Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41819

proposed ICR utilizes assumptions that

are the same as the previous ICR.

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 are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

In addition to this information, you

may obtain a copy of the draft ICR

supporting statement as provided above.

The EPA would like to solicit

comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: For new catalyst

manufacturers the average hourly

burden per year per respondent is about

5 hours for the reporting required by the

policy and the associated

recordkeeping. The reporting is

mandatory. The frequency of response is

estimated to be 1 report per year for a

new product line and 2 reports per year

on manufacturing and warranty card

information. There are 12 entities in the

country covered by the requirements.

Total burden for all new catalyst

manufacturers is about 60 hours per

year. There are annual operating and

maintenance costs of about $60 per

manufacturer. There are annualized

purchased service costs of $35,700 per

respondent. There are no annualized

capital costs. Startup costs have been

completed.

For parties who recondition used

catalysts, the average annual hourly

reporting burden is 631 hours per

respondent. The reporting is mandatory.

The frequency of response is 2 reports

per year based on about 8,900 tests of

used catalysts per respondent. Total

burden for all 8 respondents is about

5,048 hours. There are annual operation

and maintenance costs of about $200

per respondent. There are annualized

capital costs of about $38,244 per

respondent.

For parties who install aftermarket

catalysts there is no reporting burden.

The average annual recordkeeping

burden is about 3.5 hours per

respondent. There are no annualized

operation and maintenance costs or

annualized capital costs. 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. This includes the time needed

to review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and utilize technology and

systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Dated: June 23, 1998.

Sylvia K. Lowrance,

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 98–20903 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–40032; FRL–6021–8]

Toxics Data Reporting Committee of

the National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology;

Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, EPA is providing notice

of a 2-day meeting of the Toxics Data

Reporting (TDR) Committee of the

National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology

(NACEPT). This will be the seventh

meeting of the TDR Committee, whose

mission is to provide advice to EPA

regarding the Agency’s Toxics Release

Inventory (TRI) Program.

DATES: The public meeting will take

place on August 27 through 28, 1998,

from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Written and

electronic comments in response to this

notice should be received by August 14,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC,

(202) 484–1000.

All comments should be sent in

triplicate to: OPPT Document Control

Officer (7407), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Rm.

G–099, East Tower, Washington, DC

20460. Each comment must bear the

docket control number OPPTS–40032.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to:

oppt.ncic@epa.gov. Follow the

instructions under Unit II. of this

document.

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email. All comments which contain

information claimed as CBI must be

clearly marked as such. Three sanitized

copies of any comments containing

information claimed as CBI must also be

submitted and will be placed in the

public record for this action. Persons

submitting information on any portion

of which they believe is entitled to

treatment as CBI by EPA must assert a

business confidentiality claim in

accordance with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for

each such portion. This claim must be

made at the time that the information is

submitted to EPA. If a submitter does

not assert a confidentiality claim at the

time of submission, EPA will consider

this as a waiver of any confidentiality

claim and the information may be made

available to the public by EPA without

further notice to the submitter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cassandra Vail, telephone: (202) 260–

0675, fax number: (202) 401–8142, email: vail.cassandra@epa.gov or

Michelle Price, telephone: (202) 260–

3372, fax number: (202) 401–8142, email: price.michelle@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

At the 2-day meeting, the TDR

Committee will review and discuss

drafts of their reports to EPA.

Information on availability of meeting

summaries from previous TDR

Committee meetings will be available on

the TRI Home Page. The address of the

TRI Home Page is http://www.epa.gov/

opptintr/tri. This information can be

found under the heading ‘‘TRI

Stakeholder Dialogue.’’ In addition, the

agenda for the August 27 through 28

TDR Committee meeting will also be

available at this same site prior to the

meeting. Oral presentations or

statements by interested parties will be

limited to 5 minutes. Interested parties

are encouraged to contact Cassandra

Vail, to schedule presentations before

the Committee.
41820 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

II. Public Record and Electronic

Submissions

The official record for this notice, as

well as the public version, has been

established for this action under docket

control number OPPTS–40032

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 12 noon

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays in the official

record. The official record is located in

the TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center, Rm. NE B–607, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

oppt.ncic@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 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number OPPTS–

40032. Electronic comments on this

action may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection.

Dated: July 29, 1998.

Cassandra Vail,

Designated Federal Official, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 98–20907 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6136–4]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee

Meetings

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that several

committees of the Science Advisory

Board (SAB) will meet on the dates and

times described below. All times noted

are Eastern Daylight Time. All meetings

are open to the public. Due to limited

space, seating at meetings will be on a

first-come basis. For further information

concerning specific meetings, 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.

1. Environmental Health Committee

(EHC)

The Environmental Health Committee

(EHC) of the Science Advisory Board

(SAB) will meet on Tuesday, August 18

and Wednesday, August 19, 1998,

beginning no earlier than 8:30 a.m. and

ending no later than 5:30 p.m. on each

day. All times noted are Eastern

Standard Time. The meeting will be

held at the Madison Room at the Quality

Hotel Courthouse Plaza, 1200 N.

Courthouse Road, Arlington, Virginia

22201.

Purpose

The purpose of the meeting is to

conduct a technical review of the Lead

403 Rule, focusing on the proposed

standards that were developed by the

EPA to prioritize abatement and hazard

control activities under Title X of the

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act

on August 18–19, 1998. The review is

scheduled for August 18 and the

Committee plans to begin preparation of

a working draft on August 19. Both

sessions are open to the public.

Draft Charge Questions

The EHC has been asked to respond

to the following draft Charge questions

which are subject to revision:

General Questions

(a) In each of the specific areas

identified below, have we used the best

available data? Have we used this data

appropriately? Have we fairly

characterized the variability,

uncertainties and limitations of the data

and our analyses?

(b) Are there alternative approaches

that would improve our ability to assess

the relative risk impacts of candidate

options for paint, dust, and soil hazard

standards?

(c) The approach employs risk

assessment models that were primarily

developed for use in site-specific or

localized assessments. Has the use and

application of the Integrated Exposure

Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) and

empirical model in this context been

sufficiently explained and justified? Is

our use of these tools to estimate

nationwide impacts technically sound?

(d) Are there any critical differences

in environmental lead-blood lead

relationships found in local

communities that should be considered

in interpreting our results at the

national level?

(e) In view of the issues discussed and

analyzed in sensitivity analyses

contained in the two documents, in

what specific areas should we focus

(e.g., refine our approach, gather

additional data, etc.) between now and

the final rule? (The timing of the final

rule will be dictated by a consent

agreement. We should be in a position

to present a firm schedule prior to the

SAB meeting.)

Specific Questions

(a) The HUD National Survey,

conducted in 1989–90, measured lead

levels in paint, dust, and soil in 284

privately owned houses. Does our use of

this data constitute a reasonable

approach to estimating the national

distribution of lead in paint, dust, and

soil?

(b) The approach employs conversion

factors to combine data from studies

that used different sample collection

techniques. Is this appropriate? Is the

method for developing these conversion

factors technically sound?

(c) IQ point deficits.

(1) The approach characterizes IQ

decrements in the baseline blood-lead

distribution, essentially implying that

any blood-lead level above zero results

in IQ effects. Have we provided a

sufficient technical justification for this

approach? Is this approach defensible

and appropriate?

(2) The characterization of IQ point

loss in the population includes the

summation of fractional IQ points over

the entire population of children. Have

we provided a sufficient technical

justification for this approach? Is this

approach defensible and appropriate?

(3) One of the IQ-related endpoints is

incidence of IQ less than 70. Should

consideration be given to what the IQ

score was, or would have been, prior to

the decrement (i.e., should different

consideration be given to cases where a

small, or even fractional, point

decrement causes the <70 occurrence

vs. being <70 due to larger decrements)?

If so, how might this be done?

(d) Are the assumptions regarding

duration, effectiveness, and costs of

intervention activities reasonable?

(e) Are the combinations of standards

used in Chapter 6 of the risk analysis

reasonably employed given the potential

interrelationships between levels of lead

in different media? Is additional data

available on the interrelationship

between lead levels in paint, dust, and

soil prior to and after abatement?

(f) The approach for estimating health

effect and blood-lead concentration

endpoints after interventions is based

upon scaling projected declines in the

distribution of children’s blood-lead

concentrations to the distribution

reported in Phase 2 of the National