Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices 33277 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticide 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

Under section 18 of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the 

discretion of the Administrator, a 

Federal or State agency may be 

exempted from any provision of FIFRA 

if the Administrator determines that 

emergency conditions exist which 

require the exemption. The ASPB, the 

LDAF, the MDA, and the TDA have 

requested the Administrator to issue 

specific exemptions for the use of 

sulfoxaflor on cotton to control the TPB, 

(Lygus lineolaris) (Palisot de Beauvois). 

Information in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 166 was submitted as part of these 

requests. 

As part of these requests, the 

Applicants assert that non-chemical 

tactics only suppress populations of 

TPB and there are not effective standalone practices. Numerous insecticides 

are registered for use on cotton to 

control TPB. The Applicants state that 

varying levels of resistance have been 

documented to nearly every class of 

those compounds. The Applicants 

propose to apply no more than a total 

of 8.5 oz of the unregistered product, 

Transform WG, (0.266 lb AI of 

sulfoxaflor) per acre per year. Up to 

387,000 acres in Arkansas, 230,000 

acres in Louisiana, 467,500 acres in 

Mississippi, and 325,000 acres in 

Tennessee may be treated. The 

Applicants state that direct yield losses 

from this pest will range from 1–7.5%. 

This notice does not constitute a 

decision by EPA on the application 

itself. The regulations governing section 

18 of FIFRA require publication of a 

notice of receipt of an application for a 

specific exemption use of a new 

chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) 

which has not been registered by EPA. 

The Agency, will review and consider 

all comments received during the 

comment period in determining 

whether to issue the specific 

exemptions requested by the ASPB, the 

LDAF, the MDA, and the TDA. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: May 26, 2011. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14188 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0479; FRL–9317–1] 

Proposed Approval of the Central 

Characterization Project’s RemoteHandled Transuranic Waste 

Characterization Program at Bettis 

Atomic Power Laboratory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening 

of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

announcing the availability of, and 

soliciting public comments for 45 days 

on, the proposed approval of the 

radioactive remote-handled (RH) 

transuranic (TRU) waste 

characterization program implemented 

by the Central Characterization Project 

(CCP) at Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory 

(BAPL) in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. 

This waste is intended for disposal at 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in 

New Mexico. 

In accordance with the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the 

characterization of RH TRU debris waste 

from BAPL–CCP during a series of four 

inspections, most recently conducted on 

April 12–13, 2011. By evaluating the 

waste characterization systems and 

processes for RH waste that the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) program 

developed, EPA verified whether DOE 

could adequately characterize RH TRU 

debris waste, consistent with the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
33278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices 

Compliance Criteria. The results of 

EPA’s evaluation of BAPL–CCP’s RH 

TRU waste characterization program 

and its proposed approval are described 

in the Agency’s inspection report, 

which is available for review in the 

public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We 

will consider public comments received 

on or before the due date mentioned in 

DATES. 

This notice summarizes the waste 

characterization processes evaluated by 

EPA and EPA’s proposed approval. As 

required by 40 CFR 194.8, at the end of 

a 45-day comment period EPA will 

evaluate public comments received, and 

if appropriate, finalize the reports 

responding to the relevant public 

comments and issue a final report and 

approval letter to DOE. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0479, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov 

• Fax: 202–566–1741 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0479. The Agency’s policy is that 

all comments received will be included 

in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov. As 

provided in EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

part 2, and in accordance with normal 

EPA docket procedures, if copies of any 

docket materials are requested, a 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

photocopying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rajani Joglekar or Ed Feltcorn, Radiation 

Protection Division, Center for Waste 

Management and Regulations, Mail 

Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–343–9601; fax 

number: 202–343–2305; e-mail address: 

joglekar.rajani@epa.gov or feltcorn.ed

@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

DOE is developing WIPP, near 

Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico, 

as a deep geologic repository for 

disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As 

defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal 

Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–579), as 

amended (Pub. L. 104–201), TRU waste 

consists of materials with radionuclides 

that have atomic numbers greater than 

92 (with half-lives greater than twenty 

years), in concentrations greater than 

100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU 

isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the 

existing TRU waste consists of items 

contaminated during the production of 

nuclear weapons, such as rags, 

equipment, tools, and sludges. 

TRU waste is itself divided into two 

categories, based on its level of 

radioactivity. Contact-handled (CH) 

TRU waste accounts for about 97 

percent of the volume of TRU waste 

currently destined for the WIPP. It is 

packaged in 55-gallon metal drums or in 

metal boxes and can be handled under 

controlled conditions without any 

shielding beyond the container itself. 

The maximum radiation dose at the 

surface of a CH TRU waste container is 

200 millirems per hour. CH waste 

primarily emits alpha particles that are 

easily shielded by a sheet of paper or 

the outer layer of a person’s skin. 

Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste 

emits more radiation than CH TRU 

waste and must therefore be both 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices 33279 

handled and transported in specially 

shielded containers. Surface radiation 

levels of unshielded containers of 

remote-handled transuranic waste 

exceed 200 millirems per hour. RH 

waste primarily emits gamma radiation, 

which is very penetrating and requires 

concrete, lead, or steel to block it. 

On May 13, 1998, EPA issued a final 

certification of compliance for the WIPP 

facility. The final rule was published in 

the Federal Register on May 18, 1998 

(63 FR 27354). EPA initially recertified 

WIPP on March 29, 2006 (71 FR 18015) 

and officially recertified the facility 

most recently on November 18, 2010 (75 

FR 70584). Both the certification and 

recertification decisions determined that 

WIPP complies with the Agency’s 

radioactive waste disposal regulations at 

40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C, and 

is therefore safe to contain TRU waste. 

The final WIPP certification decision 

includes conditions that (1) prohibit 

shipment of TRU waste for disposal at 

WIPP from any site other than the Los 

Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) 

until the EPA determines that the site 

has established and executed a quality 

assurance program, in accordance with 

194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 

194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization 

activities and assumptions (Condition 2 

of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194); and 

(2) (with the exception of specific, 

limited waste streams and equipment at 

LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste 

for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any 

other site) until EPA has approved the 

procedures developed to comply with 

the waste characterization requirements 

of 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of 

Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194). The 

EPA’s approval process for waste 

generator sites is described in 194.8 

(revised July 2004). 

Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification 

Decision requires EPA to conduct 

independent inspections at DOE’s waste 

generator/storage sites of their TRU 

waste characterization capabilities 

before approving their program and the 

waste for disposal at the WIPP. EPA’s 

inspection and approval process gives 

EPA: (a) Discretion in establishing 

technical priorities; (b) the ability to 

accommodate variation in the site’s 

waste characterization capabilities; and 

(c) flexibility in scheduling site waste 

characterization inspections. 

As described in Section 194.8(b), 

EPA’s baseline inspections evaluate 

each waste characterization process 

component (equipment, procedures, and 

personnel training/experience) for its 

adequacy and appropriateness in 

characterizing TRU waste destined for 

disposal at WIPP. During an inspection, 

the site demonstrates its capabilities to 

characterize TRU waste(s) and its ability 

to comply with the regulatory limits and 

tracking requirements under 194.24. A 

baseline inspection may describe any 

limitations on approved waste streams 

or waste characterization processes 

[§ 194.8(b)(2)(iii)]. In addition, a 

baseline inspection approval must 

specify what subsequent waste 

characterization program changes or 

expansion should be reported to EPA 

[§ 194.8(b)(4)]. The Agency is required 

to assign Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) 

designations to the reportable changes 

depending on their potential impact on 

data quality. A T1 designation requires 

that the site notify EPA of proposed 

changes to the approved components of 

an individual waste characterization 

process (such as radioassay equipment 

or personnel), and that EPA approve the 

change before it can be implemented. A 

waste characterization element with a 

T2 designation allows the site to 

implement changes to the approved 

components of individual waste 

characterization processes (such as 

visual examination procedures) but 

requires EPA notification. The Agency 

may choose to inspect the site to 

evaluate technical adequacy before 

approval. EPA inspections conducted to 

evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up 

inspections under the authority of 

194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up 

inspections, if warranted, EPA may opt 

to conduct continued compliance 

inspections at TRU waste sites with a 

baseline approval under the authority of 

194.24(h). 

The site inspection and approval 

process outlined in 194.8 requires EPA 

to issue a Federal Register notice 

proposing the baseline compliance 

decision, docket the inspection report 

for public review, and seek public 

comment on the proposed decision for 

a period of 45 days. The report must 

describe the waste characterization 

processes EPA inspected at the site, as 

well as their compliance with 194.24 

requirements. 

III. Proposed Baseline Compliance 

Decision 

EPA conducted Baseline Inspection 

No. EPA–BAPL–CCP–RH–04.11–8 of the 

waste characterization program for RH 

TRU waste (waste stream BT–1001) in 

four steps: (1) At Bettis Laboratory 

(August 30, 2010) to observe the Visual 

Examination (VE) process; (2) sample 

collection (September 23, 2010); (3) 

dose-to-curie (DTC) measurements 

(December 8, 2010); and, the final 

baseline inspection at the Agency’s 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 

(ORIA) in Washington, DC, on April 12 

and 13, 2011. In accordance with the 

provisions of 40 CFR 194.8(b), EPA 

evaluated the site’s program to 

characterize wastes proposed for 

disposal at WIPP. EPA is seeking public 

comment on the proposed approval 

which, when final, will allow BAPL– 

CCP to characterize and dispose of RH 

TRU debris waste at WIPP. 

The inspection scope included one 

waste stream—BAPL Waste Stream BT– 

1001, which consists of 15 containers. 

Since additional RH TRU waste is not 

expected to be generated in the 

foreseeable future from decontamination 

and decommissioning of hot cells, any 

additional RH TRU waste stream 

generated at BAPL beyond the subject of 

this inspection and proposed approval 

will require a new baseline inspection 

and approval. 

Waste Stream BT–T001 consists of 

research and experimental debris 

generated at Bettis Laboratory from 1973 

through 1992. This inspection 

evaluated: acceptable knowledge (AK) 

records; dose-to-curie (DTC), in 

conjunction with radionuclide-specific 

scaling factors supported by 

radiochemical analyses of smear 

samples from the hot cells; and visual 

examination (VE) to confirm the 

physical and radiological contents of 

waste containers. The scope of the 

inspection was limited to the 15 55- 

gallon drums containing this waste, 

which was initially packaged in 15 

high-pressure containers (HIPs). 

The EPA inspection team identified 

one finding related to both the AK and 

radiological characterization processes 

that BAPL–CCP implemented to 

characterize RH Waste Stream BT–T– 

001 (see Attachment C of the 

accompanying inspection report). In 

response to this finding, BAPL–CCP 

revised several key documents 

associated with both AK and 

radiological characterization and 

prepared new documents identified as 

‘‘freeze files’’ following the inspection 

(see Attachment D of the accompanying 

inspection report). Freeze files contain 

revisions to certain documents made to 

address the Agency’s issues as objective 

evidence for the changes being made. 

These revisions are then processed by 

BAPL–CCP’s document control process 

to generate an ‘‘official,’’ most current 

version. EPA reviewed these freeze files 

and determined that they adequately 

addressed the finding and that the 

BAPL–CCP RH TRU waste 

characterization program was 

technically adequate and appropriately 

documented. 

In several cases, EPA reviewed the 

modifications to specific documents in 

the form of ‘‘freeze files’’ serving as 

objective evidence to address EPA’s 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
33280 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices 

finding. As a result of this EPA finding, 

BAPL–CCP had to revise several 

documents, which will be forwarded to 

EPA upon completion of the formal 

document control process. These freeze 

files will become final as formal, revised 

documents and provided to EPA before 

the end of the public comment period. 

Some of the revised documents that 

BAPL–CCP generated are subject to 

Bettis Laboratory’s Public Utterance 

process (see Section 7.2 of the 

accompanying inspection report), which 

could affect EPA’s planned approval 

schedule. EPA is accepting the BAPL– 

CCP freeze files as objective evidence to 

support its proposed approval. EPA 

expects (and Bettis Laboratory has 

agreed) that the revised formal 

documents will (a) Be identical to the 

freeze files, (b) undergo the Public 

Utterance Process during EPA’s 45-day 

public comment period window, and (c) 

be provided to EPA before the end of the 

comment period for review so EPA can 

issue its final approval of the BAPL– 

CCP RH TRU waste characterization 

program. 

EPA’s proposed approval for the 

BAPL–CCP waste characterization 

program implemented to characterize 

RH debris waste belonging to Waste 

Stream BT–T001 includes the following: 

(1) The AK process for 15 HIPs of RH 

retrievably-stored TRU debris 

designated as BAPL Waste Stream BT– 

T001 

(2) The radiological characterization 

process using DTC and scaling factors 

for assigning radionuclide values to 

Waste Stream BT–T001 that is 

documented in CCP–AK–BAPL–501, 

Revision 1, and supported by the 

calculation packages referenced in this 

report 

(3) The VE process to identify waste 

material parameters (WMPs) and the 

physical form of the waste. 

Generally, EPA’s RH and CH baseline 

inspections evaluate a site’s waste 

characterization program for technical 

adequacy and, when approved, the TRU 

site continues to use the approved 

program components to characterize 

additional wastes on an ongoing basis. 

However, the subject Bettis Laboratory 

waste stream has been fully 

characterized and no further waste 

characterization activities relative to 

this waste stream will take place. 

Therefore, this proposed approval is 

limited to the discrete set of 15 HIPs in 

BAPL Waste Stream BT–T001. As 

previously mentioned, a new baseline 

approval will be necessary for any 

legacy or newly-generated RH waste at 

the Bettis Laboratory. BAPL–CCP may 

not characterize any additional RH 

waste in the future based on this 

baseline approval. Consequently, EPA 

has not listed any Tier 1 (T1) or Tier 2 

(T2) designations relative to this waste 

and the waste characterization 

components covered by this proposed 

approval. 

EPA must verify compliance with 40 

CFR 194.24 before waste may be 

emplaced in the WIPP, as specified in 

Condition 3 of EPA’s certification of the 

WIPP’s compliance with disposal 

regulations for TRU radioactive waste 

[63 Federal Register (FR) 27354 and 

27405, May 18, 1998]. EPA Baseline 

Inspection No. EPA–BAPL–CCP–RH– 

04.11–8 was performed in accordance 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 194.8(b), 

as issued in a July 16, 2004, FR notice 

(Vol. 69, No. 136, pp. 42571–42583). 

IV. Availability of the Baseline 

Inspection Report for Public Comment 

EPA has placed the report discussing 

the results of the Agency’s inspection of 

BAPL–CCP in the public docket as 

described in ADDRESSES. In accordance 

with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the 

public 45 days to comment on these 

documents. The Agency requests 

comments on the proposed approval 

decision, as described in the inspection 

report. EPA will accept public comment 

on this notice and supplemental 

information as described in Section 1.B. 

above. EPA will not make a 

determination of compliance before the 

45-day comment period ends. At the 

end of the public comment period, EPA 

will evaluate all relevant public 

comments and revise the inspection 

report as necessary. If appropriate, the 

Agency will then issue a final approval 

letter and inspection report, both of 

which will be included in EPA’s public 

dockets. 

Information on the certification 

decision is filed in the official EPA Air 

Docket, Docket No. A–93–02 and is 

available for review in Washington, DC, 

and at the three EPA WIPP 

informational docket locations in 

Albuquerque, Carlsbad, and Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. The dockets in New 

Mexico contain only major items from 

the official Air Docket in Washington, 

DC, plus those documents added to the 

official Air Docket since the October 

1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA. 

Dated: June 2, 2011. 

Michael P. Flynn, 

Director, 

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14193 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9316–5] 

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities 

Committee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, 

EPA gives notice of a meeting of the 

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities 

Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC is a 

policy-oriented committee that provides 

policy advice, information, and 

recommendations to the EPA 

Administrator on a range of 

environmental issues and policies that 

are of importance to agriculture and 

rural communities. 

The purpose of this meeting is to 

advance discussion of specific topics of 

unique relevance to agriculture such as 

effective approaches to addressing water 

quality issues associated with 

agricultural production, in such a way 

as to provide thoughtful advice and 

useful insights to the Agency as it crafts 

environmental policies and programs 

that affect and engage agriculture and 

rural communities. A copy of the 

meeting agenda will be posted at http:// 

epa.gov/ofacmo/frrcc/meetings.htm. 

DATES: The Farm, Ranch, and Rural 

Communities Committee will hold an 

open meeting on Wednesday, June 22, 

2011 from 8:30 a.m. (registration at 8 

a.m.) until 6 p.m. Eastern Daylight 

Time, and on Thursday, June 23, 2011 

from 8:30 a.m. (registration at 8 a.m.) 

until 2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton National Hotel, 900 South 

Orme Street, Arlington, VA 22204, 

Telephone: (703) 521–1900. The 

meeting is open to the public, with 

limited seating on a first-come, firstserved basis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal 

Officer, kaiser.alicia@epa.gov, 202–564– 

7273, US EPA, Office of the 

Administrator (1101A), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests 

to make brief oral comments or provide 

written statements to the FRRCC should 

be sent to Alicia Kaiser, Designated 

Federal Officer, at the contact 

information above. All requests must be 

submitted no later than June 13, 2011. 

Meeting Access: For information on 

access or services for individuals with 

disabilities, please contact Alicia Kaiser 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES