18100 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices

series of colloquia that inaugurated the

Forum guidelines development effort.

• Framework for Ecological Risk

Assessment (EPA/630/R–92/001). The

peer-reviewed Framework Report

describes basic concepts and

terminology for the ecological risk

assessment process.

• A Review of Ecological Case

Studies from a Risk Assessment

Perspective (EPA/630/R–92/005) and A

Review of Ecological Case Studies from

a Risk Assessment Perspective Volume

2 (EPA/630/R–94/003). These reports

contain 17 peer-reviewed case studies

that explore the relationship between

the ecological risk assessment process

described in the Framework Report and

several types of ecological assessment.

• Ecological Risk Assessment Issue

Papers (EPA/630/R–94/009) and Peer

Review Workshop Report on Ecological

Risk Assessment Issue Papers (EPA/630/

R–94/008). Some issue paper topics

correspond directly to sections of EPA’s

ecological risk assessment framework

(conceptual model development,

characterization of exposure, effects

characterization, and risk integration

methods), while others focus on crosscutting issues (ecological significance,

biological stressors, ecological recovery,

uncertainty, and ascertaining public

values in ecological risk assessment).

The issue papers were revised based on

comments received at an August, 1994

peer review workshop. The scientific

background information in the papers

will help provide a bridge between the

basic concepts described in the

Framework Report and the more

substantial ecological risk assessment

guidelines.

Work on the first ecological risk

guideline, based on an expansion of the

ecological risk framework, was recently

initiated. As with previously published

human health risk guidelines, the new

ecological risk assessment guideline is

intended to improve the quality of

EPA’s risk assessments, promote

Agency-wide consistency; and inform

the scientific community and the

public. Guidelines are not rules for

those outside of the Agency; they are

intended primarily for use by EPA and

contractors doing work for the Agency.

While guidelines address major issues

of concern, they do not provide detailed

‘‘how tos’’ or contain extensive

background material for novice readers.

Finally, guidelines are not programspecific; it is left to individual programs

within EPA (e.g., Superfund, pesticides)

to adapt the Agency-wide guidelines to

their own needs.

Dated: March 27, 1995.

Robert J. Huggett,

Assistant Administrator for Research and

Development.

[FR Doc. 95–8740 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[OPP–00406; FRL–4948–3]

Guidance on Issuance of Worker

Protection Standard Enforcement

Actions in Response to Personal

Protective Equipment Violations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On February 13, 1995, the

Agency distributed its ‘‘Summary

Guidance on Issuance of WPS

Enforcement Actions’’ which applied to

any violations of the Worker Protection

Standard (WPS). EPA was recently

asked to distribute further guidance

specific to enforcement of the personal

protective equipment (PPE) provisions

of the WPS. In response, the Agency

developed guidance which applies to

PPE violations the 10 factors which EPA

recommends be considered in

determining the appropriate recipients

of WPS enforcement actions. This

guidance was distributed to EPA

Regional Offices on March 30, 1995, for

transmittal to state pesticide

enforcement personnel, the intended

audience for the guidance. EPA is

publishing the March 30th guidance at

the request of a state organization.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia L. Sims, Toxics and Pesticides

Enforcement Division, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, 2245A, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:

(202) 564–4048.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

EPA is providing this document in

response to requests made for specific

guidance concerning enforcement of the

PPE provisions of the FIFRA WPS. This

summary guidance is organized

according to the 10 factors to be

considered in determining the

appropriate recipients of WPS

enforcement actions, and employers/

owners/operators’ PPE responsibilities.

II. Ten Factors for Consideration

EPA recommends that accountability

for compliance with the FIFRA WPS be

decided on a common sense, case-bycase basis. ‘‘Summary Guidance on

Issuance of WPS Enforcement Actions,’’

provided February 1995, identifies the

following 10 factors which EPA

recommends States consider when they

need to determine the appropriate

recipient(s) of a WPS enforcement

action:

1. Who has control over pesticide use;

2. Who directs pesticide use;

3. Who has control over the

agricultural establishment for posting

and other WPS-related responsibilities;

4. Who gives direction on the

agricultural establishment for posting

and other WPS-related responsibilities;

5. Who has control over the practices

used by agricultural workers on the

establishment;

6. Who directs the practices used by

agricultural workers on the

establishment;

7. Measures taken to comply with

provisions of the WPS;

8. Actions taken in response to

incidents of noncompliance;

9. History of prior violations; and

10. Ability to assure continuing

compliance with the WPS.

Documentation by employers/owners/

operators could assist them in

demonstrating to State regulatory

officials, their efforts to comply and

responses to instances of

noncompliance. The totality of the

circumstances should be considered in

each case. The 10 factors are not listed

in any order of priority; each factor

should be appropriately considered in

every case.

III. Employers/Owners/Operators PPE

Responsibilities

The 10 factors should be considered

if an employee (including workers and

handlers) does not use PPE required by

the WPS. It is essential for employers/

owners/operators to take an active role

to assure that PPE is used.

The employer/owner/operator bears

primary responsibility for WPS PPE

compliance. Employers/owners/

operators must provide, clean and

maintain PPE, and instruct employees

on its proper use. The employer/owner/

operator has a responsibility to inform

employees who do not use their PPE

that such clothing or protective gear is

required. In the case of pesticide

handlers, the responsibility to follow

label directions and use PPE properly is

a shared one with the employer.

The employer/owner/operator also

has a responsibility to take appropriate

actions if an agricultural employee does

not comply with instructions to use

PPE. If an employee does not use WPS

required PPE, appropriate supervisory

actions that could be taken by the

employer/owner/operator to achieve

compliance include warnings and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18101

nondiscriminatory discipline. If an

employer/owner/operator provides

employees with appropriate PPE,

training and supervision per the

specifications of the WPS, there should

not arise an occasion on which the

employer/owner/operator would be

subject to a WPS/PPE enforcement

action due to the individual decision of

an agricultural employee not to use the

PPE.

Enforcement officials will consider

the facts of a case before determining

how to respond to any WPS violation,

consistent with the 10 factors identified

in the Agency’s February 1995 summary

WPS enforcement guidance. EPA

recommends that accountability for

compliance be decided on a common

sense basis, and that the totality of the

circumstances be considered in each

case, including enforcement actions in

response to PPE violations.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Jesse Baskerville,

Director, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement

Division, Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 95–8726 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5187–3]

The Use of the Benchmark Dose

Approach in Health Risk Assessment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of a report titled The Use of

the Benchmark Dose Approach in

Health Risk Assessment (EPA/630/R–

94/007). This report was developed to

serve as a background document for

discussing benchmark dose applications

to noncancer risk assessment.

ADDRESSES: To obtain a single copy of

the report, interested parties should

contact the ORD Publications Office,

CERI, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, Tel: (513)

569–7562, Fax: (513) 569–7566. Please

provide your name and mailing address,

and request the document by the title

and EPA number (EPA/630/R–94/007).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clare Stine, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (8101), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:

(202) 260–6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For almost

10 years, scientists have been studying

the benchmark dose (BMD) as a

promising technique for the quantitative

assessment of noncancer health effects.

The information presented in this report

is one step in developing the basis for

an EPA consensus on the role of

benchmark methods in the quantitative

assessment of noncancer health risk.

The report presents a basic overview of

the benchmark method, which may

provide an additional quantitative

approach to current EPA practice.

The document focuses especially on

critical decisions that must be made in

deriving a BMD and applying the BMD

in risk assessment. Major decisions in

using the BMD are explained, and the

sensitivity of the final result to each

assumption is evaluated. The document

also identifies many unresolved issues

in benchmark dose application and

identifies research that may help resolve

some of these issues.

Dated: March 24, 1995.

Robert J. Huggett,

Assistant Administrator for Research and

Development.

[FR Doc. 95–8738 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5187–4]

Report on the Technical Review

Workshop on the Reference Dose for

Aroclor 1016

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of a report titled Technical

Review Workshop on the Reference

Dose for Aroclor 1016 (EPA/630/R–94/

006). This report compiles discussions

from a technical review workshop on

the reference dose for Aroclor 1016,

which was held in Washington, DC, on

May 24–25, 1994.

ADDRESSES: To obtain a single copy of

the report, interested parties should

contact the ORD Publications Office,

CERI, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, Tel: (513)

569–7562, Fax: (513) 569–7566. Please

provide your name and mailing address,

and request the document by the title

and EPA number (EPA/630/R–94/006).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clare Stine, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (8101), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:

(202) 260–6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

report includes information and

materials from a technical review

workshop organized by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk

Assessment Forum for the Agency’s

Reference Dose/Reference Concentration

(RfD/RfC) Work Group. The meeting

was held in Washington, DC, at the

Barcelo Washington Hotel on May 24–

25, 1994 (59 FR 23202).

EPA convened a balanced panel of

experts from the fields of qualitative and

quantitative effects of PCBs in humans

and animals, perinatal toxicity,

neurobehavioral effects, and hazard and

risk evaluation for data on health effects

other than cancer. EPA sought

comments from these experts on the

IRIS entry and related scientific sources.

Reviewers at the workshop were asked

to evaluate whether the reference dose

fully considered available data and if

scientifically responsible data analyses

were clearly articulated in the IRIS data

base entry. Reviewers approved some

features of the IRIS entry, and

recommended additional review and

analysis for others.

This report collects workshop papers,

including summary statements prepared

by the chairperson for each workshop

topic. Workshop participants

contributed useful recommendations for

the Agency’s Reference Dose/Reference

Concentration Work Group to consider

in re-evaluating the RfD entry on IRIS.

Dated: March 24, 1995.

Robert J. Huggett,

Assistant Administrator for Research and

Development.

[FR Doc. 95–8737 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5187–2]

Report on the Workshop on Cancer

Risk Assessment Guidelines Issues

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of a report titled Report on

the Workshop on Cancer Risk

Assessment Guidelines Issues (EPA/

630/R–94/005a). This report compiles

discussions from a technical review

workshop on the draft document titled

Draft Revisions to the Guidelines for

Carcinogen Risk Assessment (External

Review Draft; EPA/600/BP–92/003).

Highlights of reviewers’ pre-meeting

comments on the draft document are

included in the workshop report; copies

of reviewers’ comments in their entirety

are available from the National

Technical Information Service.

ADDRESSES: To obtain a single copy of

the workshop report, interested parties

should contact the ORD Publications

Office, CERI, U.S. Environmental