology for determining specific

protective DO levels, it is necessary to

characterize both the diurnal and season

patterns of DO concentrations in

response to natural and anthropogenic

pollutant loadings for the location

where the criteria are applied.

Simplified approaches to establishing

protective criteria that ensure a level of

protection consistent with the detailed

approach outlined in the DO criteria

document are acceptable. Any approach

a State or Tribe chooses to use to

implement the DO criteria must be

reflected in the State’s or Tribe’s water

quality standards and submitted to EPA

for review and approval. To determine

the scientific defensibility of a State’s or

Tribe’s approach as part of the Clean

Water Act section 303(c) review and

approval/disapproval process, EPA will

review information concerning the

characterization of diurnal and seasonal

patterns of DO concentration in relation

to the geographic areas and the times of

the year the criteria applies, and would

want the State or Tribe to provide all of

the data and information the State or

Tribe relied on for its rationale.

Limitations of the Criteria

These water quality criteria

recommendations apply to coastal

waters (waters within the territorial

seas, defined as within three miles from

shore under section 502(8) of the CWA)

of the Virginian Province (southern

Cape Cod, MA to Cape Hatteras, NC) of

the Atlantic coast of the United States.

The document provides the necessary

information for environmental planners

and regulators within the Virginian

Province to address the question: are the

DO conditions at a given site sufficient

to protect coastal or estuarine aquatic

life? The approach outlined in the

document could be used to evaluate

existing localized DO standards or

management goals or establish new

ones. The criteria do not address direct

behavioral responses (i.e., avoidance) or

the ecological consequences of

behavioral responses, such as increased

or decreased predation rates or altered

community structure, nor do they

address the issue of spatial significance

of a DO problem. In addition, as with all

criteria, these criteria do not account for

changes in sensitivity to low DO that

accompany other stresses, such as high

temperature, extremes of salinity, or

toxicants. Chief among these concerns

would be high temperature because high

temperature and low DO often appear

together. Generally, low DO would be

more lethal at water temperatures

approaching the upper thermal limit for

species. EPA believes the DO limits

provided in the document are

sufficiently protective under most

conditions where aquatic organisms are

not otherwise unduly stressed.

Although the DO criteria for the

Virginian Province may be over- or

underprotective of aquatic life in other

regions, the approach used to develop

the criteria is considered to be

applicable to other regions with

appropriate regional modifications.

Organism adaptations to lower oxygen

requirements may have occurred in

locations where oxygen concentrations

have historically been reduced due to

high temperatures, or in systems with

non-anthropogenic high oxygen

demand. Conversely, organisms in

another region could be adapted to

colder temperature and higher DO

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices 71321

regimes than those covered in the

document, and thus may have different

sensitivity to DO concentrations. In

addition, effects of hypoxia may vary

latitudinally, or site-specifically,

particularly as reproductive seasons

determine exposure risks for sensitive

early life stages. For these reasons, an

environmental risk manager would need

to carefully evaluate water quality and

biological conditions within the specific

location and decide if the Virginian

Province criteria would apply or if

region-or site-specific considerations

would need to be made.

Endangered or Threatened Species

Policy Recommendations

When a threatened or endangered

species occurs at a site and sufficient

data are available to indicate that it is

sensitive at concentrations above the

recommended criteria, it would be

appropriate to consider deriving sitespecific DO criteria.

Future Implementation Information

and Applications

In the future additional information

will be provided that will specifically

address implementation issues. In the

current document, implementation

issues are discussed in a more general

manner, summarizing important issues

that environmental managers should

consider in adopting and

implementation of DO water quality

standards. The future implementation

information will provide more detailed

discussion of implementation issues by

using real world example data sets

where possible, or hypothetical data sets

that show users how to integrate their

data and management goals.

Application of this guidance to marine

waters outside the Virginian Province

may also be discussed. As a component

of the implementation guidance, EPA

originally envisioned publishing a

visual basic-based computer program

that would allow States and other users

to derive DO criteria to meet the larval

recruitment protection goal for coastal

and estuarine animals. However, the

recent revisions in the criteria (i.e., the

use of multiple species in the larval

recruitment model) has precluded use of

the visual basic model in its current

format. Therefore, the model when

available will likely be provided as a

spreadsheet application compatible

with commonly used software packages.

EPA anticipates providing the

additional implementation guidance in

late 2001.

EPA believes the approach used to

develop the criteria can be applied, with

minor modifications and regional

specific data, to derive DO criteria for

other coastal and estuarine regions of

the United States. Therefore, in the

future EPA plans to prepare similar DO

criteria for other provinces based on this

approach. At such time, EPA intends to

publish a Notice of Data Availability

and formally request submission of data

from parties interested in the

development of DO criteria for other

provinces.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Geoffrey H. Grubbs,

Director, Office of Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 00–30542 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG

CONTROL POLICY

Meeting of White House Task Force on

Drug Use in Sport

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control

Policy.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of White

House Task Force on Drug Use in Sport

on December 7, 2000 in Salt Lake City,

Utah.

SUMMARY: A meeting of the White House

Task Force on Drug Use in Sport will be

held on Thursday, December 7, 2000 in

Salt Lake City, Utah in the Wasatch

Ballroom of the Wyndham Hotel, 215

W. South Temple, 2nd Floor, Salt Lake

City, Utah 84101. The meeting will

commence at 8:00 a.m. on December 7th

and will conclude at 12:30 p.m. The

agenda will focus on two key issues: (1)

How can the United States help ensure

a drug free 2002 Winter Olympic

Games; and (2) How can the United

States most effectively reach out to

young people to prevent the use of

drugs in sport. There will be an

opportunity for public comment from

11:10 a.m. until 11:40 on Thursday

December 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please direct any questions to Linda V.

Priebe, Assistant General Counsel (202)

395–6622, Office of National Drug

Control Policy, Executive Office of the

President, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Linda V. Priebe,

Assistant General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–30540 Filed 11–27–00; 2:46 pm]

BILLING CODE 3180–02–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time: Tuesday, December 5,

2000 at 10:00 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington,

DC.

Status: This Meeting Will Be closed to

the Public.

Items To Be Discussed: Compliance

matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures

or matters affecting a particular

employee.

Date and Time: Thursday, December

7, 2000 at 10:00 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington,

DC (Ninth Floor)

Status: This Meeting Will Be Open to

the Public.

Items To Be Discussed: Correction and

Approval of Minutes. Draft Advisory

Opinion 2000–34: SAPPI Fine Paper

North America/S.D. Warren Company

by counsel, Brett G. Kappel. Draft

Advisory Opinion 2000–37: U.S.

Representative Tom Udall.

Administrative Matters.

Person to Contact for Information: Mr.

Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone:

(202) 694–1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Acting Secretary of Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–30643 Filed 11–28–00; 12:02

pm]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Bank or

Bank Holding Companies; Correction

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc.

00–29930) published on page 70570 of

the issue for Friday, November 24, 2000.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis heading, the entry for

David Bradley Erickson, Lakeland

Shores, Minnesota, is revised to read as

follows:

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen,

Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin

Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota

55480–0291:

1. David Bradley Erickson, Lakeland

Shores, Minnesota; to acquire additional

voting shares of Freedom

Bancorporation, Inc., Lindstorm,

Minnesota, and thereby indirectly

acquire additional voting shares of Lake

Area Bank, Lindstorm, Minnesota.

Comments on this application must

be received by December 8, 2000.