18364 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Lynn Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 372 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 372

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

§ 372.65 [Amended]

2. In § 372.65(c) by adding the

following language to the copper

compounds listing ‘‘except copper

phthalocyanine compounds that are

substituted with only hydrogen and/or

bromine and/or chlorine that meet the

following molecular structure

definition:

where R = H and/or Br and/or Cl only.’’

[FR Doc. 95–8874 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 763

[OPPTS–62121A; FRL–4914–6]

Asbestos-Containing Materials in

Schools; State Request for Waiver

From Requirements; Notice of Final

Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final decision on

requested waiver.

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final decision

which approves the request of Louisiana

for a waiver from the requirements of 40

CFR part 763, subpart E, AsbestosContaining Materials in Schools.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the complete

waiver application submitted by the

State is available from the TSCA Public

Docket Office. A copy is also on file and

may be reviewed at the EPA Region 6

office in Dallas, Texas.

TSCA Docket Receipt (7407), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Rm.

NE–B607, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

EPA, Region 6 (6T–PT), 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James B. Willis, Acting Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Rm. E–543B, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554–1404,

TDD: (202) 554–0551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is issued under the authority of

Title II of the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2641, et seq.

TSCA Title II was enacted as part of the

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response

Act 1986 (AHERA), Pub. L. 99519.

AHERA is the abbreviation commonly

used to refer to the statutory authority

for EPA’s rules affecting asbestos in

schools and will be used in this

document. EPA issued a final rule in the

Federal Register of October 30, 1987 (52

FR 41846), the Asbestos-Containing

Materials in Schools Rule (the Schools

Rule, 40 CFR part 763, subpart E),

which requires all Local Education

Agencies (LEAs) to identify asbestoscontaining building materials (ACBMs)

in their school buildings and to take

appropriate actions to control the

release of asbestos fibers.

Under section 203 of AHERA, EPA

may, upon request by a State Governor

and after notice and comment and

opportunity for a public hearing in the

State, waive in whole or part the

requirements of the Schools Rule, if the

State has established and is

implementing or intends to implement

an ongoing program of asbestos

inspection and management which is at

least as stringent as the requirements of

the rule. Section 763.98 (40 CFR 763.98)

sets forth the procedures to implement

this statutory provision. The Schools

Rule requires that specific information

be included in the waiver request

submitted to EPA, establishes a process

for reviewing waiver requests, and sets

forth procedures for oversight and

rescission of waivers granted to States.

The Agency encourages States to

establish and manage their own school

regulatory programs under the AHERA

waiver provisions.

EPA issued a notice in the Federal

Register of February 18, 1993 (58 FR

8926), which announced the receipt of

a waiver request from the State of

Louisiana, and solicited comments from

the public. The notice also discussed

the program elements of the State

program, listed differences between the

State program and the AHERA

requirements, and provided EPA’s

preliminary response to the State on the

differences identified.

No comments were received during

the 60–day comment period. No request

for a public hearing was received.

Consequently, no hearing was held.

EPA is required to issue a notice in

the Federal Register announcing its
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 18365

decision to grant or deny a request for

waiver within 30 days after the close of

the comment period. The comment

period for this docket closed April 19,

1993. The 30–day review period may be

extended if mutually agreed upon by

EPA and the State. EPA and Louisiana

mutually agreed to extend the review

period.

The remainder of this document is

divided into two units. The first unit

discusses the Louisiana program and

sets forth the reasons and rationale for

EPA’s decision on the State’s waiver

request. This unit is subdivided into

three sections. Section A discusses key

elements of the State’s program at the

time the waiver request was submitted.

Section B enumerates the differences

EPA noted between the State’s program

and the AHERA requirements as

discussed in the February 18, 1993

Federal Register notice, and sets out the

State’s response to those differences

which EPA subsequently received.

Section C gives EPA’s final approval of

the waiver request based on the State’s

response. The second unit of this notice

discusses statutory requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

I. The Louisiana Program

A. Program Elements

Louisiana Revised Statutes RS

30:2341-2345 and the Asbestos and

Hazardous Material Detection Program

RS 40:1749.1 give the Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

(LDEQ) the authority to regulate

asbestos in schools and State buildings.

Provisions in Louisiana’s revised

statutes, RS 30:2054, give the LDEQ the

authority to regulate sources of air

contaminants. The Louisiana

Administrative Code (LAC), Title 33,

Part III, Chapter 27 and Appendix A to

Chapter 27 contain the State provisions

for asbestos inspections and

management in schools and State

buildings. LAC 33:III.5151 contains the

State provisions for training and

accreditation of persons conducting

asbestos activities in facilities.

The LDEQ conducts inspections to

ensure compliance with the above

statutes and regulations. LDEQ reviews

the management plans submitted for

schools and State buildings. The

requirements of the Louisiana Program

are at least as stringent as the Federal

AHERA requirements. Most of the State

requirements are, in fact, more stringent

than the Federal requirements in that

they are applied to all State buildings

rather than just to schools as in the

Federal rule.

B. Resolution of Differences Between

State and AHERA

In the February 18, 1993, Federal

Register notice, EPA gave its

preliminary comments regarding the

differences between the Louisiana and

AHERA requirements. EPA’s

preliminary comments identified four

differences that needed to be addressed

before July 29, 1994. In a letter on July

28, 1994, LDEQ informed EPA of its

correction of those portions of the

State’s program. Following are the four

differences between the Federal

requirements and the State’s program

which were listed in the February 18,

1994 Federal Register notice and the

corresponding responses by the LDEQ:

1. The State’s definition of school

building does not specifically mention

‘‘any portico or covered exterior hallway

or walkway’’ and ‘‘any exterior portion

of a mechanical system used to

condition interior space.’’

LDEQ response: To address this item

the State has expanded its definition of

school building to include, any portico

or covered exterior hallway or walkway

and any exterior portion of a mechanical

system used to condition interior space.

2. The State’s procedures to be

followed for any operations and

maintenance activities disturbing friable

ACBMs do not include the statement

‘‘place the asbestos debris and cleaning

materials in a sealed leak-tight

container.’’

LDEQ response: The State has

expanded its Operations and

Maintenance Activities by adding LAC

33:III.2719.D.6: ‘‘Place the asbestos

debris and other cleaning materials in

sealed, clear, leak-tight containers.’’

3. Submission of a management plan

for a building that an LEA begins to use

as a school building is not required by

the State’s program prior to the

building’s use as a school.

LDEQ response: To address this

concern, LAC 33:III.2723.A.3 has been

modified as follows: ‘‘If a local

education agency or the state

government begins to use a building as

a school building or state building more

than 90 days after promulgation of this

regulation, the local education agency or

the state government shall submit a

management plan for the school

building or state building to the

Department of Environmental Quality

prior to its use as a school or state

building. Each plan developed or

modified after June 20, 1994 must

include Form AAC-8, Required

Elements for Management Plans.’’

4. Warning labels are required by the

State rule to be attached immediately

adjacent to any ‘‘accessible’’ friable and

nonfriable ACBM and suspected ACBM

assumed to be asbestos-containing

material located in routine maintenance

areas. The Federal rule does not limit

the warning label requirements to

ACBM which is accessible.

LDEQ response: The State has

modified LAC 33:III.2727.A by

removing the word ‘‘accessible’’ from

the regulation.

Since the State application for waiver

and the Federal Register notice of

February 18, 1993, EPA published a

revision to its Asbestos Model

Accreditation Plan (MAP). The Asbestos

Model Accreditation Plan; Interim Final

Rule was published on February 3, 1994

(59 FR 5236). This MAP required that

each State adopt an accreditation plan

that is at least as stringent as this MAP

within 180 days after the

commencement of the first regular

session of the legislature of the State

that is convened on or after April 4,

1994. The Louisiana Legislature

convened on April 25, 1994. Therefore

the 180–day period expired on October

22, 1994. In a letter of December 1,

1994, LDEQ submitted copies of the

State’s accreditation regulations and

stated its position that Louisiana’s

Accreditation Program meets or exceeds

the U.S. EPA Model Accreditation Plan.

Revised copies of LAC 33:III, Chapter 27

and LAC 33:III.5151 were submitted to

support that position.

C. EPA’s Decision on Louisiana’s

Request for Waiver

EPA grants the State of Louisiana a

waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR

part 763, subpart E, effective 30 days

after publication of this Notice of Final

Decision. Federal jurisdiction shall be in

effect in the period between the date of

publication of this document and the

effective date. This will assure that the

State has sufficient time to prepare to

assume its new responsibilities. It will

also assure the public that no gap in

authority occurs, and gives the public

sufficient notice of the transfer of duties

from EPA to the State of Louisiana. This

waiver is applicable to all schools

covered by AHERA in the State and is

subject to rescission under 40 CFR

763.98(j) based on periodic EPA

oversight evaluation and conference

with the State in accordance with 40

CFR 763.98(h) and 763.98(i).

II. Other Statutory Requirements

The reporting and recordkeeping

provisions relating to State waivers from

the requirements of the AsbestosContaining Materials in Schools Rule

(40 CFR part 763) have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
18366 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Reduction Act and have been assigned

OMB control number 2070–0091.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 763

Environmental protection, Asbestos,

Asbestos in schools (AHERA),

Hazardous substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, State and

local governments, Worker protection.

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Jane Saginaw,

Regional Administrator, Region VI.

[FR Doc. 95–8873 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 401, 403, and 404

[OST Docket No. 50248]

[CGD 92–072]

RIN 2105–AC21

Great Lakes Pilotage Rate

Methodology

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation (the Department) is

amending the regulations concerning

Great Lakes pilotage by amending the

procedures for determining Great Lakes

pilotage rates, and revising the financial

reporting requirements mandated for

Great Lakes pilot associations. The

purpose of these changes is to improve

the ratemaking process. This final rule

does not change the existing Great Lakes

pilotage rates and charges.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 12,

1995. Comments must be received on or

before May 11, 1995. Late-filed

comments will be considered only to

the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent,

preferably in triplicate, to Docket Clerk,

OST Docket No. 50248, U.S. Department

of Transportation, 400 7th St. SW., room

PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.

Comments will be available for

inspection at this address from 9 a.m. to

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Commenters who wish the receipt of

their comments to be acknowledged

should include a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with their

comments. The Docket Clerk will datestamp the postcard and mail it back.

Unless otherwise indicated, documents

referred to in this preamble are also

available for inspection or copying at

this address. Comments should not be

sent to the Coast Guard docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott A. Poyer, Project Manager,

Merchant Vessel Personnel Division,

Office of Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection (G-MVP/12)

room 1210, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20593–0001, (202) 267–

6102, or Steven B. Farbman, Office of

the Assistant General Counsel for

Regulation and Enforcement, 400 7th St.

SW., room 10424, Washington, DC

20590, (202) 366–9306.

Regulatory History

On December 7, 1988, the Department

of Transportation published the Great

Lakes Pilotage Study Final Report (1988

DOT Pilotage Study). The study

revealed weaknesses in accounting for

the expenses incurred by the pilot

associations and the need to formally

establish the factors used in establishing

pilotage rates. On April 25, 1990, the

Coast Guard published a final rule (55

FR 17580) establishing improved audit

requirements and general guidelines

and procedures to be followed in

ratemaking (CGD 92–072).

In May 1990, the Inspector General

(IG) for the Department of

Transportation initiated an audit of

Coast Guard oversight of Great Lakes

pilotage. The final report of the audit

(Audit of the U.S. Coast Guard’s

Oversight and Management of the Great

Lakes Pilotage Program), detailing

further issues affecting the basis for

Great Lakes pilotage rates, was issued

on December 14, 1990.

On August 2, 1991, a DOT Task Force

was formed to: (1) Develop an interim

rate adjustment; and (2) establish a new

pilotage ratemaking methodology. On

June 5, 1992, an interim rate increase

was published (CGD 89–104). The DOT

Task Force then developed a new

pilotage ratemaking methodology,

which the Coast Guard published in a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

(59 FR 17303) dated April 12, 1994.

The NPRM proposed to amend the

Great Lakes pilotage regulations by

establishing new procedures for

determining Great Lakes pilotage rates

and revising the financial reporting

requirements mandated for Great Lakes

pilot associations (CGD 92–072). The

NPRM also announced a public hearing

that was held in Cleveland, OH on May

20, 1994. The comment period for the

NPRM ended on July 11, 1994.

In response to the NPRM and the

public hearing, the Coast Guard

received 31 comments and two requests

for additional public meetings to

explain the proposals contained in the

NPRM. In the Federal Register (59 FR

18774) on April 20, 1994, the Coast

Guard announced that it would conduct

two public meetings. The first public

meeting was held in Chicago, IL on May

3, 1994. The second public meeting was

held in Massena, NY on May 5, 1994.

The Coast Guard also received one

request to extend the comment period

for the NPRM. Because the comment

period for the NPRM was 90 days, the

Coast Guard determined that there was

sufficient time to submit comments.

Therefore, the comment period was not

extended.

Background and Purpose

Under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of

1960 (Pub. L. 86–555, 46 U.S.C. 9301 et

seq.) (the Act), vessels of the United

States operating on register and foreign

vessels must engage a U.S. or Canadian

registered pilot when traversing the

waters of the Great Lakes. The Act vests

the Secretary of Transportation with

responsibility for setting pilotage rates.

Section 9303 of the Act provides that

the Secretary shall prescribe by

regulation rates and charges for pilotage

services, giving consideration to the

public interest and the costs of

providing the services. This authority,

except for the authority to enter into,

revise or amend arrangements with

Canada, has been delegated to the

Commandant of the Coast Guard by 49

CFR 1.46(a). This authority has been

further delegated to the Director, Great

Lakes Pilotage (the Director).

Currently, the navigable waters of the

Great Lakes are divided into eight

pilotage areas. United States registered

pilots, along with their Canadian

counterparts, provide pilotage services

in areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Pilotage

area 3 (the Welland Canal) is currently

a wholly-Canadian area where only

Canadian pilots provide services.

Pilotage areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 are

‘‘undesignated waters.’’ Pilotage areas 1,

5, and 7 are ‘‘designated waters.’’ Pilots

are required to direct navigation of

vessels in designated waters. Pilots are

required to be on board and available to

direct navigation in undesignated

waters. The seven U.S. pilotage areas are

grouped together into three pilotage

districts. District 1 consists of areas 1

and 2. District 2 consists of areas 4 and

5. District 3 consists of areas 6, 7, and

8. Each district has its own pilot

association.

Section 9305 of the Pilotage Act

provides that the Secretary of

Transportation, subject to the

concurrence of the Secretary of State,

may make agreements with the

appropriate agency of Canada to

prescribe joint or identical rates and