Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4021

and Liberty herbicide tolerance studies.

On February 4, 2000, the EUP was

amended to permit the planting of 5

acres in Hawaii for agronomic

observation studies. Planting dates for

all amendments mentioned above

remained the same as permitted in the

original EUP issuance and genetic

isolation and crop destruct provisions

still applied. On March 31, 2000, the

EUP was extended/amended to allow

the planting of 145 acres of field corn

to evaluate the control of European corn

borer, Southwestern corn borer, fall

armyworm and black cutworm; to

perform agronomic and herbicide

tolerance observations; and to do

breeding and observation. The program

is authorized only in the States of

Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska,

North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio,

Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, and Wisconsin. This

amendment/extension of the EUP is

effective from March 31, 2000 to March

31, 2001. This amendment/extension to

the permit is issued with the limitation

that all treated crops will be genetically

contained and destroyed or used for

research purposes only. On April 21,

2000, the EUP was extended/amended

to allow the planting of an additional

947 acres of field corn to evaluate the

control of European corn borer,

Southwestern corn borer, fall armyworm

and black cutworm; to perform

agronomic and herbicide tolerance

observations; to do hybrid production,

breeding and observation; to study

anthesis length; and to study insect

resistance management. Additional

acreage under this amendment/

extension to the program is authorized

only in the States of Hawaii, Iowa,

Minnesota, and Nebraska. This

amendment/extension of the EUP is

effective from April 21, 2000 to March

31, 2001. This amendment/extension to

the permit is issued with the limitation

that all treated crops will be genetically

contained and destroyed or used for

research purposes only. Thirteen

comments were received in reply to the

Federal Register notice announcing

receipt of this amendment/extension.

Comments raised concerns about the

labeling of food resulting from Bt corn,

food safety, pollen shed/drift

contamination of adjacent organic crops,

the development of resistance to foliar

Bt, the impact of testing on the

Hawaiian environment, the impact on

Bt corn on farmers in Puerto Rico, and

the impact to non-target insects. Based

on the information submitted, no

significant or irreversible hazards from

Cry1F corn to non-target organisms are

anticipated for the duration of this

limited acreage program. This EUP and

the extension/amendments are crop

destruct and genetically contained.

(Mike Mendelsohn; Rm. 910W16,

Crystal Mall #2; telephone number:

(703) 308–8715; e-mail address:

mendelsohn.mike@epa.gov).

Persons wishing to review these EUPs

are referred to the designated contact

person. Inquiries concerning these

permits should be directed to the

persons cited above. It is suggested that

interested persons call before visiting

the EPA office, so that the appropriate

file may be made available for

inspection purposes from 8 a.m. to 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Experimental use permits.

Dated: January 10, 2001.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–1351 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6933–5]

Accidental Release Prevention

Requirements; Risk Management

Programs Under the Clean Air Act

Section 112(r)(7); Distribution of OffSite Consequence Analysis

Information; Development of ReadOnly Information Technology System

and Qualified Researcher System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is developing two

systems for providing access to

information about the potential off-site

consequences of accidental chemical

releases from industrial facilities. One

system would provide the public with

‘‘read-only’’ access to the information in

electronic database form. The other

system would provide qualified

researchers with access to the

information in paper or electronic

database form. Both systems are

required by section 112(r) of the Clean

Air Act, as revised by the Chemical

Safety Information, Site Security and

Fuels Regulatory Relief Act

(CSISSFRRA) of 1999. In this document

we describe draft plans for these

systems and request public comment on

the plans and related issues.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to: Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,

Docket and Information Center, Ariel

Rios Building, M6102, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington

DC, 20460, Attn: Docket No. A–2000–

58. By Federal Express or Courier:

Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington DC 20460, Attn:

Docket No. A–2000–58. Comments may

be submitted on a disk in Wordperfect

or Word formats. Please submit

comments in duplicate. The draft plan

for a qualified researcher system and

supporting information used to develop

that plan and the draft plan for a ‘‘readonly’’ information system are contained

in Docket No. A–2000–58. The docket is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except

government holidays), at Waterside

Mall, Room M1500, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying. The draft

qualified researcher plan and the

supporting information are also

available on the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/ceppo or by calling the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424–

9346 (in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area, (703) 412–9810).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy McManus, Program Analyst,

(202) 564–8606, or Vanessa Rodriguez,

Chemical Engineer, (202) 564–7913,

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office, Environmental

Protection Agency (5104), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) establishes a program for the

prevention and mitigation of industrial

chemical accidents that could harm the

surrounding community and

environment. Facilities subject to the

program are required to prepare risk

management plans (RMPs) that include

an analysis of the potential off-site

consequences of hypothetical worst-case

and alternative scenario chemical

releases.

Under section 112(r)(7) as originally

enacted, RMPs—including the off-site

4022 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

consequence analysis (OCA) portions—

were to be available to the public.

However, concerns were raised that

potential Internet distribution of the

OCA portions of RMPs would pose law

enforcement and national security risks.

In response to these concerns,

CSISSFRRA was enacted in 1999.

CSISSFRRA amended the Clean Air Act

by adding a new subparagraph (H) to

section 112(r)(7).

Under CAA section 112(r)(7)(H)(ii),

EPA assessed the benefits of public

access to the OCA portions of the RMPs

and EPA’s database compiled from

those portions (‘‘OCA information’’),

while the Department of Justice (DOJ)

assessed the risks of Internet

dissemination of the same information.

Based on the assessments, both agencies

issued a rule on August 4, 2000,

governing the distribution of paper

copies of OCA information (65 FR

48108) to the public.

The rule, which is fully described and

explained in the Federal Register notice

cited above, provides two ways for the

public to obtain limited access to paper

copies of OCA information. First, at 50

or more federal reading rooms located

across the country, any member of the

public may view a paper copy of the

OCA information for the facilities

located in the jurisdiction of the Local

Emergency Planning Committee (LEPCs)

where the person lives or works. (LEPCs

are established under the federal

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and

generally cover one or more counties.)

In addition, a member of the public may

see a paper copy of the OCA

information for up to 10 facilities per

month without regard to where the

facility is located. Reading rooms may

allow the public to read and take notes

from, but not remove or mechanically

copy, the paper copies of OCA

information.

The rule’s second avenue for the

public to obtain paper copies of OCA

information is through state and local

agencies. The rule authorizes LEPCs and

related local and state agencies to

provide the public with read-only

access to a paper copy of the OCA

information for local facilities.

Apart from the rule, CSISSFRRA

provides several other avenues for the

public to access OCA information. In

particular, CAA section

112(r)(7)(H)(viii) requires EPA, ‘‘[i]n

consultation with the Attorney General

and the heads of other appropriate

Federal agencies, [to] establish an

information technology system that

provides for the availability to the

public of off-site consequence analysis

information by means of a central data

base under the control of the Federal

Government that contains information

that users may read, but that provides

no means by which an electronic or

mechanical copy of the information may

be made.’’ This provision, in short, calls

on EPA to provide public access to OCA

information for all facilities in

electronic, read-only form.

CSISSFRRA also includes a provision

for making OCA information available

to ‘‘qualified researchers.’’ CAA section

112(r)(7)(H)(vii) requires EPA , ‘‘[i]n

consultation with the Attorney General,

[to] develop and implement a system for

providing [OCA] information, including

facility identification, to any qualified

researcher, including a qualified

researcher from industry or any public

interest group.’’ That section further

provides that ‘‘[t]he system shall not

allow the researcher to disseminate, or

make available on the Internet, the

[OCA] information, or any portion of the

[OCA] information, received’’ under the

system.

II. Draft System for Public Information

Technology System

A. Description of Draft System

After consulting with DOJ and other

appropriate agencies, EPA is

considering an information technology

(IT) system that would provide the

public with read-only access to OCA

information in electronic form by means

of stand-alone or restricted computers.

The computers would contain a

database compiled from all of the RMPs

submitted to EPA. The database would

include the OCA portions of RMPs

along with information about facilities’

accident prevention programs, accident

history and emergency response plans.

An IT system computer would

provide no more than read-only access

by having all of its external

communication ports and disk drives

removed or physically disabled so that

there would be no way to attach the

computer to a printer or other external

device. Essentially, the only items on

the computer would be a monitor, hard

disk, and CD–ROM reader. There also

would be locks on the case of the

computer so that the hard drive could

not be removed and stolen, and the case

would be bolted to the desk or located

in a locked room, so that the computer

could not be stolen.

The same precautions would maintain

EPA control of the IT system’s database.

That database would not be connected

to EPA’s central database because of the

potential for hacking. However, EPA

would periodically update the IT

system’s database to keep it reasonably

current.

To make the IT system user-friendly,

EPA would equip it with software that

would allow users to query on various

types of information, such as chemical

name and industry sector. For example,

users could ask the system to pull up

the RMPs, including OCA information,

for facilities that use a particular

chemical or belong to the same industry

sector. At the same time, the software

would not allow queries on any OCA

data elements.

EPA would introduce the IT system in

one location at EPA Headquarters in

Washington, D.C. That location would

be open to the public during normal

working hours on Mondays through

Fridays. Currently, members of the

public visiting EPA’s headquarters must

sign in and show identification to gain

entry to the building. The same would

be true for users of the IT system.

B. Facility Identification Issue

An important remaining issue in

EPA’s development of an IT system is

whether the system should identify

facilities by providing the name and

address. The system would include all

of the data in the OCA sections of RMPs

(sections 2 through 5). It would also

include the information in RMPs about

prevention programs, accident history

and emergency response plans.

Members of the public using the system

would thus be able to view OCA

information in the context of a facility’s

overall risk management program. They

would also be allowed to view an

unlimited number of facilities’

information. The issue is whether the

system should reveal the names or

locations of facilities.

As noted above, EPA and DOJ issued

a rule that provides any member of the

public with read-only access to paper

copies of OCA information for facilities

in the LEPC jurisdiction where the

person lives or works and for up to 10

facilities per month regardless of where

the facility is located. The agencies

based the rule on assessments of the

risks and benefits of broad public

dissemination of OCA information,

including facility identification. The

agencies concluded that posting of a

large OCA database on the Internet

would pose a significant national

security and law enforcement risk,

while public access to OCA information

would provide significant chemical

safety benefits. The agencies thus

decided to reduce the risk of Internet

posting while preserving the public

availability of OCA information by

providing any member of the public

with read-only access to paper copies of

OCA information for a limited number

of facilities.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4023

In light of the rule and assessments

underlying it, EPA is considering

whether the IT system should include

facility identification information. A

database including that information

would provide users with an efficient

means of identifying and learning about

facilities that may put them at risk. At

the same time, such a database could

undercut the security purposes that the

rule’s limits on public access to paper

copies of OCA information are intended

to serve. A database excluding the

information, while not permitting users

to access RMPs for named facilities,

could allow users to identify and study

trends in chemical safety among

facilities using the same chemical or

process. It could also allow users to

identify facilities similar to ones for

which the user had obtained read-only

access to OCA information in paper

form. Comparing similar facilities

would allow members of the public to

assess a particular facility’s chemical

safety practices.

EPA requests comment on the issue of

whether the IT system should include

facility identification information and

how useful such a system would be

without that information. EPA also

requests comment on whether we could

address any security concerns raised by

an IT system with facility identification

information by limiting the number of

outlets for the system and adequately

securing those outlets.

III. Draft System for Qualified

Researcher Access to OCA Information

A. Description of Draft System

EPA has developed draft guidance, in

consultation with DOJ, for

implementing a qualified researcher

(QR) system. The draft guidance

describes the background of the RMP

program, CSISSFRRA and the QR

provision, the factors EPA considered

relevant to developing a QR system, and

the potential terms of the system itself.

As noted above, CSISSFRRA requires

that the QR system not allow

researchers to disseminate the OCA

information, or any portion of the OCA

information, they receive under the

system. This restriction reflects the fact

that under the system, qualified

researchers are to receive the most

comprehensive and manipulable form of

OCA information—EPA’s OCA database

containing OCA data and identification

information for all covered facilities. QR

access to EPA’s OCA database thus

entails some risk of a large OCA

database becoming broadly available,

the same risk the rule for public access

is designed to address. Consequently,

EPA has sought to develop a system that

would adequately screen applicants to

identify only bona fide researchers and

preclude the release of OCA information

in a form or to an extent that could pose

that same risk.

The system described in the draft QR

guidance contains potential criteria for

identifying a QR, including experience

in conducting research in relevant

subject matter areas and ability to

protect OCA information from

dissemination. The draft system also

calls for any QR to sign a consent

agreement acknowledging that

dissemination of OCA information

except as authorized by law is a crime

and committing the QR to protect OCA

information from unauthorized

dissemination. The draft consent

agreement provides for significant

financial penalties for failure to meets

its terms.

A copy of the draft guidance is

contained in Docket No. A–2000–58 and

may be viewed at EPA’s website or

obtained by calling the EPCRA Hotline.

The addresses and numbers for these

outlets are provided in the ‘‘Addresses’’

section of this notice.

B. Facility Identification Issue

Like the IT system, the QR system

raises an issue related to facility

identification. As noted above, a QR

will have access to OCA information,

including facility identification

information. A QR will also be subject

to the prohibition in CSISSFRRA and

the public access rule against

distributing OCA information except as

authorized by the law and regulations.

The question EPA must still address is

whether a QR should be allowed to

publish OCA data, as distinct from

‘‘OCA information,’’ for identified

facilities.

‘‘OCA information’’ is defined by

CSISSFRRA and the public access rule

as the OCA portions of RMPs and any

EPA database derived from those

portions. CSISSFRRA and the rule make

clear that while OCA information may

not be disseminated to the public except

in specified ways, there is no restriction

on the dissemination of the data

reported in the OCA portions of RMPs

so long as the data is conveyed in a

format different than the OCA portions

of RMPs or EPA’s OCA database. (The

rule captures this distinction by

defining a new term, ‘‘OCA data

elements,’’ to refer to OCA data in a

format other than the restricted RMP

and EPA database formats.) The

distinction reflects that fact that the

RMP and EPA database formats are

relatively easy to post on the Internet

and thus pose the greatest risk of broad

dissemination of a large OCA database.

At the same time, the QR provision in

CSISSFRRA provides that the system

‘‘shall not allow the researcher to

disseminate * * * the [OCA]

information, or any portion of the [OCA]

information,’’ the researcher receives

under the system. There is also concern

that a QR could potentially defeat the

purpose of the statutory and regulatory

limits on the dissemination of ‘‘OCA

information’’ by publishing OCA data

for a large number of identified

facilities. We are thus considering

whether the QR system should place

limits on a QR’s ability to publish OCA

data for identified facilities. Among the

limits being considered are a bar on

publication of OCA data for identified

facilities and a numerical limit on the

number of identified facilities for which

OCA data could be published. Under

either of these alternatives, there would

be no limit on the amount of OCA data

that a QR could publish without facility

identification. We are also considering

the alternative of not restricting the

publication of OCA data for identified

facilities.

We request comment on this issue

and the alternatives being considered

for addressing it. In particular, we

would like to know why researchers

might find it necessary to publish OCA

data for identified facilities and the

number of facilities that might be

involved. Our review of past

publications on chemical safety

indicates that much useful research on

chemical safety has been published

without naming the facilities that were

studied. We are aware, however, that

some researchers, especially those

affiliated with public interest groups,

are interested in identifying facilities in

an industry or geographical area that

have notably good or bad safety records

or programs. We are therefore interested

in receiving comments on how useful a

QR system would be if it were to

include one or the other of the

restrictions being considered.

In considering this question, it should

be noted that CSISSFRRA and the rule

prohibit ‘‘covered persons,’’ including a

QR, from publishing statewide or

national rankings of RMP facilities

based on OCA information. This

prohibition is likely to lead researchers

themselves to limit the number of

facilities they identify, with or without

OCA data. It is also worth noting that

the draft QR system defines ‘‘research’’

as more than regurgitation or

reformatting of available information.

Consequently, a QR applicant must

show that he or she needs OCA

information to learn something new,

such as industry averages and ranges. In

short, an applicant cannot obtain OCA

4024 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

information merely to publicize OCA

data. We welcome comments on

whether the QR system should include

restrictions on publication of OCA data

for identified facilities and, if so, what

those restrictions should be. We also

welcome comment on any other aspect

of the draft guidance.

Dated: December 28, 2000.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and

Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 01–1349 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–34191A FRL–6756–8]

PR Notice on Worker Risk Mitigation

for Organophosphate Pesticides;

Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of a Pesticide Registration

(PR) Notice describing EPA’s approach

for managing risk to workers who may

be exposed to organophosphate (OP)

pesticide products by mixing, loading,

applying, flagging, or otherwise

handling OP pesticides, or are exposed

to residues of these pesticides while

performing tasks in recently treated

areas. This approach generally provides

for basic protective measures such as

closed mixing and loading systems,

enclosed cab equipment, or personal

protective equipment, as well as

increased restricted-entry intervals for

occupational situations where revised

risk assessments indicate that they are

necessary and where these measures are

feasible. Further, this PR Notice outlines

the steps that EPA intends to take to

address situations where baseline

mitigation measures are not feasible, or

situations where maximum feasible

mitigation is still inadequate to protect

workers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Gwaltney, Special Review

and Reregistration Division (7508C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

305–6792; fax number: (703) 308–8041;

e-mail address:

gwaltney.jackie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. This action may, however, be

of interest to environmental, human

health, agricultural, and agricultural

worker advocates; pesticide users; and

persons who are or may be required to

conduct testing of chemical substances

under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA). Since other entities may also

be interested, the Agency has not

attempted to describe all the specific

entities that may be affected by this

action. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘ Regulations

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the

Federal Register—Environmental

Documents. You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

The OP worker risk mitigation PR

notice is available on the Home Page for

the Office of Pesticide Programs at http:/

/www.epa.gov/PR—Notices/pr2000-

9.pdf. EPA’s response to public

comments received on the August 6,

1999, draft PR notice is available at

http://www.epa.gov/PR—Notices/

draftprworker-response.htm . You may

access information about the

organophosphate pesticides at http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/op.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–34191A. EPA previously

established an official record under

docket control number OPP–34191

when the Agency published an FR

notice on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 41934)

(FRL–6093–8), announcing the

availability of the draft OP worker risk

mitigation PR notice for public

comment. The official record consists of

the documents specifically referenced in

this action, any public comments

received during an applicable comment

period, and other information related to

this action, including any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI). This official record

includes the documents that are

physically located in the docket, as well

as the documents that are referenced in

those documents. The public version of

the official record does not include any

information claimed as CBI. The public

version of the official record, which

includes printed, paper versions of any

electronic comments submitted during

an applicable comment period, is

available for inspection in the Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The PIRIB telephone number

is (703) 305–5805.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This notice announces the availability

of Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice

2000–9, which presents EPA’s approach

for managing risks from

organophosphate (OP) pesticides to

occupational users. The approach

described in this PR Notice applies to

workers who may be exposed to OP

pesticide products by mixing, loading,

applying, flagging, or otherwise

handling them, or by performing tasks

in recently treated areas. The PR Notice

outlines the six steps that EPA will

follow in assessing and managing the

human health risks of an OP pesticide,

to evaluate risks to workers and mitigate

risks of concern. It explains the

protective measures that the Agency is

recommending to reduce OP worker risk

including use of personal protective

equipment; use of engineering controls

such as closed mixing and loading

systems and enclosed cabs and cockpits;

application modifications such as

reducing the rate or frequency of

pesticide applications; mechanical

harvesting; and longer Restricted Entry

Intervals. The PR Notice also addresses

situations where the maximum feasible

mitigation still is inadequate to protect

workers, or where the baseline risk

mitigation measures are not feasible.

The guidance set forth in this PR

Notice is intended to inform

manufacturers, formulators, and users of

the type of risk management decisions

EPA is likely to develop for the OP

pesticides. These chemicals are being

reviewed by the Agency as part of the

larger process of implementing the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996

amendments to the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

and the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Implementation

of the FQPA amendments has been the