42692
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
64,
No.
150
/
Thursday,
August
5,
1999
/
Notices
Therefore,
it
is
exempt
from
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
as
required
for
rules
and
regulations
by
Executive
Order
12291.
Nor
is
a
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
being
prepared
under
Executive
Order
12291
for
this
determination,
since
it
is
not
a
rule.
In
addition,
this
action
is
not
a
rule
as
defined
in
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
601(
2).
Therefore,
EPA
has
not
prepared
a
supporting
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
addressing
the
impact
of
this
action
on
small
business
entities.
Finally,
the
Administrator
has
delegated
the
authority
to
make
determinations
regarding
waivers
of
Federal
preemption
under
section
209(
b)
of
the
Act
to
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation.

Dated:
July
28,
1999.
Robert
Perciasepe,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation.
[
FR
Doc.
99
 
20200
Filed
8
 
4
 
99;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL
 
6413
 
7]

National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council;
Small
Systems
Implementation
Working
Group,
Notice
of
Conference
Call
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
Under
Section
10(
a)(
2)
of
Public
Law
92
 
423,
``
The
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act,''
notice
is
hereby
given
that
a
conference
call
of
the
Small
Systems
Implementation
Working
Group
of
the
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
established
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act,
as
amended
(
42
U.
S.
C.
S300f
et
seq.),
will
be
held
on
August
24,
1999,
from
1:
00
p.
m.
to
3:
00
p.
m.
EDT.
The
call
will
be
held
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
Street
S.
W.,
Room
1132
East
Tower,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
meeting
is
open
to
the
public
to
observe,
but
seating
will
be
limited.
The
purpose
of
this
meeting
is
to
review
draft
papers
on
seven
policy
issues
related
to
small
systems.
These
papers
are
an
initial
step
towards
formulating
the
working
group's
recommendations
to
the
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council.
For
more
information,
please
contact
Peter
E.
Shanaghan,
Designated
Federal
Officer,
Small
Systems
Implementation
Working
Group,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
(
4606),
401
M
Street,
S.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
The
telephone
number
is
202
 
260
 
5813
and
the
email
address
is
shanaghan.
peter@
epa.
gov.

Dated:
July
29,
1999.
Elizabeth
J.
Fellows,
Acting
Designated
Federal
Officer,
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council.
[
FR
Doc.
99
 
20202
Filed
8
 
4
 
99;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL
 
6415
 
5]

Proposed
Settlement
Under
Section
122
(
h)
(
1)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
administrative
settlement
agreement
and
opportunity
for
public
comment
 
Pijak
Farm
and
Spence
Farm
Superfund
sites.

SUMMARY:
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
proposing
to
enter
into
an
administrative
settlement
to
resolve
certain
claims
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
as
amended
(
CERCLA).
Notice
is
being
published
to
inform
the
public
of
the
proposed
settlement
and
the
opportunity
to
comment.
This
settlement
concerns
the
Pijak
Farm
and
Spence
Farm
Superfund
Sites
in
Plumsted
Township,
Ocean
County,
New
Jersey
and
is
intended
to
resolve
the
recovery
of
certain
past
costs
incurred
by
EPA.
DATES:
Comments
must
be
provided
by
September
7,
1999.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
should
be
addressed
to
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Regional
Counsel,
290
Broadway
 
17th
Floor,
New
York,
NY
10007,
and
should
refer
to:
In
the
Matter
of
the
Pijak
Farm
and
Spence
Farm
Superfund
Sites,
Agreement
for
Recovery
of
Past
Response
Costs,
U.
S.
EPA
Index
No.
II
 
CERCLA
 
02
 
99
 
2018.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Regional
Counsel,
290
Broadway
 
17th
Floor,
New
York,
NY
10007;
Attention:
Damaris
Urdaz
Cristiano,
Esq.
Ms.
Cristiano
can
be
reached
at
(
212)
637
 
3140.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
In
accordance
with
section
122(
i)(
1)
of
CERCLA,
notice
is
hereby
given
of
a
proposed
administrative
settlement
concerning
the
Pijak
Farm
and
Spence
Farm
Superfund
Sites
located
in
Plumsted
Township,
Ocean
County,
New
Jersey.
Section
122(
h)(
1)
of
CERCLA
provides
EPA
with
authority
to
settle
certain
claims
for
response
costs
incurred
by
the
United
States
when
the
settlement
has
received
the
approval
of
the
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States
of
America.
The
settling
parties
will
pay
$
16,526.72
to
reimburse
EPA
for
past
response
costs
incurred
at
the
Pijak
Farm
and
Spence
Farm
Superfund
Sites.

Dated:
July
26,
1999.
John
S.
Frisco,
Acting
Director,
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
Division.
[
FR
Doc.
99
 
20204
Filed
8
 
4
 
99;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPPTS
 
42190B;
FRL
 
6090
 
6]

Dibasic
Esters;
Final
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
and
Testing
Consent
Order
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
Under
section
4
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA),
EPA
has
issued
a
testing
consent
order
(
Order)
that
incorporates
an
enforceable
consent
agreement
(
ECA)
with
the
Aceto
Corporation,
E.
I.
du
Pont
de
Nemours
and
Company,
and
Solutia
Inc.
(
the
``
Companies'').
The
Companies
have
agreed
to
perform
toxicity
and
dermal
penetration
rate
testing
on
dimethyl
adipate
(
CAS
No.
627
 
93
 
0)
(
DMA),
dimethyl
glutarate
(
CAS
No.
1119
 
40
 
0)(
DMG),
and
dimethyl
succinate
(
CAS
No.
106
 
65
 
0)(
DMS),
known
collectively
as
dibasic
esters
(
DBEs).
This
notice
announces
the
ECA
and
Order
for
DBEs
and
summarizes
the
terms
of
the
ECA.
DATES:
The
effective
date
of
the
ECA
and
Order
is
August
5,
1999.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information
contact:
Christine
M.
Augustyniak,
Associate
Director,
Environmental
Assistance
Division
(
7408),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
numbers:
(
202)
554
 
1404
and
TDD:
(
202)
554
 
0551;
email
address:
TSCA­
Hotline@
epa.
gov.
For
technical
information
contact:
George
Semeniuk,
Project
Manager,
OPPT­
2002­
0009­
0005
RECEIVED
OPPT
NCIC
2003
July
3
2:
06PM
42693
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
64,
No.
150
/
Thursday,
August
5,
1999
/
Notices
Chemical
Control
Division
(
7405),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
number:
(
202)
260
 
2134;
fax
number:
(
202)
260
 
8168;
e­
mail
address:
semeniuk.
george@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
This
Notice
Apply
To
Me?

The
ECA
and
Order
announced
in
this
notice
only
affect
those
companies
that
signed
the
ECA
for
DBEs:
the
Aceto
Corporation,
E.
I.
du
Pont
de
Nemours
and
Company,
and
Solutia
Inc.
However,
as
a
result
of
the
ECA
and
Order,
EPA
has
initiated
a
rulemaking
under
TSCA
section
12(
b)(
1)
which,
when
finalized,
will
require
all
persons
who
export
or
intend
to
export
DBEs
to
comply
with
the
Agency's
export
notification
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
707,
subpart
D.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Additional
Information,
Including
Copies
Of
This
Document
Or
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/.
On
the
Home
Page,
select
``
Laws
and
Regulations''
and
then
look
up
the
entry
for
this
document
under
``
Federal
Register
 
Environmental
Documents''
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/
EPA­
TOX/
1999/).
You
can
also
go
directly
to
the
Federal
Register
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
2.
In
person.
The
Agency
has
established
an
official
record
for
this
action
under
docket
control
number
OPPTS
 
42190B.
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
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
TSCA
Nonconfidential
Information
Center,
North
East
Rm.
B
 
607,
Waterside
Mall,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
Center
is
open
from
noon
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
is
(
202)
260
 
7099.

II.
Background
A.
What
Are
DBEs?

DBEs
are
component
chemicals
of
solvent
mixtures
used
in
paint
stripping
formulations
that
are
sold
to
the
general
public.
Consumers
can
be
significantly
exposed
to
DBEs
during
use
of
these
formulations.
Three
chemicals
make
up
the
class
of
chemicals
known
as
DBEs:
Dimethyl
adipate
(
DMA),
dimethyl
glutarate
(
DMG),
and
dimethyl
succinate
(
DMS).
The
Chemical
Abstract
Service
(
CAS)
registry
number
for
DMA
is
627
 
93
 
0;
for
DMG,
1119
 
40
 
0;
and
for
DMS,
106
 
65
 
0.

B.
Why
Is
EPA
Requiring
Health
Effects
Testing
On
DBEs?

The
potential
for
consumers
to
be
exposed
significantly
while
using
DBE
paint
stripping
formulations,
a
reported
adverse
human
effect
 
blurred
vision
 
that
resulted
from
the
use
of
DBE
paint
strippers,
and
the
results
of
limited
toxicity
testing
of
DBEs
on
rats
has
formed
the
foundation
for
the
Agency's
concern
for
the
potential
health
risk
that
may
be
posed
to
consumers
by
DBE
paint
strippers.

III.
ECA
Development
and
Conclusion
A.
How
Is
EPA
Going
To
Obtain
Health
Effects
Testing
On
DBEs?

EPA
uses
ECAs
to
accomplish
testing
where
a
consensus
exists
among
EPA,
affected
manufacturers
and/
or
processors,
and
interested
members
of
the
public
concerning
the
need
for
and
scope
of
testing
(
40
CFR
790.1(
c)).
In
the
March
22,
1995,
Federal
Register
(
see
VI.
A.
2.
a.
of
this
document),
EPA
invited
manufacturers
and
processors
of
DBEs
that
are
used
in
paint
strippers
to
develop
and
submit
to
EPA
specific
toxicity
testing
proposals
for
DBEs
for
the
purpose
of
negotiating
an
ECA
to
conduct
testing
under
Section
4
of
TSCA.
The
procedures
for
ECA
negotiations
are
described
at
40
CFR
790.22(
b).
In
response
to
EPA's
request
for
proposals
for
ECAs,
the
Dibasic
Esters
Group
(
the
DBE
Group)
submitted
a
proposal
for
a
testing
program
on
August
7,
1995
(
Ref.
1).
EPA
responded
to
the
DBE
Group
in
a
letter
dated
March
6,
1996,
noting
that
while
their
proposal
had
potential
merit
and
would
expand
the
knowledge
base
of
toxicity
testing
results
on
DBEs,
the
proposal
did
not
constitute
an
adequate
basis
for
proceeding
with
negotiation
of
an
ECA
(
Ref.
2).
EPA
encouraged
the
DBE
Group
to
consider
EPA's
comments
on
their
proposal
and
submit
a
revised
proposal.
On
October
22,
1996,
the
DBE
Group
submitted
a
revised
testing
proposal
(
Ref.
3).
The
Agency
concluded
that
the
revised
proposal
offered
sufficient
merit
to
proceed
with
ECA
negotiations.
Consequently,
EPA
published
a
document
soliciting
interested
parties
to
monitor
or
participate
in
these
negotiations
(
see
VI.
A.
2.
b.
of
this
document).
EPA
held
a
public
meeting
to
negotiate
an
ECA
for
DBEs
on
January
29,
1997.
Representatives
of
the
Companies
and
other
interested
parties
attended
this
meeting.
The
participants
reached
partial
consensus
on
the
testing
to
be
required
under
the
ECA
at
this
meeting
(
Ref.
4)
and
complete
consensus
during
a
teleconference
held
on
June
23,
1998
(
Ref.
5).
The
Agency,
the
Companies,
and
an
interested
party
participated
in
the
telephone
conference.
On
February
22,
1999,
EPA
received
the
ECA
signed
by
the
Companies.
On
July
28,
1999,
EPA
signed
the
ECA
and
accompanying
Order.

B.
What
Testing
Does
The
ECA
For
DBEs
Require?

This
ECA
requires
toxicity
testing
by
inhalation
and
dermal
exposure
and
dermal
penetration
rate
testing,
as
described
in
this
unit
and
in
Table
1
of
this
unit.
This
testing
will
allow
EPA
to
characterize
the
potential
hazards
resulting
from
exposure
to
DBEs
and
to
determine
if
additional
toxicity
testing
is
needed.
Table
1
of
this
unit
sets
forth
the
required
testing,
test
standards,
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
ECA
for
DBEs.
The
testing
program
has
three
segments
as
follows:
Initial
Base
Toxicity
Testing;
Program
Review
Testing;
and,
if
deemed
necessary
following
a
Program
Review,
In
Vivo
Dermal
Penetration
Rate
Testing.
For
more
information
about
the
testing
that
will
be
conducted
under
the
ECA,
copies
of
the
ECA
are
available
from
sources
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
of
this
document.
Testing
shall
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
Test
Standards
listed
in
Table
1
of
this
unit.
42694
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
64,
No.
150
/
Thursday,
August
5,
1999
/
Notices
TABLE
1.
 
REQUIRED
TESTING,
TEST
STANDARDS,
AND
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
DEBS
Description
of
Test
Test
Standard
(
40
CFR
citation
and/
or
study
protocol)
Deadline
for
final
report
(
months)
Interim
reports
required
(
number)

90­
day
Subchronic
Inhalation
Toxicity
Study
with
examination
of
special
endpoints
(
in
rats)
[
for
each
DBE;
dose
response
determined
using
DMG]
Protocol
(
based
on
799.9346,
799.9380,
799.9620,
and
incorporating
a
cell
proliferation
study)
161
22
Dermal
(
14­
day)
Toxicity
Study
(
in
rats)
[
for
each
DBE
and
for
a
3:
1:
1
mixture
of
DMG,
DMA,
and
DMS,
respectively]
Protocol
121
12
Mutagenicity:
in
vivo
rat
bone
micronucleus
assay
(
via
inhalation)
[
for
DMG
and
DMA]
Protocol
(
based
on
799.9539)
161
22
Mutagenicity:
gene
mutations
in
hamster
ovary
[
for
DMG]
Protocol
(
based
on
799.9530)
101
12
Developmental
Toxicity
(
in
rabbits
via
inhalation)
[
for
one
DBE,
selected
by
the
EPA
initial
review
process)
after
completion
of
Mutagenicity
90­
day
Subchronic
Inhalation
Toxicity
and
14­
day
Dermal
Toxicity
studies]
Protocol
(
based
on
799.9370)
123
14
In
Vitro
Dermal
Penetration
Rate
Study
[
for
DBEs
or
DBE
mixtures,
selected
by
the
EPA
initial
review
process]
Protocol
based
on
draft
OECD
Guideline
for
In
Vitro
Dermal
Penetration
123
14
In
Vivo
Dermal
Penetration
Rate
Study
[
for
DBEs
or
DBE
mixtures,
selected
by
the
EPA
Program
Review
process]
870.7485
125
16
1
Number
of
months
following
the
effective
date
of
the
Order.
2
Interim
reports
are
required
every
6
months
from
the
effective
date
of
the
ECA,
unless
otherwise
noted,
until
the
final
report
is
submitted.
This
number
indicates
the
number
of
interim
reports
required
for
each
test
based
on
the
deadline
set
forth
in
the
preceding
column.
3
Number
of
months
beginning
60
days
after
the
date
of
the
EPA
letter
containing
the
decisions
resulting
from
EPA's
Initial
Review
(
see
VI.
B.
of
the
ECA).
4
Interim
reports
are
required
every
6
months
beginning
60
days
after
the
date
of
the
EPA
letter
containing
decisions
of
the
initial
review,
until
the
final
report
is
submitted.
This
column
shows
the
number
of
interim
reports
required
for
each
test
based
on
the
deadlines
set
forth
in
the
preceding
column.
5
Number
of
months
beginning
60
days
after
the
date
of
the
EPA
letter
containing
the
decisions
of
the
Program
Review
for
in
vivo
testing,
if
needed
(
see
VI.
D.
of
the
ECA).
6
Interim
reports
are
required
every
6
months
beginning
60
days
after
the
date
of
the
EPA
letter
containing
decisions
of
the
program
review,
until
the
final
report
is
submitted.
This
column
shows
the
number
of
interim
reports
required
for
the
test
based
on
the
deadline
set
forth
in
the
preceding
column.

C.
What
Are
The
Uses
For
The
Test
Data
For
DBEs?

EPA
would
use
the
data
obtained
from
testing
to
obtain
a
more
complete
toxicity
profile
of
DBEs.
Such
a
profile
will
be
used
in
comparing
the
hazards
of
paint
strippers
based
on
DBEs
to
those
of
consumer
paint
strippers
that
are
based
on
methylene
chloride,
Nmethylpyrrolidone
or
other
common
paint
stripping
solvents.

D.
What
If
EPA
Should
Require
Additional
Toxicity
Testing
On
DBEs?

If
EPA
decides
in
the
future
that
it
requires
additional
toxicity
data
on
DBEs,
the
Agency
will
initiate
a
separate
action.

IV.
Other
Impacts
Of
The
ECA
For
DBEs
The
issuance
of
the
ECA
and
Order
under
TSCA
section
4
subjects
the
Companies
that
signed
the
ECA
to
export
notification
requirements
under
TSCA
section
12(
b)(
1),
as
set
forth
at
40
CFR
part
707,
subpart
D,
if
they
export
or
intend
to
export
any
of
the
three
DBEs.
On
October
13,
1998,
in
the
Federal
Register
(
63
FR
54646,
October
13,
1998)
(
FRL
 
6029
 
8),
EPA
proposed
to
amend
40
CFR
799.5000
by
adding
DMA,
DMG,
and
DMS
to
the
list
of
chemicals
subject
to
testing
consent
orders.
The
listing
of
a
chemical
substance
at
40
CFR
799.5000
serves
as
notification
to
all
persons
who
export
or
intend
to
export
any
of
these
three
chemical
substances
that:
1.
The
chemical
substances
are
the
subject
of
an
ECA
and
Order;
and
2.
EPA's
export
notification
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
707,
subpart
D,
apply
to
those
exporters
who
have
signed
the
ECA,
as
well
as
those
exporters
who
have
not
signed
the
ECA
(
40
CFR
799.19).
When
a
final
rule
based
on
the
October
13,
1998,
proposed
rule
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
all
persons
who
export
or
who
intend
to
export
any
of
the
DBEs
will
be
subject
to
export
notification
requirements.

V.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
ECA
and
Order
announced
in
this
notice
do
not
contain
any
information
collection
requirements
that
require
additional
approval
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
information
collection
requirements
related
to
test
rules
and
ECAs
issued
under
TSCA
section
4
have
already
been
approved
by
OMB
under
OMB
control
number
2070
 
0033
(
EPA
ICR
No.
1139).
The
one­
time
public
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
5,407
hours
total.
Under
the
PRA,
``
burden''
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
For
this
collection
it
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations,
after
initial
display
in
the
final
rule,
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.
EPA
will
issue
a
final
rule
related
to
export
notification
requirements
for
DBEs.
That
rule
will
amend
the
listing
at
40
CFR
part
799,
as
well
as
the
table
at
40
CFR
part
9.
42695
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
64,
No.
150
/
Thursday,
August
5,
1999
/
Notices
VI.
Public
Record
A.
Supporting
Documentation
The
record
for
this
proceeding
contains
the
basic
information
considered
in
developing
this
ECA
and
Order
and
includes
the
following
information.
1.
Testing
Consent
Order
for
Dibasic
Esters,
with
incorporated
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
and
associated
testing
protocols
attached
as
appendices.
2.
Federal
Register
notices
pertaining
to
this
notice,
the
Testing
Consent
Order
and
the
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement,
consisting
of:
a.
Notice
of
Solicitation
of
Testing
Proposals
for
Negotiation
of
TSCA
Section
4
Enforceable
Consent
Agreements
(
60
FR
15143,
March
22,
1995)
(
FRL
 
4943
 
6).
b.
Notice
of
Public
Meeting;
Dibasic
Esters
 
Paint
Stripper
Chemicals
(
61
FR
67332,
December
20,
1996)
(
FRL
 
5578
 
9).
3.
Communications
consisting
of:
a.
Written
letters.
b.
Meeting
and
teleconference
summaries.
4.
Reports
 
published
and
unpublished
factual
materials.

B.
References
1.
Dibasic
Esters
Group.
Letter
from
Jorge
C.
Olguin
to
Charles
M.
Auer,
EPA,
Re:
Solicitation
of
TSCA
Section
4
Consent
Agreements
for
Dibasic
Esters,
with
attachment
entitled
``
Toxicity
Literature
Reviews
From
the
DuPont
Haskell
Laboratory.''
Washington,
DC.
(
August
7,
1995).
2.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA).
Letter
from
Charles
M.
Auer
to
Jorge
C.
Olguin,
Dibasic
Esters
Group
Re:
toxicity
testing
proposal
submitted
by
Dibasic
Esters
Group.
Washington,
DC.
(
March
6,
1996).
3.
Dibasic
Esters
Group.
Letter
from
Richard
E.
Opatick
to
Charles
M.
Auer,
EPA,
Re:
Data
Development
on
Dibasic
Esters.
Washington,
DC.
(
October
22,
1996).
4.
USEPA.
Summary
of
EPA
Public
Meeting
on
DBEs
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement.
Washington,
DC.
(
January
29,
1997).
5.
USEPA.
Summary
of
Teleconference
on
DBEs
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement.
Washington,
DC.
(
June
23,
1998).

List
of
Subjects
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
chemicals.
Dated:
July
28,
1999.

Susan
H.
Wayland,

Acting
Assistant
Administrator
for
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances.

[
FR
Doc.
99
 
20205
Filed
8
 
4
 
99;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
F
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[
CC
Docket
No.
92
 
237;
DA
99
 
1526]

Next
Meeting
of
the
North
American
Numbering
Council
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
On
August
2,
1999,
the
Commission
released
a
public
notice
announcing
the
August
24
and
August
25,
1999,
meeting
and
agenda
of
the
North
American
Numbering
Council
(
NANC).
The
intended
effect
of
this
action
is
to
make
the
public
aware
of
the
NANC's
next
meeting
and
its
Agenda.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Jeannie
Grimes,
at
(
202)
418
 
2313
or
via
the
Internet
at
jgrimes@
fcc.
gov.
The
address
is:
Network
Services
Division,
Common
Carrier
Bureau,
Federal
Communications
Commission,
2000
M
Street,
NW,
Suite
235,
Washington,
DC
20554.
The
fax
number
is:
(
202)
418
 
2345.
The
TTY
number
is:
(
202)
418
 
0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Released:
August
2,
1999.
The
next
meeting
of
the
North
American
Numbering
Council
(
NANC)
will
be
held
on
Tuesday,
August
24,
from
8:
30
a.
m.,
until
5:
00
p.
m.,
and
on
Wednesday,
August
25,
1998,
from
8:
30
a.
m.,
until
12
Noon.
The
meeting
will
be
held
at
the
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Portals
II,
445
Twelfth
Street,
S.
W.,
Room
TW­
C305,
Washington,
D.
C.
This
meeting
will
be
open
to
members
of
the
general
public.
The
FCC
will
attempt
to
accommodate
as
many
people
as
possible.
Admittance,
however
will
be
limited
to
the
seating
available.
The
public
may
submit
written
statements
to
the
NANC,
which
must
be
received
two
business
days
before
the
meeting.
In
addition,
oral
statements
at
the
meeting
by
parties
or
entities
not
represented
on
the
NANC
will
be
permitted
to
the
extent
time
permits.
Such
statements
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes
in
length
by
any
one
party
or
entity,
and
requests
to
make
an
oral
statement
must
be
received
two
business
days
before
each
meeting.
Requests
to
make
an
oral
statement
or
provide
written
comments
to
the
NANC
should
be
sent
to
Jeannie
Grimes
at
the
address
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT,
stated
above.

Proposed
Agenda
The
proposed
agenda
for
the
August
24
 
25,
1999,
is
as
follows:
1.
Approval
of
the
July
20
 
21,
1999
meeting
minutes.
2.
Local
Number
Portability
Administration
(
LNPA)
Working
Group
Report.
Update
on
attempt
to
lower
the
failure
rate
of
service
provider
failures
to
receive
broadcasts.
Further
discussion
of
the
Second
Report
on
Wireline
Wireless
Integration.
Update
on
finalization
of
methods
and
scope,
forms
and
process
flows
relating
to
LNP
problem
identification
(
PIM).
3.
Industry
Numbering
Committee
(
INC)
Report.
Discussion
regarding
Central
Office
Utilization
Survey
(
COCUS)
report
of
utilization
and
forecasting
data
by
resellers.
TRA
Reseller
Association
to
provide
recommendation
for
discussion.
4.
Number
Resource
Optimization
Working
Group
Report.
NANC
to
take
final
action
on
definition
of
reserved
telephone
number
and
use
of
the
term
``
legally
enforceable
written
agreement.''
Working
Group
will
address
need
to
include
in
the
recommended
practice
the
need
for
service
providers
to
notify
end
user
customers
of
changes
in
the
reserved
number
practice.
5.
Review
and
finalize
NANC
letter
to
FCC
regarding
NANC's
position
and
recommendation
concerning
the
splitting
of
rate
centers
as
part
of
a
NPA
relief
plan.
6.
NANC
obligations
under
the
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
CC
Docket
99
 
200,
(
rel.
June
2,
1999):
Issue
Management
Group
(
IMG)
report
on
recommendation
in
response
to
paragraph
38,
which
administrative
measures
should
be
adopted
as
FCC
rules.
Issue
Management
Group
report
regarding
conclusions
and
recommendations
in
response
to
paragraph
165,
examination
of
number
pooling
on
NANP
exhaust.
7.
North
American
Number
Plan
Administration
(
NANPA)
Oversight
Working
Group
Report.

Wednesday,
August
25,
1999
8.
Cost
Recovery
Working
Group
Report.
NECA
report
regarding
service
provider
revenue
reporting
for
NANPA
cost
recovery
under
FCC
98
 
71.
9.
Audit
Issue
Management
Group
(
IMG)
report
on
Lockheed
Martin
responsibility
with
regard
to
``
show
cause''
audits.
Review
and
finalization
