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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41821

Health and Human Nutrition

Examination Survey (NHANES) III.

Under this approach, data collected in

the HUD National Survey are utilized to

generate model-predicted distributions

of blood-lead concentrations prior to

and after the rule making. The

difference between the pre section 403

and post section 403 model predicted

distributions is used to estimate the

decline in the distribution of children’s

blood-lead concentration. This decline

is then mathematically applied to the

distribution reported in NHANES III. Is

this adjustment scientifically defensible

in general, and in the specific case

where the environmental data—from the

HUD Survey—and the blood lead data—

from NHANES III—were collected at

different times (1989–90 vs. 1991–

1994)?

Background

Under Title X of the Lead-Based Paint

Hazard Reduction Act, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is charged with promulgating standards

to identify dangerous levels of lead,

which includes hazards from lead-based

paint, lead-contaminated dust, and leadcontaminated soil (Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA) Section 403). The

presence of these ‘‘lead-based paint

hazards’’ triggers various requirements

(e.g., abatement workers must be

certified if lead-based paint or leadbased paint hazards are present in a

residence.)

The Office Prevention, Pesticides and

Toxic Substance’s (OPPTS) approach is

to promulgate standards that can be

used to prioritize abatement and hazard

control activities, rather than to attempt

to define health threshold levels (i.e., to

target the worst cases rather than to

establish ‘‘safe’’ levels). While this will

ultimately be a risk management

decision, analyses of the prevalence of

environmental lead levels in U.S.

residences, incremental costs and

benefits (estimated reductions in

children’s blood lead), and

implementation/enforceability issues

will be used to choose between various

options for dust and soil lead levels.

OPPTS seeks an SAB review of its

technical approach to characterizing the

incremental differences in costs and

benefits between various candidate dust

and soil lead levels.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the review document and any

background materials for the review are

not available from the SAB. Requests for

copies of the background material may

be directed to Mr. Dave Topping by

telephone (202) 260–7737, by fax (202)

260–0770 or via E-Mail at:

topping.dave@epa.gov. Technical

questions regarding the SAB review of

the TSCA Section 403 Rule may also be

directed to Mr. Topping. Members of the

public desiring additional information

about the meeting, including an agenda,

should contact Ms. Wanda Fields,

Management Assistant, EHC, Science

Advisory Board (1400), U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington DC 20460, by

telephone (202) 260–5510 by fax (202)

260–7118; or via E-Mail at:

fields.wanda@epa.gov.

Anyone wishing to make an oral

presentation at the meeting must contact

Ms. Roslyn Edson, Designated Federal

Officer for the EHC, in writing, no later

than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August

13, 1998, by fax (202) 260–7118, or via

E-mail: edson.roslyn@epa.gov. The

request should identify the name of the

individual who will make the

presentation and an outline of the issues

to be addressed. At least 35 copies of

any written comments to the Committee

are to be given to Ms. Edson no later

than the time of the presentation for

distribution to the Committee and the

interested public.

2. Environmental Economics Advisory

Committee (EEAC)

The Environmental Economic

Advisory Committee of the Science

Advisory Board (SAB), will meet on

August 19, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to no

later than 4:00 p.m. at the Latham Hotel,

3000 M Street, NW., Washington, DC

20460; telephone (202) 726–5000. The

purpose of the meeting will be to

discuss the economic analysis

guidelines being developed by the

Environmental Protection Agency. The

EEAC will also complete its work on an

advisory that addresses economic

research topics.

Background Information on Economic

Analysis Guidelines

The Environmental Economics

Advisory Committee (EEAC or the

Committee) has been asked to conduct

an advisory review of the revised

Guidelines for Preparing Economic

Analyses, a document produced under

the direction of the EPA’s Regulatory

Policy Council. The guidelines are

designed to reflect Agency policy on the

conduct of the economic analyses called

for under applicable legislative and

administrative requirements, including,

but not limited to Executive Order

12866. These guidelines are intended to

provide EPA analysts with a concise but

thorough treatment of mainstream

thinking on important technical issues

so that they can conduct credible and

consistent economic analyses. They

refer to methods and practices that are

commonly accepted in the

environmental economics profession;

however, they are not intended to

preclude new or innovative forms of

analysis. The guidelines account for

some of the practical limitations on time

and resources that EPA analysts must

contend with when preparing economic

analyses. They are shaped by

administrative and statutory

requirements that contain direct

references to the development of

economic information during the

development of regulations (e.g.,

evaluations of economic achievability).

The guidelines provide some flexibility

to analysts to enable them to

‘‘customize’’ analyses to be as complex

and complete as is necessary to conform

to administrative and legal procedures.

The document also emphasizes the need

for the EPA analyst to ensure that their

analytic efforts are commensurate with

the value of the information to the

regulatory and policy making process.

Tentative Charge to the Committee

The Agency is seeking external advice

because of the pervasive influence of the

documents on the conduct of agencywide economic analyses. The Agency

charge asks the following:

(a) Do the published economic theory

and empirical literature support the

statements in the guidance document on

the treatment of discounting benefits

and costs in the following

circumstances:

(1) Discounting private and public

costs for use in an economic impact

analysis?

(2) Discounting social benefits and

costs in an intragenerational context?

(3) Discounting social benefits and

costs in an intergenerational context?

(4) Discounting social benefit and cost

information that is reported in

nonmonetary terms?

(b) Do the published economic theory

and empirical literature support the

statements in the guidance document on

quantifying and valuing the social

benefits of reducing fatal human health

risks?

(c) Do the published economic theory

and empirical literature support the

statements in the guidance document on

the treatment of certainty equivalents in

the assessment of social benefits and

costs of environmental policies?

(d) Do the published economic theory

and empirical literature support the

statements in the guidance document on

the merits and limitations of different

valuation approaches to the

measurement of social benefits from

reductions in human morbidity risks

and improvements in ecological
41822 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

conditions attributable to environmental

policies?

(e) Do the published economic theory

and empirical literature support the

statements in the guidance document on

the relationships and distinctions

between the measurement of economic

impacts and net social benefits?

(f) Does the guidance document

contain an objective and reasonable

presentation on the published economic

theory, empirical literature, and analytic

tools associated with computable

general equilibrium (CGE) models, and

description of their relevance for

economic analyses performed by the

EPA?

(g) Does the guidance document

contain an objective and reasonable

presentation on the measurement of

economic impacts, including

approaches suitable to estimate impacts

of environmental regulations on the

private sector, public sector and

households? This includes, for example,

the measurement of changes in market

prices, profits, facility closure and

bankruptcy rates, employment, market

structure, innovation and economic

growth, regional economies, and foreign

trade.

(h) Does the guidance document

contain a reasonable presentation and

set of recommendations on the selection

of economic variables and data sources

used to measure the equity dimensions

identified as potentially relevant to

environmental policy analysis?

The EPA requests that the Committee

provide written review and

documentation, when applicable, to

support recommended changes to the

guidance document. The EPA also seeks

recommendations from the Committee

on alternative methodologies,

assumptions and data sources that will

improve the presentation of economic

issues addressed in the guidance

document.

Background Information on Economic

Research Plan

The Agency is in the early stages of

preparing an economic research plan to

guide its research in this area which is

important to environmental policy

making. The EEAC was asked at its

April 9, 1998 meeting to provide the

Agency with its advice on a list of topics

proposed for inclusion in the EPA

economic research program. The

Committee has drafted this Advisory

and will discuss it with the intention of

reaching closure at this meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Single copies

of the guidelines information provided

to the Committee can be obtained by

contacting Mr. Brett Snyder, Director,

Economy and Environment Division,

Office of Policy (2172), 401 M Street

SW., Washington DC 20460, telephone

(202) 260–5610, fax (202) 260–2685, or

via E-Mail at: snyder.brett@epa.gov.

Copies of the draft Advisory can be

obtained by contacting Ms. Diana

Pozun, Management Assistant,

Committee Operations Staff, Science

Advisory Board (1400), US EPA, 401 M

Street SW., Washington DC 20460,

telephone (202) 260-4126, fax (202)

260–7118, or E-Mail at:

pozun.diana@epa.gov. Anyone wishing

to make an oral presentation at the

meeting must contact Mr. Thomas

Miller, Designated Federal Officer for

the Environmental Economics Advisory

Committee, in writing no later than 4:00

pm, August 12, 1998, at the above

address, via fax (202) 260–7118, or via

E-Mail at: miller.tom@epa.gov. The

request should identify the name of the

individual who will make the

presentation and an outline of the issues

to be addressed. At least 35 copies of

any written comments to the Committee

are to be given to Mr. Miller no later

than the time of the presentation for

distribution to the Committee and the

interested public. To discuss technical

aspects of the meeting, please contact

Mr. Miller by telephone at (202) 260–

5886.

3. D–Cormix Review Subcommittee

The D–CORMIX Review

Subcommittee of the Science Advisory

Board (SAB) will meet on August 25–26,

1998 in the Science Advisory Board

Conference Room (Room M3709), U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

Background

Understanding the fate of dredged

material disposed at open water sites is

essential in order to predict potential

effects of released contaminants on

aquatic life and human health.

Mathematical models of the physical

processes determining the fate of the

disposed material can be used to

provide an estimate of concentrations in

the receiving water as well as the initial

deposition pattern of material on the

bottom. The draft Inland Testing

Manual for the evaluation of dredged

material discharges, previously

reviewed by the SAB, contains a

mathematical model for evauating the

mixing of instantaneous discharges from

barges and hoppers. D–CORMIX

predicts the initial dilution and mixing

zone of a typical continuous dredge

outfall operation (e.g. pipeline

discharge). The model, when fully

validated, will be an important tool to

evaluate potential exceedences of water

quality standards due to continuous

dredged material or other negatively

buoyant discharges. The Office of Water

has asked that the Science Advisory

Board conduct a review of the model,

addressing the questions raised below.

Tentative Charge to the Subcommittee

(a) Technical aspects of D–CORMIX

(1) Is D–CORMIX an appropriate

water quality model to use for

continuous dredged material discharge

mixing zone analysis?

(2) Does the model accurately capture

the physics of negatively buoyant

surface plumes, in particular, behavior

of the density current and particle

settling associated with dredged

disposal plumes?

(3) Is D–CORMIX, a model based on

conservation of mass, momentum and

energy principles that provides

continuous simulation of near-field,

intermediate-field, and far-field physical

processes, preferable to models which

make empirical assumptions on the

amount of suspended materials

available for transport (e.g. CD–FATE)?

(4) Does the SAB approve of our

outline for laboratory validation? What

further suggestions can be offered?

(b) Implementation of model with

regard to use of an allocated impact

zone

(1) What factors should be used in

determining the vertical, horizontal

and/or downstream extent of the mixing

zone?

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Copies of the

review materials and model diskette are

not available from the SAB. Requests for

copies of these material may be directed

to Mr. Michael Kravitz, Office of

Science and Technology, Office of

Water (4305), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202)

260–8085, fax (202) 260–9830 or E-Mail

at: kravitz.michael@epa.gov. Technical

questions regarding the SAB review of

the materials may also be directed to

Mr. Kravitz. Members of the public

desiring additional information about

the meeting, including an agenda,

should contact Ms. Wanda Fields,

Management Assistant, Committee

Operations Staff, Science Advisory

Board (1400), US EPA, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington DC 20460, by

telephone (202) 260–5510 by fax (202)

260–7118; or via E-Mail at:

fields.wanda@epa.gov.

Anyone wishing to make an oral

presentation at the meeting must contact

Mr. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal

Officer, in writing, no later than 5:00 pm

Eastern Time on August 18, 1998, by fax

(202) 260–7118, or via E-Mail:

flaak.robert@epa.gov The request should

identify the name of the individual who

will make the presentation and an
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41823

outline of the issues to be addressed. At

least 35 copies of any written comments

to the Committee are to be given to Mr.

Flaak no later than the time of the

presentation for distribution to the

Committee and the interested public.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

The Science Advisory Board expects

that public statements presented at its

meetings will not be repetitive of

previously submitted oral or written

statements. In general, each individual

or group making an oral presentation

will be limited to a total time of five

minutes. For conference call meetings,

opportunities for oral comment will be

limited to no more than five 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, may be mailed to the

relevant SAB committee or

subcommittee prior to its meeting;

comments received too close to the

meeting date will normally be provided

to the committee at its meeting. Written

comments may be provided to the

relevant committee or subcommittee up

until the time of the meeting.

Individuals requiring special

accommodation at SAB meetings,

including wheelchair access, should

contact the appropriate DFO at least five

business days prior to the meeting so

that appropriate arrangements can be

made.

Information concerning the Science

Advisory Board, its structure, function,

and composition, may be found in The

FY 1997 Annual Report of the Staff

Director which is available from the

SAB Committee Evaluation and Support

Staff (CESS) by contacting US EPA,

Science Advisory Board (1400),

Attention: CESS, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460 or via fax (202)

260–1889. Additional information

concerning the SAB can be found on the

SAB Home Page at: http://

www.epa.gov/sab.

Dated: July 30, 1998.

A. Robert Flaak,

Acting Deputy Staff Director, Science

Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 98–20897 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–66254; FRL–6018–7]

Notice of Receipt of Requests for

Amendments to Delete Uses in Certain

Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),

as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of

receipt of request for amendment by

registrants to delete uses in certain

pesticide registrations.

DATES: The Agency will approve these

use deletions and the deletions will

become effective on or soon after the

date of publication. Non-food site users

of these products who desire continued

use on sites being deleted should

contact the applicable registrant before

September 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Dennis McNeilly, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7505C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location for commercial courier

delivery and telephone number: Rm.

203, Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)

305–5404

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that

a registrant of a pesticide product may

at any time request that any of its

pesticide registrations be amended to

delete one or more uses. The Act further

provides that, before acting on the

request, EPA must publish a notice of

receipt of any such request in the

Federal Register. Thereafter, the

Administrator may approve such a

request.

II. Intent to Delete Uses

This notice announces receipt by the

Agency of applications from registrants

to delete uses in 10 pesticide

registrations containing the active

ingredient chlorpyrifos, as listed in

Table 1 below. These registrations are

listed by registration number, product

names/active ingredients and the

specific uses deleted. Although the use

of chlorpyrifos products on popcorn and

carrots have been registered sites for

chlorpyrifos products, a tolerance has

not been established for chlorpyrifos

residues on these commodities under

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA). Therefore, under FIFRA

section 2(bb), these uses represent an

unreasonable adverse effect on the

environment, as they could result in

human dietary risk from residues

resulting from use of a pesticide in or

on food inconsistent with the standard

under section 408 of FFDCA. As such,

the Agency is hereby waiving the 180–

day comment period normally given for

the deletion of a minor agricultural use,

in accordance with FIFRA section

6(f)(1)(c). The Agency has determined

that, while these actions require

publication for the purpose of

announcement, a comment period is not

warranted.

The remaining use deletions (nonfood sites) announced in this Notice

will retain a 30–day comment period.

Users of these products who desire

continued use on sites being deleted

should contact the applicable registrant

before September 4, 1998 to discuss

withdrawal of the applications for

amendment. This 30–day period will

also permit interested members of the

public to intercede with registrants prior

to the Agency approval of the deletion.

TABLE 1.—REGISTRATIONS WITH REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO DELETE USES IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS

EPA Reg. No. Product Name (Active Ingredient) Delete From Label

004787–00027 ... Chlorpyrifos Technical (chlorpyrifos) .................................... Popcorn; Carrot

010370–00064 ... Ford’s Dursban 1-E (chlorpyrifos) ........................................ All Indoor Pest Control Uses

011474–00090 ... Sungro Buggone II Residual Insecticide (chlorpyrifos) ........ Indoor Broadcast Use

011715–00110 ... Mug-A-Bug Insecticide (chlorpyrifos) .................................... Indoor Broadcast Use

011715–00139 ... SPI Carpet Spray (chlorpyrifos) ............................................ Indoor Broadcast Use

011715–00312 ... Speer D-Trans Residual Spray with Nylar (chlorpyrifos) ..... Indoor Broadcast Use

028293–00121 ... Unicorn Dursban-Resmethrin Spray (chlorpyrifos) ............... Indoor broadcast Use

051036–00118 ... Chlorpyrifos 4E L.O. (chlorpyrifos) ....................................... Indoor Broadcast Use

070907–00004 ... Gharda Chlorpyrifos 4E (chlorpyrifos) .................................. Popcorn

070907–00005 ... Gharda Chlorpyrifos 15G (chlorpyrifos) ................................ Popcorn