Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices 40279

and chronic toxicity studies in two or

more animal species, demonstrate no

apparent effects on the endocrine

system. There is no information

available which suggests that CPPU

would be associated with endocrine

effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure—Food. A

reference dose (RfD) was calculated

using the most sensitive species data

available from the toxicological testing.

This RfD 0.08 mg/kg/day/based on a

temporary tolerance of 0.01 ppm, was

used to calculate the impact of the

estimated residue levels with results

from treatment of the indicated crops.

The table below shows the Theoretical

Maximum Residue Concentrations

(TMRC) of CPPU on or in the listed

crops requested in this EUP request.

Theoretical Maximum Residue

Concentrations for CPPU for the crops

listed in the EUP request.

All-Apples All+Apples

Total Exposure

mg/kg body wt/

day Percent of RfD

General U.S. Populations, all seasons .................................... 0.000005 0.000011 0.000016 0.02

Non-nursing infants .................................................................. 0.000029 0.000064 0.000093 0.12

Children 1 to 6-years of age .................................................... 0.000010 0.000048 0.000058 0.07

Children 7 to 12-years of age .................................................. 0.000005 0.000017 0.000022 0.03

The anticipated use rate of 17 grams

of CPPU per acre applied once per year

yielding residue levels in the very low

ppb range indicates that less than 1% of

the reference dose would be consumed

in aggregate with all of these crops. The

crop contributing greatest to the percent

of the reference dose related to the most

sensitive of the population i.e. all

nursing infants (less than 1-year old),

non-nursing infants (less than 1-year

old), children (1 to 6 years old) would

represent 1/10th of 1% of the reference

dose. Making the same risk exposure

calculations, it is shown that no

significant impact on reducing the RfD

by using blueberries, cranberries,

cranberry juice, grapes-raisins, pears,

pears dried, cherries, cherries dried,

cherry juice, plums (Damsons), plums as

prunes (dried), plum/prune juice, figs,

kiwifruit, grapes-wine and sherry,

cranberry juice concentrate, pear nectar

in aggregate. Combining the RfD

consumption from the large group of

crops with that of the apples would

exceed 1% of the reference dose only

slightly if the total acreage of all of these

crops were treated. The intention of this

experimental use permit is not to treat

all of the various crops listed; the table

below shows the requested acreage of

each crop.

Crop Acreage

Requested

% Total

Acreage

Grape 3,500 0.53

Kiwi 1,000 14.08

Almond 50 0.01

Apple 50 0.14

Blueberries 50

Cranberries 50

Figs 50 0.40

Plums 50 0.03

Pears 50 0.15

Olives 50 0.05

This program would permit

development of requisite data to assure

safe and efficacious use and, yet, not

subject any segment of the public to a

health risk.

2. Dietary exposure - drinking water.

The very low use rate of CPPU i.e. 17

grams or less per acre, if used constantly

for 20-years, would apply only 3/4 of a

pound of CPPU per acre during that 20-

year period. Computer modeling, using

the conservative pesticide root zone

model (PRZM) means of analysis has

shown that no CPPU would reach

ground water, even in sandy loam soils.

The results of this risk analysis

supported an unambiguous conclusion

of ‘‘essentially zero risk to ground

water’’ even under reasonable worst

case assumptions. Concentrations are

not predicted to exceed 15 to 20 ppb of

CPPU in the soil in the upper soil

horizons, even following yearly

applications for as long as 30 years. No

secondary exposure is anticipated as a

result of contamination of drinking

water.

3. Non-dietary exposure. No nondietary exposure is expected since

CPPU is not anticipated to be found in

the drinking water. It does not

translocate in plants and thus secondary

exposure through plants growing in soil

receiving CPPU is not anticipated. The

extremely low application rates will not

result in significant buildup in the

environment.

D. Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects

expected since CPPU is not taken up by

plants from the soil. It slowly degrades

to mineral end points. Its low use rate

is not conducive to buildup in the

environment.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. As pointed out

above in dietary exposure-food the

percentage of the reference dose

consumed by treating the subject crops

represents only slightly more than 1%

of the estimated safe level for the most

sensitive segment of the population,

non-nursing infants.

2. Infants and children. No

developmental, reproductive or

fetotoxic effects have been associated

with CPPU. The calculation of safety

margins with respect to these segments

of the population were taken into

consideration in the TMRC estimates

with respect to the risk associated with

the percentage of the reference dose

being consumed.

F. International Tolerances

There is no Codex maximum residue

level established for CPPU. However,

CPPU is registered for use on grapes and

other crops in Japan, Chile, Mexico, and

South Africa. (Cynthia Giles-Parker)

[FR Doc. 98–20145 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6131–5]

Notice of Proposed NPDES General

Permit for Discharges From ReadyMixed Concrete Plants, Concrete

Products Plants and Their Associated

Facilities in Texas (TXG110000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft NPDES general

permit.

SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is proposing to

issue a general NPDES permit

authorizing discharges of facility waste

water and contact storm water from

ready-mixed concrete plants, concrete

products plants and their associated

facilities in Texas. This permit covers

facilities having Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Codes 3273
40280 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices

(manufacture of ready-mixed concrete),

3272 (manufacture of concrete products,

except block and brick) and 3271

(manufacture of concrete block and

brick).

As proposed, the permit has the

following requirements: Daily maximum

limits of 15 mg/l Oil and Grease and 65

mg/l Total Suspended Solids, and a pH

limit of 6.0 to 9.0 Standard Units. There

is also a requirement of no acute toxicity

as determined by requiring greater than

50% survival in 100% effluent using a

24 hour acute test. In addition, the

permit has limits on arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,

manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium,

silver and zinc as contained in Texas

Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC) Regulations for

Hazardous Metals (30 TAC 319,

Subchapter B), as well as requirements

for no discharge of floating solids or

visible foam in other than trace

amounts, and no discharge of visible oil.

There is also the requirement to develop

and implement a pollution prevention

plan for the storm water discharges

authorized by this permit.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

permit must be submitted by September

28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

permit should be sent to the Regional

Administrator, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Wilma Turner, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7516. Copies of the

complete fact sheet and proposed

permit may be obtained from Ms.

Turner. The fact sheet and proposed

permit can also be found on the Internet

at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/

6wq.htm. In addition, the current

administrative record on the proposal is

available for examination at the Region’s

Dallas offices during normal working

hours after providing Ms. Turner 24

hours advanced notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry .... Operators of ready-mixed concrete plants and concrete

products plants.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

(facility, company, business,

organization, etc.) is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in Part I,

Section A.1 of this permit. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a),

makes it unlawful to discharge

pollutants to waters of the United States

in the absence of authorizing permits.

CWA section 402, 33 U.S.C. 1342,

authorizes EPA to issue National

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits allowing discharges on

condition they will meet certain

requirements, including CWA sections

301, 304, and 401 (33 U.S.C. 1331, 1314

and 1341). Those statutory provisions

require that NPDES permits include

effluent limitations requiring that

authorized discharges: (1) meet

standards reflecting levels of

technological capability, (2) comply

with EPA-approved state water quality

standards and (3) comply with other

state requirements adopted under

authority retained by states under CWA

510, 33 U.S.C. 1370.

Two types of technology-based

effluent limitations must be included in

the permit proposed here. With regard

to conventional pollutants, i.e., pH,

BOD, oil and grease, TSS and fecal

coliform, CWA section 301 (b)(1)(E)

requires effluent limitations based on

‘‘best conventional pollution control

technology’’ (BCT). With regard to

nonconventional and toxic pollutants,

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), and (D)

require effluent limitations based on

‘‘best available pollution control

technology economically achievable’’

(BAT), a standard which generally

represents the best performing existing

technology in an industrial category or

subcategory. BAT and BCT effluent

limitations may never be less stringent

than corresponding effluent limitations

based on best practicable control

technology (BPT), a standard applicable

to similar discharges prior to March 31,

1989 under CWA 301(b)(1)(A).

National guidelines establishing BPT,

BCT and BAT standards have not been

promulgated for discharges from readymixed concrete plants and concrete

products plants. The BCT and BAT

requirements for these discharges have,

therefore, been established using best

professional judgement, as required by

CWA section 402(a)(1). All of the

limitations in this proposed permit,

except for the requirement to develop

and implement a storm water pollution

prevention plan, are also current

requirements, contained either directly

or by reference, in TNRCC Regulations

30 TAC 321, Subchapter J, for

discharges from ready-mixed concrete

plants, concrete products plants, and

their associated facilities. The storm

water pollution prevention plan

requirements are those currently

required by the NPDES Storm Water

Multi-Sector General Permit for storm

water discharges associated with readymixed concrete and concrete products

plants. All of the discharges authorized

by this permit are also those authorized

by 30 TAC 321, Subchapter J.

Although the TNRCC Rule contains,

by reference, the metals and toxicity

limits listed below, that Rule does not

contain monitoring requirements for

those limits. 40 CFR 122.44(i) requires

monitoring for each pollutant limited in

an NPDES permit to assure compliance

with the permit limits. The frequency of

this monitoring shall be established on

a case by case basis, but shall in no case

be less than once per year.

In addition to requiring the

development and implementation of a

storm water pollution prevention plan,

the following limits are proposed:

Daily maximum (mg/l)

Oil and Grease ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Total Suspended Solids ....................................................................................................................................................................... 65

pH 6.0–9.0 Std. Units.

Monthly average (mg/l)Daily max

(mg/l)

Single grab

(mg/l)

Arsenic .......................................................................................................................................... .1 .2 .3
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices 40281

Monthly average (mg/l)Daily max

(mg/l)

Single grab

(mg/l)

Barium .......................................................................................................................................... 1.0 2.0 4.0

Cadmium (Inland Waters) ............................................................................................................ .05 .1 .2

Cadmium (Tidal Waters) .............................................................................................................. .1 .2 .3

Chromium ..................................................................................................................................... .5 1.0 5.0

Copper .......................................................................................................................................... .5 1.0 2.0

Lead .............................................................................................................................................. .5 1.0 1.5

Manganese ................................................................................................................................... 1.0 2.0 3.0

Mercury ......................................................................................................................................... .005 .005 .01

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................ 1.0 2.0 3.0

Selenium (Inland Waters) ............................................................................................................. .05 .1 .2

Selenium (Tidal Waters) ............................................................................................................... .1 .2 .3

Silver ............................................................................................................................................. .05 .1 .2

Zinc ............................................................................................................................................... 1.0 2.0 6.0

The minimum monitoring

requirements proposed, all using grab

samples, are once per month for Oil and

Grease, Total Suspended Solids and pH,

and once per year for the metals.

There shall be No Acute Toxicity as

determined by requiring greater than

50% survival in 100% effluent using a

24 hour acute test. Monitoring shall be

a minimum of once per 6 months using

grab samples.

In addition to proposing the NPDES

general permit for these facilities, the

Region is also soliciting effluent data for

the above listed metals and whole

effluent toxicity for the types of

facilities to be covered by this proposed

permit. Because of the lack of effluent

data from these facilities for these

metals and toxicity, the Region must

include limits and, therefore,

monitoring requirements for these

pollutants to assure that State water

quality standards will be met and to

comply with 40 CFR 122.44(d), which

requires inclusion of any more stringent

limits established under State law or

regulations in accordance with section

301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act.

Other Legal Requirements

A. State Certification

Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act,

EPA may not issue an NPDES permit

until the State in which the discharge

will originate grants or waives

certification to ensure compliance with

appropriate requirements of the Act and

State law. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the

Act requires that NPDES permits

contain conditions that ensure

compliance with applicable state water

quality standards or limitations. The

proposed permit contains limitations

intended to ensure compliance with

state water quality standards and has

been determined by EPA Region 6 to be

consistent with the Texas water quality

standards and the corresponding

implementation plan. The Region has

solicited certification from the Texas

Natural Resources Conservation

Commission.

B. Endangered Species Act

The proposed limits are sufficiently

stringent to assure state water quality

standards, both for aquatic life

protection and human health protection,

will be met. The effluent limitations

established in this permit ensure

protection of aquatic life and

maintenance of the receiving water as

an aquatic habitat. The Region finds that

adoption of the proposed permit is

unlikely to adversely affect any

threatened or endangered species or its

critical habitat. EPA is seeking written

concurrence from the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service on this

determination.

C. Historic Preservation Act

Facilities which adversely affect

properties listed or eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historical

Places are not authorized to discharge

under this permit.

D. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

the review requirements of Executive

Order 12866.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection required

by this permit has been approved by

OMB under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., in submission made for the

NPDES permit program and assigned

OMB control numbers 2040–0086

(NPDES permit application) and 2040–

0004 (discharge monitoring reports).

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, generally requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory

actions’’ to refer to regulations. (See,

e.g., UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency

shall * * * assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions * * * (other than to

the extent that such regulations

incorporate requirements specifically

set forth in law)’’ (emphasis added)).

UMRA section 102 defines ‘‘regulation’’

by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of

the U.S. Code, which in turn defines

‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to

section 601(2) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of

the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as ‘‘any rule for

which the agency publishes a notice of

proposed rulemaking pursuant to

section 553(b) of (the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA)), or any other law

* * *’’

NPDES general permits are not

‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus not

subject to the APA requirement to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking. NPDES general permits are

also not subject to such a requirement

under the CWA. While EPA publishes a

notice to solicit public comment on

draft general permits, it does so

pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)

requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity

for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general

permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for RFA or

UMRA purposes.

EPA thinks it is unlikely that this

proposed permit issuance would

contain a Federal requirement that

might result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year.

The Agency also believes that the

proposed permit issuance would not

significantly nor uniquely affect small

governments. For UMRA purposes,

‘‘small governments’’ is defined by

reference to the definition of ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction’’ under the

RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1),

referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which

references section 601(5) of the RFA.)

‘‘Small governmental jurisdiction’’
40282 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices

means governments of cities, counties,

towns, etc., with a population of less

than 50,000, unless the agency

establishes an alternative definition.

The proposed permit issuance also

would not uniquely affect small

governments because compliance with

the proposed permit conditions affects

small governments in the same manner

as any other entities seeking coverage

under the permit.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that EPA

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

for regulations that have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Compliance with the permit

requirements will not result in a

significant impact on dischargers,

including small businesses, covered by

these permits. EPA Region 6 therefore

concludes that the permits proposed

today will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Oscar Ramirez, Jr.,

Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection

Division, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 98–20146 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farmer Mac Risk-Based Capital

Notice of Availability of Study and

Request for Comment

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit

Administration (FCA or Agency), acting

through the Office of Secondary Market

Oversight (OSMO), is required, under

section 8.32 of the Farm Credit Act of

1971, as amended (Act), to establish a

risk-based capital regulation for the

Federal Agricultural Mortgage

Corporation (Farmer Mac). The FCA is

in the process of developing this

regulation and will publish a proposed

regulation for comment no sooner than

February 1999.

The credit risk portion of the

prescribed risk-based capital test must

take into account agricultural mortgage

losses in an area containing not less

than 5 percent of the U.S. population

during a 2-year historic period in which

the highest rates of losses occurred.

After an extensive search for

applicable data on agricultural mortgage

loan losses, the FCA was able to obtain

useful data from the Farm Credit Bank

of Texas. FCA contracted with the firm

of Barry and Associates to study these

data, to make extrapolations of loss data

for other states in order to identify the

geographic area meeting the criteria of

the Act, and to determine the applicable

credit risk component.

The FCA is making the results of this

study available for public comment and

suggestions that could possibly lead to

improved input for the credit risk

component of the proposed regulation.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before September 15,

1998.

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of

the study by downloading from the FCA

web page at www.fca.gov; by submitting

an electronic mail request for a copy to

info-line@fca.gov; or by contacting

George D. Irwin, Director, Office of

Secondary Market Oversight, Farm

Credit Administration, 1501 Farm

Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102–5090,

(703) 883–4280.

Submit your comments via electronic

mail to ‘‘reg-comm@fca.gov’’ or in hard

copy to George D. Irwin, Director, Office

of Secondary Market Oversight, Farm

Credit Administration, 1501 Farm

Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102–5090.

Copies of all comments received will be

available for review by interested parties

at the Farm Credit Administration

offices in McLean, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George D. Irwin, Director, Office of

Secondary Market Oversight, Farm

Credit Administration, 1501 Farm

Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102–5090,

(703) 883–4280, TDD (703) 883–4444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

8.32 of the Act specifies that the FCA,

through the Office of Secondary Market

Oversight, shall establish, by regulation,

a risk-based capital test for Farmer Mac.

The statute further provides that:

‘‘* * * the risk-based capital test shall

determine the amount of regulatory capital

for the Corporation [Farmer Mac] that is

sufficient for the Corporation to maintain

positive capital during a 10-year period in

which both of the following circumstances

occur:

(1) CREDIT RISK * * * losses on the

underlying qualified loans occur throughout

the United States at a rate of default and

severity (based on any measurements of

default reasonably related to prevailing

industry practice in determining capital

adequacy) reasonably related to the rate and

severity that occurred in contiguous areas of

the United States containing an aggregate of

not less than 5 percent of the total population

of the United States that, for a period of not

less than 2 years (as established by the

Director [of OSMO]), experienced the highest

rates of default and severity of agricultural

mortgage losses, in comparison with such

rates of default and severity of agricultural

mortgage losses in other such areas for any

period of such duration, as determined by the

Director.

(2) INTEREST RATE RISK * * *’’

Section 8.32 also states that the FCA

may not publish the risk-based capital

regulations for comment until after

February 10, 1999.

The FCA conducted an extensive

search and found usable historic

databases on loan performance during

the severe loss period of the 1980s in

the Farm Credit Bank of Texas. It then

became necessary to find a method to

extrapolate the loan loss experience in

Texas to other geographic areas of the

U.S., which had different experience

and different loss rates. The contractors

evaluated several approaches to

extrapolation in developing these

estimates of loss experience and

identifying the geographic areas of most

severe loss.

The FCA wishes to make this study

available for public comment and

suggestions. We welcome responses that

may offer: (1) Information that leads to

additional relevant data sources; (2)

suggestions that might improve use of

the study in developing risk-based

capital regulations; and (3) any other

ideas that might lead to an improved

credit risk component in the risk-based

capital regulation being developed for

Farmer Mac.

The FCA cautions commenters that

this study is based on currently

available data, which we have found to

be very limited. The FCA is making the

study available at this time solely for

informational purposes and to seek

additional input. FCA may elect to use

alternative approaches in developing

the credit risk component of the riskbased capital regulations.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 98–20131 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

for Extension; Comments Requested

July 22, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it