Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices 32621

concluded that there was ‘‘no evidence’’

of carcinogenic activity in male or

female mice administered sodium

fluoride in drinking water for 2–years.

8. Endocrine disruption. There is no

evidence from any studies to suggest

that SF or fluoride are endocrine

disrupters.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. The Dietary

Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM),

version 7.075, of Novigen Sciences, Inc.

was used to estimate the dietary

exposure to the U.S. population and

critical sub-populations resulting from

the use of SF on walnuts and raisins.

The highest potential acute exposures to

SF were to children ages 1–6 years

totaling 0.00008 mg/kg-bwt/day. The

highest potential acute exposure to

fluoride was to children ages 1–6 years

with a highest estimated exposure of

0.003 mg/kg-bwt/day. The highest

potential chronic exposures to SF was to

children ages 1–6 years resulting from

the consumption of walnuts totaling

0.000002 mg/kg-bwt/day. Likewise, the

highest potential chronic exposure to

fluoride was to children ages 1–6 years

with a highest estimated exposure of

0.00004 mg/kg-bwt/day.

i. Food. Food tolerances as inorganic

fluorine compounds exist to support the

uses of Cryolite (insecticide) on various

food and feed commodities in the U.S.

EPA, in the 1996 Cryolite RED

document conservatively estimates that

the ‘‘high-end dietary exposures to

fluoride due to all sources and routes,

(including the fluorination of water and

the potential for fluoride residues

resulting from the uses of Cryolite) are

approximately 0.085 mg/kg-bwt/day.

ii. Drinking water. There is no

anticipated exposure of SF to drinking

water. As a public health tool to aid in

the prevention of dental caries, fluoride

is added to some domestic water

supplies at generally 0.8 to 1.0 ppm.

2. Non-dietary exposure. Sulfuryl

fluoride (as Vikane specialty gas

fumigant) is presently used to fumigate

homes and other structures to control

wood infesting insects. The existing

Vikane use patterns and exposed

populations are not expected to overlap

with the intended post-harvest uses of

ProFume on stored walnuts and raisins.

D. Cumulative Effects

The primary degradation product of

SF is fluoride. The toxicity of fluoride

in various forms has been extensively

reviewed and is used as an additive in

treated water supplies, tooth pastes,

mouth rinses, and other treatments for

the prevention of dental caries. It is also

prescribed in therapeutic amounts for

the treatment of osteoporosis. Fluoride

is naturally present in both food and

water in varying amounts, and has been

added to public water supplies to fight

dental caries. The recommended

concentration of fluoride (usually as

fluorosilicic acid) in treated water

supplies is 0.8 to 1.0 ppm. The Third

Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the

U.S. says that:

Food contributes only small amounts

of fluoride and monitoring the diet for

fluoride intake is not very useful for

current public health concerns. The subpopulation most susceptible to fluoride

is children. For this reason a number of

studies have attempted to quantify the

fluoride intake from a variety of sources.

The total daily intake of fluoride from

water (used to prepare formula, juices,

and other foods) for infants ages birth to

9–months ranged to 1.73 mg with means

from 0.29 to 0.38 mg. Assuming a body

weight of 10 kg, these amounts are

equivalent to 0.03 to 0.04 mg/kg/day.

These levels of dietary exposure in

combination with the potential dietary

exposures that the proposed uses of

ProFume on stored walnuts and raisins

would represent (chronic dietary

exposures of 0.00004 mg/kg-bwt/day)

are considerably lower than the USEPA

MCLG for fluoride of 0.114 mg/kg-bwt/

day.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Aggregate risk

from exposure to SF would be minimal

because of its rapid dissipation from any

fumigated commodity and because it is

not expected to be present at the time

of food consumption. The SF residues

in fumigated foods are expected to be

non-detectable at the point of food

consumption. Furthermore, if residues

were considered as high as 2.0 ppm, the

Margin of Exposure to the most

sensitive population (children) is

estimated to be greater than 300,000

(acute) or greater than 1,000,000 for

chronic exposures. Exposure to fluoride,

the residue of interest for SF, can occur

from foods, water, and, dental

treatments. The additional fluoride

residues in raisins fumigated with SF

are indistinguishable from the natural

levels of fluoride already present and

would therefore also fall within the EPA

Threshold of Regulation Policy.

Alternatively, fluoride in walnuts are

expected to contribute to the fluoride

that is ingested, but at a levels far below

other sources, especially treated water

and dentrifices. Chronic exposure to

fluoride in walnuts and raisins (0.00004

mg/kg/day) is much lower than the EPA

MCLG of 0.114 mg/kg-bwt/day

calculated for exposure to fluorinated

water. In addition there is no directly

applicable scientific documentation of

adverse medical effects at levels of

fluorine below 0.23 mg/kg/day.

2. Infants and children. Acute

exposure from a single day consumption

of raisins and walnuts would be

approximately 0.003 mg/kg/day for a

child age 1–6 years. This value is

approximately 10,000 times lower than

the generally accepted toxic dose, and

approximately 2,500 times lower than

the accepted safe dose.

F. International Tolerances

There is no Codex maximum residue

level established for residues of fluoride

on any food or feed crop.

[FR Doc. 01–15150 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6996–3]

Preliminary Draft Staff Paper for

Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a draft for public

review and comment.

SUMMARY: On June 13, 2001, the Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS)of EPA will make available for

public review and comment a

preliminary draft document, Review of

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information (Preliminary Draft Staff

Paper). The purpose of the Staff Paper

is to evaluate the policy implications of

the key scientific and technical

information contained in a related EPA

document, Air Quality Criteria for

Particulate Matter, required under

sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) for use in the periodic review

of the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for particulate

matter (PM). The OAQPS also will make

available for public review and

comment a draft EPA document

entitled, Particulate Matter NAAQS Risk

Analysis Scoping Plan.

DATES: Comments on the preliminary

draft Staff Paper and draft Risk Analysis

Scoping Plan should be submitted on or

before July 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the

preliminary draft Staff Paper should be

submitted to Dr. Mary Ross, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards

(MD–15), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711; e-mail: ross.mary@epa.gov;

32622 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Notices

telephone: (919) 541–5170; fax: (919)

541–0237.

Comments on the draft Risk Analysis

Scoping Plan should be submitted to

Mr. Harvey Richmond, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards (MD–

15), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711; e-mail:

richmond.harvey@epa.gov; telephone:

(919) 541–5271; fax: (919) 541–0237.

Availability of Related Information

Single copies of the preliminary draft

Staff Paper and draft Risk Analysis

Scoping Plan may be obtained without

charge by contacting Mary Ross at the

address or telephone number listed

above. Please include name, address,

telephone number, e-mail if available,

and delivery preference (mail or e-mail

delivery).

Electronic Availability

The preliminary draft Staff Paper and

draft Risk Analysis Scoping Plan can

also be obtained online at the Agency’s

OAQPS Technology Transfer Network

(TTN) under the technical area of Office

of Air and Radiation Policy and

Guidance (OAR P&G), and under the

heading of ‘‘Staff Papers’’ at the

following internet web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1sp.html If

assistance is needed in accessing the

system, call the help desk at (919) 541–

5384 in Research Triangle Park, NC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Mary Ross at the address and telephone

number given above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA

is currently reviewing the NAAQS for

PM. Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA

require that EPA carry out a periodic

review and revision, where appropriate,

of the scientific criteria and the NAAQS

for ‘‘criteria’’ air pollutants such as PM.

Details of EPA’s plans for review of the

NAAQS for PM were announced in a

previous Federal Register notice (62 FR

55201, October 23, 1997). The second

external review draft of the Air Quality

Criteria for Particulate Matter was

recently made available for public

review and comment (66 FR 18929,

April 12, 2001).

The purpose of the Staff Paper is to

evaluate the policy implications of the

key scientific and technical information

contained in the Air Quality Criteria

document and identify critical elements

that EPA staff believe should be

considered in reviewing the NAAQS.

The Staff Paper is intended to ‘‘bridge

the gap’’ between the scientific review

contained in the Air Quality Criteria

document and the public health and

welfare policy judgments required of the

Administrator in reviewing the NAAQS

(Natural Resources Defense Council v.

Administrator, 902 F.2d 962, 967 (D.C.

Cir. 1990).

This preliminary draft Staff Paper

includes preliminary assessments of the

scientific and technical information

contained in the draft Air Quality

Criteria document and discusses

proposed analyses to be conducted for

inclusion in a subsequent draft Staff

Paper. Staff conclusions and

recommendations on the PM NAAQS

are not included in this preliminary

draft but will be included in a

subsequent draft to be made available

for further review and comment as

indicated below.

The draft Risk Analysis Scoping Plan

describes EPA’s plans and approach for

conducting PM health risk analyses that

will be summarized and discussed in

the next draft of the Staff Paper.

The preliminary draft Staff Paper and

draft Risk Analysis Scoping Plan, along

with the second external review draft of

the Air Quality Criteria for PM, will be

reviewed at an upcoming public

meeting of the Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s

Science Advisory Board. A future

Federal Register notice will inform the

public of the date and location of that

meeting. Following the CASAC meeting,

EPA will prepare a revised draft Staff

Paper, taking into account public and

CASAC comments, and will make the

revised draft available for further review

and comment by CASAC and the public.

Dated: June 7, 2001.

Anna B. Duncan,

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–15146 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

June 5, 2001.

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

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 16, 2001. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or

via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s), contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via the

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0331.

Title: Section 76.1803 Aeronautical

frequencies: signal list, Section 76.1804

Aeronautical frequencies: leakage

monitoring.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Estimated Time Per Response: .5

hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 600 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $54,000.

Needs and Uses: The notifications are

used by the Commission to locate and

eliminate harmful interference as it

occurs, to help assure safe operation of

aeronautical and marine radio services

and to minimize the possibility of

interference to these safety-of-life

services.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0685.

Title: Annual Updating of Maximum

Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable

Services.

Form No.: FCC Form 1240.