Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 70829

visit our website at http://www.epa.gov/

radiation/wipp/announce.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOE

is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in

southeastern New Mexico as a deep

geologic repository for disposal of TRU

radioactive waste. As defined by the

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of

1992 (Public Law 102–579), as amended

(Public Law 104–201), TRU waste

consists of materials containing

elements having atomic numbers greater

than 92 (with half-lives greater than

twenty years), in concentrations greater

than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting

TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Most

TRU waste consists of items

contaminated during the production of

nuclear weapons, such as rags,

equipment, tools, and organic and

inorganic sludges.

On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its

final compliance certification decision

to the Secretary of Energy (published

May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This

decision states that the WIPP will

comply with the EPA’s radioactive

waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR

part 191, subparts B and C.

The final WIPP certification decision

includes a condition that prohibits

shipment of TRU waste for disposal at

WIPP from any site other than LANL

until EPA has approved the procedures

developed to comply with the waste

characterization requirements of

§ 194.24(c)(4) (condition 3 of appendix

A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA’s

approval process for waste generator

sites is described in § 194.8. As part of

EPA’s decision making process, DOE is

required to submit to EPA appropriate

documentation of waste characterization

programs at each DOE waste generator

site seeking approval for shipment of

TRU radioactive waste to WIPP. In

accordance with § 194.8, EPA will place

such documentation in the official Air

Docket in Washington, D.C., and in

informational dockets in the State of

New Mexico, for public review and

comment.

We initially approved certain waste

characterization processes at INEEL

following an inspection on July 28–30,

1998. EPA’s approvals of INEEL to date

have limited the applicability of the

approved waste characterization

processes and systems to debris wastes.

DOE is proposing to apply the processes

that EPA inspected and approved for

debris wastes to solid waste streams as

well. We will conduct an inspection of

INEEL to verify that these additional

waste streams can be characterized in

compliance with 40 CFR 194.24.

The INEEL documents submitted to

EPA are: ‘‘Quality Assurance Project

Plan for the Transuranic Waste

Characterization Program (PLN–190),

Revision 4 (March 2000),’’ ‘‘INEEL TRU

Waste Characterization, Transportation,

and Certification Quality Program Plan

(PLN–182), Revision 4 (March 2000),’’

and ‘‘Program Plan for Certification of

INEEL Contact-Handled Stored

Transuranic Waste (PLN–579), Revision

0 (March 2000).’’ The ‘‘Quality

Assurance Project Plan for the

Transuranic Waste Characterization

Program (PLN–190), Revision 4 (March

2000)’’ and the ‘‘INEEL TRU Waste

Characterization, Transportation, and

Certification Quality Program Plan

(PLN–182), Revision 4 (March 2000)’’

set forth the quality assurance program

applied to TRU waste characterization

at INEEL. The ‘‘Program Plan for

Certification of INEEL Contact-Handled

Stored Transuranic Waste (PLN–579),

Revision 0 (March 2000)’’ sets forth the

waste characterization procedures for

TRU wastes at INEEL. We will conduct

an inspection of INEEL the week of

December 4, 2000, to determine whether

the requirements set forth in these

documents are being adequately

implemented in accordance with

Condition 3 of the EPA’s WIPP

certification decision (appendix A to 40

CFR part 194). In accordance with

§ 194.8 of the WIPP compliance criteria,

we are providing the public 30 days to

comment on the documents placed in

EPA’s docket relevant to the site

approval process. Because the

inspection will occur during the

comment period, we will respond to

relevant comments received prior to,

during, and after the inspection.

If EPA determines that the provisions

in the documents are adequately

implemented, we will notify DOE by

letter and place the letter in the official

Air Docket in Washington, D.C., and in

the informational docket locations in

New Mexico. A positive approval letter

will allow DOE to ship additional TRU

waste from INEEL. We will not make a

determination of compliance prior to

the inspection or before the 30-day

comment period has closed.

Information on EPA’s radioactive

waste disposal standards (40 CFR part

191), the compliance criteria (40 CFR

part 194), and EPA’s certification

decision is filed in the official EPA Air

Docket, Dockets No. R–89–01, A–92–56,

and A–93–02, respectively, and is

available for review in Washington,

D.C., and at the three EPA WIPP

informational docket locations in New

Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico

contain only major items from the

official Air Docket in Washington, D.C.,

plus those documents added to the

official Air Docket after the October

1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 00–30416 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6907–4]

Georgia: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Georgia has applied to EPA

for Final authorization of the changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final

authorization to Georgia. In the ‘‘Rules

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register, EPA is authorizing the changes

by an immediate final rule. EPA did not

make a proposal prior to the immediate

final rule because we believe this action

is not controversial and do not expect

comments that oppose it. We have

explained the reasons for this

authorization in the preamble to the

immediate final rule. Unless we get

written comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment

period, the immediate final rule will

become effective on the date it

establishes, and we will not take further

action on this proposal. If we get

comments that oppose this action, we

will withdraw the immediate final rule

and it will not take effect. We will then

respond to public comments in a later

final rule based on this proposal. You

may not have another opportunity for

comment. If you want to comment on

this action, you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by

December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA Programs

Branch, Waste Management Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960; (404) 562–8440. You can

examine copies of the materials

submitted by Georgia during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA Region 4 Library, The

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61

70830 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960, Phone number: (404) 562–

8190, Kathy Piselli, Librarian; or The

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources Environmental Protection

Division, 205 Butler Street, Suite 1154,

East, Atlanta Georgia 30334-4910, Phone

number: 404–656–7802.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA Programs

Branch, Waste Management Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960; (404) 562–8440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, please see the

immediate final rule published in the

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this

Federal Register.

Dated: October 20, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 00–30007 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 94

RIN 0905–AE71

Public Health Service Standards for

the Protection of Research Misconduct

Whistleblowers

AGENCY: Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department proposes to

add a new Subchapter I, Part 94, to Title

42 of the Code of Federal Regulations to

implement section 493(e) of the Public

Health Service Act. Under this proposed

regulation, covered institutions must

follow certain requirements for

preventing or otherwise responding to

occurrences of retaliation against

whistleblowers. The purpose of this part

is to protect persons who make a good

faith allegation that a covered

institution or one of its members

engaged in or failed to respond

adequately to an allegation of research

misconduct and persons who cooperate

in good faith with an investigation of

research misconduct.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

January 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments

concerning this proposed rule to Chris

B. Pascal, J.D., Acting Director, Office of

Research Integrity, 5515 Security Lane,

Suite 700, Rockville, MD, 20852.

You may submit comments and data

by sending electronic mail (E-mail) to

whistlereg@osophs.dhhs.gov.

Submit comments as either a

WordPerfect file, version 5.1 or higher,

or a Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 file

format. Comments can also be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Legal Information: Gail L. Gibbons,

301–443–3466 (This is not a toll-free

number).

Technical Information: Barbara

Bullman, 301–443–5300 (This is not a

toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

493(e) of the PHS Act requires the

Secretary to establish regulatory

standards for preventing and responding

to occurrences of retaliation taken

against whistleblowers by entities

which have a research misconduct

assurance under § 493 and by those

entities’ officials and agents. These

entities and their officials and agents are

prohibited from retaliating against an

employee with respect to the terms and

conditions of employment when the

employee has in good faith (1) made an

allegation that the entity or its officials

or agents, has engaged in, or failed to

respond adequately to an allegation of,

research misconduct, or (2) cooperated

with an investigation of such an

allegation.

The Commission on Research

Integrity (established by section 162 of

the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993)

recommended that the standards stated

in its document, ‘‘Responsible

Whistleblowing: A Whistleblower’s Bill

of Rights’’ (Commission Report,

Department, 1995), be adopted by

regulation. Two of the seven principles

in the Whistleblower’s Bill of Rights

relate directly to the prevention of and

response to whistleblower retaliation.

These two are: protection from

retaliation (‘‘Institutions have a duty not

to tolerate or engage in retaliation

against good faith whistleblowers.’’),

and fundamentally fair procedures (‘‘In

cases of alleged retaliation * * *

whistleblowers should have an

opportunity to defend themselves in a

proceeding where they can present

witnesses and confront those they

charge with retaliation against them.

* * *’’). The substance of those two

provisions has been incorporated in this

proposed regulation. You may obtain

the full text of the Commission’s

proposed Whistleblower’s Bill of Rights

upon request at the Office of Research

Integrity address above, or on the ORI

web page at http://ori.dhhs.gov/

whistle.htm.

The proposed regulation represents a

considered effort by the Department to

implement the statutory directive on

whistleblower protections in accordance

with equitable principles, reason, and

sound policy. The Department strongly

supports good faith whistleblowers who

place themselves at potential risk in

disclosing apparent or actual research

misconduct involving projects

supported by PHS funds. The

Department also recognizes that

institutions bear a substantial burden in

ensuring the fair resolution of good faith

allegations that may ultimately prove to

be unwarranted. The proposed

regulation tries to strike a fair balance

among those persons and entities with

an interest in the regulation.

This proposed regulation does not

apply to Federal agencies. Federal

employees are offered separate

whistleblower protections under the

Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of

1989, 5 U.S.C. 1201, et seq.

When an institution receives a

retaliation complaint, the proposed

regulation allows the whistleblower and

the institution up to 30 days to negotiate

a settlement. The whistleblower and the

institution may agree to extend this

period for up to an additional 60 days.

During the negotiation period, the

parties may agree to use any means of

settlement that is legal and consistent

with this regulation, including

alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms such as mediation.

However, no settlement under the

proposed regulation may prohibit the

whistleblower from making allegations

of research misconduct or cooperating

with an investigation.

If the dispute is not resolved by the

end of the negotiation period, the

institution must make an administrative

proceeding available to the

whistleblower to address the retaliation

complaint. The proceeding offered by

the institution must meet all of the

standards in the proposed regulation. A

whistleblower may agree to have a

retaliation complaint resolved through

this proceeding or may elect to pursue

any other available remedy provided by

law.

Although certain settlement

mechanisms such as mediation may be

used during the negotiation period, they

might not qualify as an acceptable

administrative proceeding after the

negotiation period has terminated

because they do not meet the

regulation’s requirements. For example,

mediation does not constitute an

acceptable administrative proceeding

because it does not use an ‘‘objective