Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10045

New York Avenue N.W., 2nd Floor

Conference Room Washington, D.C.

20006. This meeting is open to the

public. Due to limited space, seating at

the meeting will be on a first-come

basis. Written comments should be sent

to: N. Phillip Ross, Office of Strategic

Planning and Environmental Data, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

Code 2161, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.

Phillip Ross, Designated Federal

Official, Direct Line (202) 260–0250,

General Line (202) 260–5244, FAX (202)

260–8550.

Dated: February 27, 1997.

N. Phillip Ross,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 97–5418 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5698–9]

Science Advisory Board; Notice of

Public Teleconferences

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that two

Committees of the Science Advisory

Board (SAB) will conduct public

teleconference meetings on the dates

noted below. The meetings are all open

to the public. All times noted are

Eastern Time.

1. Executive Committee

The Science Advisory Board’s (SAB)

Executive Committee, will conduct a

public teleconference meeting on

Monday, March 17, 1997, between the

hours of 12:00 and 1:00 p.m. Eastern

Time. The meeting will be coordinated

through a conference call connection in

Room 2103 of the Mall at the

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

The public is welcome to attend the

meeting physically or through a

telephonic link. Additional instructions

about how to participate in the

conference call can be obtained by

calling Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadsen at

202–260–4126 by March 12.

In this meeting the Executive

Committee plans to review the report

from its Integrated Human Exposure

Committee—Review of the Agency’s

Exposure Factors Handbook. If time

permits, the Committee may discuss

other issues.

Any member of the public wishing

further information concerning the

meeting or who wishes to submit

comments should contact Dr. Donald G.

Barnes, Designated Federal Official for

the Executive Committee, Science

Advisory Board (1400), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington DC 20460; telephone (202)

260–4126; FAX (202) 260–9232; or via

the INTERNET at

barnes.don@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

the review document are available from

the same source.

2. Advisory Council on Clean Air

Compliance Analysis

The Advisory Council on Clean Air

Compliance Analysis (ACCACA, or the

‘‘Council’’) of the Science Advisory

Board (SAB) plans to hold four public

teleconferences on the dates and times

described below. All meetings are open

to the public, however, the number of

available phone lines is limited. For

further information concerning the

specific meetings described in this

notice, please contact the individuals

listed below. Documents that are the

subject of SAB reviews are normally

available from the originating EPA office

and are not available from the SAB

Office. These teleconferences are a

follow-up to earlier Council discussions

held on November 7 and 8, 1996

concerning the 1990 Clean Air Act

(CAA) Section 812 Retrospective and

Prospective Studies (See 61 FR, 54196,

Thursday, October 17, 1996).

The Council has allocated four dates

for public teleconferences to deal with

both the Retrospective and the

Prospective Studies. The dates, times,

and anticipated topical issues to be

discussed are listed as follows:

(a) Friday, March 14, 1997 (11:00 a.m.

to 2:00 p.m.): Prospective Study and

Retrospective Study: The major topic

planned for this teleconference is

review of the Prospective Study

emissions modeling assumptions,

methodology, results and

documentation. The Council will

provide advice to the Agency on the

validity and utility of the emissions

modeling data within the purposes of

the current Prospective Study. It is also

planned that logistical and scheduling

aspects of both the Prospective and

Retrospective Studies will be briefly

discussed during this public

teleconference. Some discussion may

occur on select Retrospective Study

issues at this teleconference. However,

the preferred plan is to keep these topics

separate, with this teleconference being

reserved primarily to deal with the

Prospective Study.

(b) Wednesday, March 19, 1997 (11:00

a.m. to 1:00 p.m.): Prospective Study

and Retrospective Study: The major

topics for this teleconference are to

complete review of the Prospective

Study emissions modeling assumptions,

methodology, results and

documentation (if more time is needed

after the discussions of March 14), and

to begin closure review on the

Retrospective Study issues. The timing

of which specific issues are to be

discussed at each teleconference will be

planned at this or the previous (March

14, 1997) teleconference, and will be

driven by the schedule of availability of

the Lead Discussants and other Council

participants. The Council identified a

number of Retrospective Study issue

areas, some of which are listed here as

follows: valuation of bronchitis and

heart disease; presentation of baseline

(‘‘but for’’ issues, that is, but for the

presence of the 1990 Clean Air Act),

choice of study for estimating PMrelated mortality (includes physical

effects); costs (operations and

maintenance costs, cost-of-clean, etc.);

ecological effects; valuing changes in

intelligence quotient (IQ) issues;

presentation of life years lost

calculations (life years remaining issue);

methodological effects; morbidity effects

by age; and research needs. Other

related issues are planned to be

discussed as time permits.

(c) Friday, March 21, 1997 (11:00 a.m.

to 2:00 p.m.): Retrospective Study: The

major topic of this teleconference is to

continue closure review on the

Retrospective Study issue areas

identified above. Specific issue areas

will be scheduled to match the

availability of the Lead Discussants and

other interested Council participants.

(d) Wednesday, March 26, 1997 (11:00

a.m. to 2:00 p.m.): Retrospective Study:

The major topic of this teleconference is

to continue closure review on the

Retrospective Study issue areas

identified above. If all the issue areas

have been discussed in the earlier

teleconferences, the Council members

may elect to cancel this session.

However, this time is being reserved for

the Council just in case they need

additional discussions to facilitate

closure on the Retrospective Study.

After the teleconference sessions are

complete, the Agency plans to revise the

Retrospective Study Report to Congress

and re-issue it to the entire Council and

the public for one final closure review

prior to submitting the document for

Executive Branch review and

subsequent submission to Congress.

Please contact the SAB staff (see

below) to determine the logistics and

details of the individual public

teleconference meetings, or if the later

planned meetings will be necessary.

Purpose of the Teleconferences

The specific topic of the Prospective

Study review is the draft emissions

modeling assumptions, methodology,
10046 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices

results and documentation for this

study. The Council is being asked by the

Agency to review the emissions

modeling data (including input, model

configurations, and output data) to be

used for the first CAA Section 812

prospective analysis and make

recommendations to the Administrator

on the validity and utility of the

emissions modeling data within this

analytical context. Specific questions

include the following:

(1) Are the regulatory assumptions

and other design features of the PreClean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and

Post-CAAA scenarios reasonable and

appropriate, given the purposes of the

present study?

(2) Are the input data used to

configure the emissions models

sufficiently valid and reliable for the

intended analytical purpose?

(3) Are the emissions models, and the

methodologies they employ, sufficiently

valid and reliable for the intended

analytical purpose?

(4) If the answers to any of the three

questions above is negative, what

specific alternative assumptions, data or

methodologies does the Council

recommend the Agency consider using

for the prospective analysis?

(5) If the answers to questions (1), (2),

and (3) are positive, are the emissions

inventories for the Pre-CAAA and PostCAAA scenarios developed by this

modeling exercise sufficiently valid and

reliable for the intended purpose?

(6) If the answer to question (5) is

negative, what specific improvements

does the Council recommend the

Agency consider?

The draft documents that present,

compile and document the results and

methodologies used for the Prospective

Study emissions modeling, as well as

the Retrospective Study Appendices

and select text edits which are the

subject of these reviews are available

from the originating EPA office. The

review materials and supporting

documentation for the Prospective

Study include the following:

Review Materials

(1) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and

Radiation, Air Emissions Estimates from

Electric Power Generation for the CAAA

Section 812 Prospective Study, February

1997,

(2) E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.,

Emission Projections for the Clean Air

Act Section 812 Prospective Analysis,

January 31, 1997,

Supporting Documents

(3) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and

Radiation, Analyzing Electric Power

Generation Under the CAAA, July, 1996,

(4) U.S. EPA, Natural Gas Supply

Assumptions in the Clean Air Power

Initiative, U.S. EPA White Paper, July

31, 1996,

(5) U.S. EPA, Coal Supply

Assumptions in the Clean Air Power

Initiative, U.S. EPA White Paper, July

31, 1996,

(6) ICF Kaiser, Inc., The 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the

Increasing Competitiveness of Powder

Run River Basin (PRB) Coals,

Memorandum from Charles Mann and

Theodore Breton, ICF Kaiser, Inc. to

Sam Napolitano, U.S. EPA, Office of Air

and Radiation, October 15, 1996.

In addition to the above review

materials and supporting documents, it

is anticipated that briefing slides or

bullet point documents will be

circulated to the SAB’s Council and

made available to the public

approximately ten days prior to the first

public review teleconference on March

14, 1997. The intent behind the

distribution of these briefing materials is

to present summaries of the analytical

context of the emissions modeling step,

key scenario design features, emissions

modeling methodologies, and emissions

modeling results in order to facilitate

the Agency’s presentations during the

teleconference, and to help focus the

Council’s subsequent review

discussions.

Once the Agency, considering the

advice of the Council, determines that

the emissions inventories are

sufficiently valid and reliable, the

Agency will configure and operate the

air quality models to translate

differences in emissions under the

scenarios into differences in air quality

conditions. On a parallel track, the costs

of compliance with the regulatory

programs and standards associated with

each of the scenarios will also be

developed. The methodological details

and results of these subsequent

analytical steps will be submitted for

the SAB’s Council to review at a later

date.

To discuss technical aspects or obtain

copies of the draft documents pertaining

to the CAA Section 812 Prospective

Study emissions estimates listed above,

or the Appendices and select text edits

for the Retrospective Study, as well as

the anticipated briefing slides or bullet

point documents, please contact Mr.

James DeMocker, Office of Policy

Analysis and Review (OAR) (MC 6103),

US Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460. Tel. (202) 260–8980; FAX (202)

260–9766, or via the Internet at:

democker.jim@epamail.epa.gov. To

obtain copies of the latest complete draft

of the Retrospective Study Report to

Congress dated October 1996 and

entitled ‘‘The Benefits and Costs of the

Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990,’’ please

contact Ms. Michelle Olawuyi,

Secretary, Office of Economy and

Environment (MC 2172), US

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Tel. (202) 260–5488; FAX (202) 260–

5732, or via the Internet at

olawuyi.michelle@epamail. epa.gov.

To obtain copies of the teleconference

agendas, please contact Mrs. Diana L.

Pozun, Secretary to the Council at Tel.

(202) 260–8414; FAX (202) 260–7118; or

via the Internet:

pozun.diana@epamail.epa.gov). To

discuss technical or logistical aspects of

the Council’s review process, please

contact Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian,

Designated Federal Official, Advisory

Council on Clean Air Compliance

Analysis (the ‘‘Council’’), Tel. (202)

260–2560; FAX (202) 260–7118; or via

the Internet: kooyoomjian.jack

@epamail.epa.gov). Members of the

public who wish to physically be

present at the teleconferences may do so

at the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Headquarters Building,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460, Waterside Mall Room Number

2103. Members of the public who wish

to obtain logging-on procedures should

contact Mrs. Diana L. Pozun at least one

week prior to the teleconference(s) of

interest.

Public Speaking

To request time for public comments

at the Council teleconferences, please

contact Mrs. Diana L. Pozun in writing

at the mail, FAX or E-Mail addresses

given above no later than one week

prior to each of the teleconferences.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

The Science Advisory Board (SAB)

expects that public statements presented

at its meetings will not be repetitive of

previously submitted oral or written

statements. In general, opportunities for

oral comment at teleconference

meetings will be usually limited to three

minutes per speaker and no more than

fifteen minutes total. Written comments

(at least 35 copies) received in the SAB

Staff Office sufficiently prior to a

meeting date (usually one week prior to

a meeting), may be mailed to the

Council prior to its meeting; comments

received too close to the meeting date

will normally be provided to the

Council at its meeting, except for

teleconferences, where brief written

materials may be FAXed to the

participants, with more detailed or

lengthy materials received too close to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10047

the teleconference to be mailed to the

Council or its appropriate subcommittee

participants shortly after the

teleconference. Written comments may

be provided up until the time of the

meeting.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Donald G. Barnes,

Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 97–5309 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[PF–705; FRL–5585–6]

Bayer Corporation; Pesticide

Tolerance Petition Filing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Filing.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

filing of a pesticide petition proposing

the establishment of a tolerance for

residues of tebuconazole in or on

grapes. This notice contains a summary

of the petition that was prepared by the

petitioner, Bayer Corporation.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number PF–705 must be

received on or before April 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway.,

Arlington, VA 22202.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket control

number PF–705. Electronic comments

on this notice may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found below in this

document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this notice may be claimed

confidential by marking any part or all

of that information as ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI). No CBI

should be submitted through e-mail.

Information marked as CBI will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above from 8:30 a. m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie B. Welch, Product Manager (PM)

21, Registration Division (7505C), Office

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location,

telephone number, and e-mail address:

Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305–

6226; e-mail:

welch.connie@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received a pesticide petition (PP)

6F4669 from Bayer Corp., P.O. Box

4913, 8400 Hawthorne Road, Kansas

City, MO 64120–0013, proposing

pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),

21 U.S.C. 346a, to amend 40 CFR

180.474 by establishing tolerances for

residues of the fungicide tebuconazole

in or on the agricultural commodity

grapes at 5.0 ppm. The proposed

analytical method for determining

residues uses gas-liquid

chromatography coupled with a

thermionic detector. EPA has

determined that the petition contains

data or information regarding the

elements set forth in section 408(d)(2);

however, EPA has not fully evaluated

the sufficiency of the submitted data at

this time or whether the data supports

granting of the petition. Additional data

may be needed before EPA rules on the

petition.

As required by section 408(d) of the

FFDCA, as recently amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act, (Pub. L.

104–170), Bayer included in the petition

a summary of the petition and

authorization for the summary to be

published in the Federal Register in a

notice of receipt of the petition. The

summary represents the views of Bayer;

EPA is in the process of evaluating the

petition. As required by section

408(d)(3) EPA is including the summary

as a part of this notice of filing. EPA

may have made minor edits to the

summary for the purpose of clarity.

I. Petition Summary

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Nature of residue. Bayer believes

the nature of the residue in plants and

animals is adequately understood. The

residue of concern is the parent

compound only, as specified in 40 CFR

180.474.

2. Analytical method. An enforcement

method for plant commodities has been

validated on various commodities. It has

undergone successful EPA validation

and has been submitted for inclusion in

PAM II. The method should be adequate

for grapes. The animal method has also

been approved as an adequate

enforcement method and will be

submitted to FDA for inclusion in PAM

II.

3. Magnitude of residue. Fifteen

separate residue trials have been

conducted and submitted to the EPA

with tebuconazole on grapes. The EPA

has determined that these data show

that residues of tebuconazole, ù-[2-(4

-Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-ù-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)-H-1,2,4-triazole-1-

ethanol, are not expected to exceed 5

ppm in grapes as a result of the

proposed use. Processing data show that

residue of tebuconazole do not

concentrate in grape juice and that a

tolerance is not required in or on

raisins. In addition, since grapes are not

normally rotated, the nature of residue

in rotational crops is not of concern.

B. Toxicological Profile

The following mammalian toxicity

studies have been conducted to support

the tolerances of tebuconazole:

1. Acute toxicity. i. Rat acute oral

study with an LD50 of >5,000

milligrams/kilogram (mg)/(kg) (male)

and 3,933 mg/kg (female).

ii. Rabbit acute dermal of LD50 of

>5,000 mg/kg.

iii. Rat acute inhalation of LC50 of

>0.371 mg/liter(l).

iv. Primary eye irritation study in the

rabbit which showed mild irritation

reversible by day 7.

v. Primary dermal irritation study

which showed no skin irritation.

vi. Primary dermal sensitization study

which showed no sensitization.

2. Genotoxicity. i. An Ames

mutagenesis study in Salmonella

showed no mutagenicity with or

without metabolic activation.

ii. A micronucleus mutagenesis assay

study in mice showed no genotoxicity.

iii. A sister chromatid exchange

mutagenesis study using CHO cells was

negative at dose levels 4 to 30

micrograms/milliliter (μg/mL) without

activation or 15 to 120 μg/mL with

activation.

iv. An unscheduled DNA synthesis

(UDS) study was negative for UDS in rat

hepatocytes.

3. Reproductive and developmental

toxicity. i. A rat oral developmental

toxicity study with a maternal no