Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Notices 21223 

1982 planning rule. The Kaibab 

National Forest has concluded that most 

of the materials developed for the plan 

revision process to date are appropriate 

for continued use in the revision 

process. The following foundation 

documents are available at: http://

fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/plan_rev_docs. 

• The Comprehensive Evaluation 

Report (CER) that was signed April 14, 

2010, after substantial public 

collaboration forms the basis for need to 

change the existing Forest Plan and the 

proposed action for the plan revision. 

• The CER supplementary document, 

which supplemented the CER with 

additional information to conform to the 

Analysis of Management Situation 

(AMS) need for change provisions of the 

1982 planning rule, dated April 16, 

2010. 

• The Ecological Sustainability 

Report (ESR), completed in December 

2008, will continue to be used as a 

reference in the planning process as 

appropriate to those items in 

conformance with the 2000 planning 

rule transition language and 1982 

planning rule provisions. It primarily 

contains scientific information that is 

not affected by the change of planning 

rule. This information will be updated 

with any new available information. 

• The Social and Economic 

Sustainability Report completed in 

August 2008 is not affected by the 

change in planning rule and will 

continue to be used as a reference in the 

planning process. This information will 

be updated with new information as it 

is available. 

Additional background reports, 

assessments, and information will be 

used, some of which is available on the 

Kaibab National Forest at: http://

fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/plan_revision. 

As necessary or appropriate, the 

material listed above will be further 

adjusted as part of the planning process 

using the provisions of the 1982 

planning rule. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600–1614; 36 CFR 

219.35 (74 FR 67073–67074). 

Dated: April 16, 2010. 

Michael R. Williams, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9425 Filed 4–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD 

INVESTIGATION BOARD 

[Docket No. CSB–10–01] 

National Academy of Sciences Study 

AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Fiscal Year 2010 

appropriations legislation for the 

Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board (CSB) provides 

funding for a study by the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine 

the use and storage of methyl 

isocyanate, including the feasibility of 

implementing alternative chemicals or 

processes and an examination of the 

cost of alternatives at the Bayer 

CropScience facility in Institute, West 

Virginia. With this notice, the CSB is 

outlining the scope of the study to be 

undertaken by the NAS and requesting 

public comments regarding the study. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by the CSB on or before May 

10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments, identified by docket number 

CSB–10–01, by either of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail (preferred): 

nascomments@csb.gov. Include CSB– 

10–01 in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board, Office of 

Congressional, Public, and Board 

Affairs, Attn: D. Horowitz, 2175 K 

Street, NW., Suite 650, Washington, DC 

20037. 

Instructions: All comment 

submissions must include the agency 

name and docket number. All comments 

received, including any personal 

information provided, will be made 

available to the public without 

modifications or deletions. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

electronically, including acceptable file 

formats, see the ‘‘Electronic Submission 

of Comments’’ heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Comments received by 

the CSB will be posted online in the 

Open Government section of the CSB 

Web site, http://www.csb.gov/ 

open.aspx. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Daniel Horowitz, Director of 

Congressional, Public, and Board 

Affairs, at (202) 261–7613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Bayer CropScience Incident 

On August 28, 2008, a fatal explosion 

and fire occurred at the Bayer 

CropScience (BCS) plant located in 

Institute, West Virginia. The explosion 

occurred during the restarting of the 

plant’s methomyl production unit, 

when highly toxic and reactive 

methomyl waste was overloaded into a 

residue treater vessel. A violent 

runaway reaction ruptured the 5,000- 

pound vessel and sent it through the 

production unit, breaking pipes and 

equipment. The explosion and resulting 

chemical release and fire fatally injured 

two employees. Six volunteer 

firefighters and two others showed 

likely symptoms of chemical exposure. 

The blast wave damaged businesses 

thousands of feet away. 

Congressional Testimony 

On April 21, 2009, John S. Bresland, 

Chairman of the CSB, testified before 

the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee regarding the CSB’s ongoing 

investigation at the BCS site. Chairman 

Bresland testified that the CSB 

investigation had revealed significant 

lapses in process safety management. 

Plant operators had received inadequate 

training on a new computer control 

system, which was being used for the 

first time. Written operating procedures 

were outdated and could not be 

followed during startups, due to 

longstanding equipment problems. The 

heater for the residue treater was known 

to be undersized. This regularly forced 

operators to defeat critical safety 

interlocks during startups—increasing 

the chance of dangerously overloading 

the treater with methomyl. 

Chairman Bresland also stated that 

the blast could have propelled the 

residue treater in any direction. About 

80 feet from the original location of the 

treater, there was a 37,000-pound 

capacity tank of methyl isocyanate 

(MIC), which held 13,800 pounds of the 

highly toxic and volatile liquid on the 

night of the accident. Chairman 

Bresland announced that the CSB was 

further investigating whether this tank 

was located in a safe position and 

whether alternative arrangements to 

using or storing MIC had been 

considered at Bayer, or should be 

considered in the future. 

Interim Public Meeting 

On April 23, 2009, the CSB 

investigation team presented its initial 

findings to the Board at a public 

meeting in Institute, West Virginia. In 

its presentation the CSB team stated that 

it planned to conduct further studies on 

how MIC was used and stored at the 

facility, in light of the preliminary 

findings. 

Bayer Announcement 

In August 2009, Bayer officials 

announced a plan which they said 

would reduce both the maximum and 

the average inventory of MIC at the 

Institute site by approximately 80%. 

This would be accomplished in part by 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

21224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Notices 

1Congress appropriated $600,000 for conducting 

the study. 

2On December 3, 1984, the uncontrolled release 

of MIC from an underground storage tank at a 

Union Carbide pesticide manufacturing facility in 

Bhopal, India, killed thousands of residents and 

disabled or injured thousands of others. 

3The facility was constructed in the 1940’s and 

was developed as a carbamate pesticide 

manufacturing complex by Union Carbide, which 

owned the facility from 1947–1986. Bayer 

CropScience acquired the facility in 2002. 

4The methomyl production unit was heavily 

damaged in the August 2008 explosion. Bayer opted 

not to rebuild the unit but to begin purchasing 

methomyl from other sources and convert it into 

thiodicarb (Larvin) at the Institute site. The 

conversion of methomyl to thiodicarb does not use 

MIC. 

5On December 31, 2009, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency revoked all tolerances for the 

pesticide, having determined that ‘‘dietary, worker, 

and ecological risks are unacceptable for all uses of 

carbofuran.’’ 

eliminating the on-site production of 

two MIC-derived carbamate pesticides, 

and in part by restricting the inventory 

of MIC needed for producing two 

remaining pesticides. Bayer officials 

also stated the company would end the 

bulk storage of MIC in aboveground 

tanks, including the 37,000-pound 

capacity MIC tank that was near the 

August 2008 explosion site. That tank, 

as noted in Congressional testimony in 

April, was exposed to potential 

projectiles and other hazards from the 

explosion. 

Congressional Appropriations 

On October 30, 2009, the President 

signed the Fiscal Year 2010 

appropriations legislation for the CSB. 

See Public Law 111–88, 123 Stat. 2949. 

This legislation contained the following 

language regarding the CSB’s ongoing 

investigation of the Bayer CropScience 

incident, ‘‘Provided further, That of the 

funds appropriated under this heading, 

$600,000 shall be for a study by the 

National Academy of Sciences to 

examine the use and storage of methyl 

isocyanate including the feasibility of 

implementing alternative chemicals or 

processes and an examination of the 

cost of alternatives at the Bayer 

CropScience facility in Institute, West 

Virginia.’’ Public Law 111–88, 123 Stat. 

2950. 

Proposed Study 

In order to accomplish the study 

called for by the CSB’s appropriations 

legislation, the agency has drafted the 

following task statement for the NAS: 

Proposed Task Statement for National 

Academy of Sciences Study on 

‘‘Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: 

The Use of Methyl Isocyanate at Bayer 

CropScience’’ 

Public Law 111–88 (the Department of 

the Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010) 

directs the Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board (CSB) to conduct ‘‘a 

study by the National Academy of 

Sciences to examine the use and storage 

of methyl isocyanate including the 

feasibility of implementing alternative 

chemicals or processes and an 

examination of the cost of alternatives at 

the Bayer CropScience facility in 

Institute, West Virginia.’’ 1

The study is needed because of 

concerns about the potential for an 

airborne release of the chemical, which 

is highly toxic by inhalation and could 

adversely impact the health and safety 

of workers and the public in West 

Virginia’s Kanawha Valley.2 Depending 

upon the progress of the study, the 

availability of funding, and other 

factors, the CSB may contract for a 

second, related study to examine 

inherently safer technology (IST) 

alternatives to other high-volume toxic 

chemicals used in industry. 

For a number of years, the Bayer 

facility in Institute 3 has stored 

approximately 200,000 pounds of 

methyl isocyanate (MIC), which has 

been used as an intermediate to produce 

carbamate pesticides, including 

carbofuran, carbaryl, aldicarb, 

methomyl, and thiodicarb (Larvin). It is 

the only remaining site in the U.S. 

which manufactures and stores large 

quantities of MIC. In August 2009, one 

year after a serious explosion and fire 

near an aboveground MIC storage tank, 

Bayer announced a plan to reduce the 

maximum inventory of MIC at the 

Institute site by 80% and to eliminate 

aboveground storage of the chemical. 

This plan, which is currently being 

implemented, would leave 

approximately 40,000 pounds of MIC 

stored underground at the site on an 

ongoing basis. To achieve the inventory 

reduction, Bayer plans to use its existing 

carbamate manufacturing technology 

but to discontinue the production of two 

MIC-derived carbamate pesticides, 

methomyl 4 and carbofuran.5

Tasks 

The National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) study will focus on further riskreduction opportunities, above and 

beyond the envisioned 80% reduction 

in MIC inventory. To perform the study, 

the NAS shall convene an expert panel 

with diverse representation, including 

individuals with industry, academic, 

community, environmental, and labor 

experience and backgrounds. The expert 

panel shall produce a detailed written 

report and recommendations on the 

following subjects: 

1. Review and evaluate the state of the 

art in inherently safer process 

assessments and implementation: 

• Provide a working definition of 

Inherently Safer Technology (IST), as 

the term applies to the chemical 

industry and other process industries. 

• Review and evaluate current 

practices for inherently safer process 

assessments, including the goals and 

applicability of these tools. Specifically, 

do existing methods adequately account 

for all the potential life-cycle benefits 

and risks from adopting inherently safer 

technologies? 

• Review and evaluate current 

economic valuation methods for 

estimating the cost of alternative 

chemicals and processes. Specifically, 

do these methods accurately estimate 

capital investment costs, operating 

costs, and payback periods? 

• Review and evaluate current 

standards and metrics for measuring the 

effectiveness of inherently safer 

technology applications in the chemical 

and process industries. 

• Review and evaluate the impact of 

existing State and local regulatory 

programs that seek to promote 

inherently safer processes, such as the 

Industrial Safety Ordinance in Contra 

Costa County, California, and the Toxic 

Catastrophe Prevention Act in New 

Jersey. 

• Provide guidance on best practices 

for inherently safer process assessments, 

metrics, and IST cost evaluation 

methods. 

2. Examine the use and storage of MIC 

at the Bayer CropScience facility in 

Institute, West Virginia: 

• Review the current industry 

practice for the use and storage of MIC 

in manufacturing processes, including a 

summary of changes adopted by 

industrial users of MIC following the 

1984 Bhopal accident. 

• Review current and emerging 

technologies for producing carbamate 

pesticides, including carbaryl, aldicarb, 

and related compounds. The review 

should include: 

—Synthetic methods and patent 

literature. 

—Manufacturing approaches used 

worldwide for these materials. 

—Manufacturing costs for different 

synthetic routes. 

—Environmental and energy costs and 

tradeoffs for alternative approaches. 

—Any specific fixed-facility accident or 

transportation risks associated with 

alternative approaches. 

—Regulatory outlook for the pesticides, 

including their expected lifetime on 

the market. 

• Identify the best possible 

approaches for eliminating or reducing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Notices 21225 

the use of MIC in the Bayer carbamate 

pesticide manufacturing processes, 

through, for example, substitution of 

less hazardous intermediates, 

intensifying existing manufacturing 

processes, or consuming MIC 

simultaneously with its production. 

Examine these approaches using the 

best practices for inherently safer 

process assessment identified under 

Task 1. 

• Estimate projected costs of 

alternative approaches identified above. 

• Compare the inherently safer 

process assessments conducted by Bayer 

and previous owners of the Institute site 

with benchmarks established under 

Task 1. 

Deliverables 

For each task, the NAS shall provide 

a monthly progress report to the CSB 

from inception to completion. The NAS 

should promptly notify the CSB of any 

problems encountered or other matters 

that require CSB attention. 

The principal deliverable item is a 

detailed written report of the expert 

panel addressing each point in Tasks 1 

and 2, above. The report should be 

produced within 12 months of the 

initiation of the project. The panel may 

conduct public hearings in West 

Virginia, or elsewhere, as appropriate. 

Questions for Public Comment 

1. Does the proposed Task Statement 

include the appropriate topics for 

consideration by the NAS? Are there 

any additional general or specific topics 

the NAS panel will need to consider in 

order to reach a satisfactory answer on 

the feasibility and costs of reducing the 

use and storage of MIC? 

2. If funds are available, should the 

CSB initiate a second, related study to 

consider the feasibility, costs, and 

benefits of inherently safer alternatives 

to other chemicals? For example, should 

a study consider alternatives to the use 

of hydrogen fluoride in refinery 

alkylation processes and/or to the use of 

chlorine in water treatment? What other 

chemicals or processes should be 

considered if a second study is 

undertaken? 

3. What kinds of backgrounds and 

expertise should be represented on the 

NAS panel? 

4. Is the proposed timetable 

appropriate? 

Electronic Submission of Comments 

Electronic submission of comments is 

preferred. Comments should be 

submitted by e-mail to 

nascomments@csb.gov. Comments may 

be submitted in the body of the e-mail 

message or as an attached PDF, MS 

Word, or plain text ASCII file. Files 

must be virus-free and unencrypted. 

Please ensure that the comments 

themselves, whether in the body of the 

e-mail or attached as a file, include the 

docket number (CSB–10–01), the agency 

name, and your full name and address. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(F), (N); 

Pub. L. 111–88, 123 Stat. 2950. 

Dated: April 19, 2010. 

Christopher W. Warner, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9422 Filed 4–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6350–01–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the Utah Advisory Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights (Commission), and the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), that a planning meeting of the 

Utah Advisory Committee to the 

Commission will convene by conference 

call at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 6, 

2010. The purpose of this meeting is to 

provide a brief overview of recent 

Commission and regional activities, 

discuss civil rights issues in the state, 

hear from a subcommittee on the Utah 

Anti-Discrimination Division’s state 

audit report, and plan future activities 

and projects. 

This meeting is available to the public 

through the following toll-free call-in 

and conference ID numbers: 1–866– 

364–8798; conference ID 70344123. Any 

interested member of the public may 

call this number and listen to the 

meeting. Callers can expect to incur 

charges for calls they initiate over 

wireless lines, and the Commission will 

not refund any incurred charges. Callers 

will incur no charge for calls they 

initiate over land-line connections to 

the toll-free telephone number. Persons 

with hearing impairments may also 

follow the proceedings by first calling 

the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977– 

8339 and providing the Service with the 

conference call number and conference 

ID. 

To ensure that the Commission 

secures an appropriate number of lines 

for the public, persons are asked to 

register by contacting Evelyn Bohor of 

the Rocky Mountain Regional Office and 

TTY/TDD (303) 866–1049 by noon on 

May 3, 2010. 

Members of the public are entitled to 

submit written comments. The 

comments must be received in the 

regional office by June 7, 2010. The 

address is: U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 

1961 Stout Street, Suite 240, Denver, CO 

80294. Comments may be e-mailed to 

ebohor@usccr.gov. Records generated by 

this meeting may be inspected and 

reproduced at the Rocky Mountain 

Regional Office, as they become 

available, both before and after the 

meeting. Persons interested in the work 

of this advisory committee are advised 

to go to the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the 

Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the 

above e-mail or street address. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission and 

FACA. 

Dated in Washington, DC, 19 April 2010. 

Peter Minarik, 

Acting Chief, Regional Programs 

Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9383 Filed 4–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Title: 2008 Panel of the Survey of 

Income & Program Participation, Wave 7 

Topical Modules. 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0944. 

Form Number(s): SIPP–28705(L) 

Director’s Letter; SIPP/CAPI Automated 

Instrument; SIPP28003 Reminder Card. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden Hours: 143,303. 

Number of Respondents: 94,500. 

Average Hours per Response: 30 

minutes. 

Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census 

Bureau requests authorization from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to conduct the Wave 7 interview 

for the 2008 Panel of the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation 

(SIPP). The core SIPP and reinterview 

instruments were cleared under 

Authorization No. 0607–0944. 

The SIPP represents a source of 

information for a wide variety of topics 

and allows information for separate 

topics to be integrated to form a single 

and unified database so that the 

interaction between tax, transfer, and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES