Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices 10583

(OMB) for review and comment. The

ICR describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

cost and burden; where appropriate, it

includes the actual data collection

instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 29, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, or a copy of this

ICR, contact Sandy Farmer at (202) 260–

2740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Office of Air and Radiation

Title: NSPS for Storage Vessels for

Petroleum Liquids (Subpart Ka), EPA

ICR #1050.05; OMB #2060–0121). This

ICR requests renewal of the existing

clearance.

Abstract: This New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS) regulates

volatile emissions from petroleum

liquid storage vessels. EPA will use the

information to direct monitoring,

inspection, and compliance efforts,

thereby ensuring compliance with the

NSPS. Owners and operators of all

affected facilities must report to EPA

any physical or operational change to

their facility which may result in an

increase in the regulated pollutant

emission rate. All facilities must also

maintain records on the facility

operation that document: (1) The

occurrence and duration of any startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; (2)

measurements of maximum true vapor

pressure for each storage vessel; (3)

period of storage for the petroleum

liquid; (4) emissions data; (5) design

specifications; and (6) an operation and

maintenance plan for any vapor

recovery and return or disposal system.

In addition, owners and operators of

facilities that use a floating roof must

report any excessive gaps in tank seals,

and notify the EPA when the seal gaps

will be measured. These facilities must

maintain records related to compliance

for 2 years.

Burden Statement: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 5 hours per

response, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering the data needed, and

completing the collection of

information. Public recordkeeping

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 113 hours per

respondent.

Respondents: Owners or operators of

petroleum storage vessels with a storage

capacity exceeding 40,000 gallons and

which commenced construction,

reconstruction, or modification after

May 18, 1978 and prior to July 23,1984.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

180.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 21,500 hours.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate, or any other aspect of this

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to:

Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Information Policy

Branch (2136), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

and

Chris Wolz, Office of Management and

Budget, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: February 17, 1995.

Paul Lapsley,

Director, Regulatory Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–4754 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[OPPTS–00166; FRL–4934–4]

Grants to Develop and Carry Out

Authorized State Accreditation and

Certification Programs for Lead-Based

Paint Professionals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of funds availability;

solicitation of applications for financial

assistance.

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s

intent to enter into cooperative

agreements with states and territories

and federally recognized Indian

governing bodies which provide

financial assistance for purposes of

developing and carrying out authorized

accreditation and certification programs

for professionals engaged in lead-based

paint activities pursuant to the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), as

amended by section 404(g) of the

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act of 1992. The notice

describes eligible activities, application

procedures and requirements, and

funding criteria. EPA anticipates that

$12,500,000 will be available during

federal fiscal year 1995 (FY95) for

awards to eligible recipients. There are

no matching share requirements for this

assistance and this is the second year

funding is being made available for

these grants. Subject to future budget

limitations, EPA plans to provide this

support on a continuing multi-year or

program basis. All cooperative

agreements will be administered by the

appropriate EPA regional office.

DATES: In order to be considered for

funding during the FY95 award cycle,

all applications must be received by the

appropriate EPA regional office on or

before March 31, 1995. EPA will make

its award decisions and execute its

FY95 cooperative agreements by

September 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact: James

Willis, Acting Director, Environmental

Assistance Division (7408), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm

E–543B, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, (202) 554–1404, TDD: (202)

554–0551. For technical information,

contact the appropriate Regional

Primary Lead Contact person listed in

Unit VI of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TSCA

section 404(g) authorizes EPA to award

non-matching grants to states,

territories, and federally-recognized

Indian governing bodies to develop and

carry out authorized programs for the

training of individuals engaged in leadbased paint activities, the accreditation

of training programs for these

individuals, and the certification of

contractors engaged in lead-based paint

activities. To achieve authorization

under Title IV of TSCA, programs must:

(1) Be as protective of human health and

the environment as the federal program

established under TSCA section 402 or

406, or both, and (2) provide adequate

enforcement. For states and territories

that fail to obtain authorization within

2 years following promulgation of TSCA

section 402 or 406 regulations, EPA

must, by such date, administer and

enforce a program for TSCA section 402

or 406.

Pursuant to Title IV of TSCA, EPA

encourages states, territories, and

federally-recognized Indian governing

bodies to seek authorization of their

own training, accreditation, and

certification programs for lead-based

paint activities. EPA therefore

recommends that eligible parties seek

funding through the TSCA section

404(g) assistance program, which is now

being implemented to help achieve

these ends. EPA further recommends

that eligible parties plan to utilize this

grant support in a way that

complements any related financial

assistance they may receive from other

federal sources. EPA will, however, seek

to ensure that all federally-funded lead

activities are undertaken in a

coordinated fashion.

EPA will work with prospective

applicants to develop cooperative

agreements which promote a variety of

objectives deemed critical to the success

of its national lead program. These

include: (1) Permitting flexible
10584 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices

approaches to reducing lead hazards, (2)

developing a nationwide pool of

qualified lead abatement professionals,

(3) encouraging pollution prevention in

lead-based paint activities, (4)

promoting environmental justice in the

reduction of lead exposures and the

prevention of lead poisoning, (5)

fostering the establishment of

comprehensive and integrated lead

management programs by states,

territories and Indian governing bodies,

and (6) promoting reciprocity among

authorized programs in the training and

certification of lead abatement

professionals.

I. Eligibility

All states are eligible to apply for and

receive assistance under section 404(g)

of TSCA. The term ‘‘state,’’ for purposes

of eligibility, refers broadly to any state

of the United States, the District of

Columbia, any federally-recognized

Indian governing body, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, Guam, the Canal Zone,

American Samoa, the Northern Mariana

Islands, and any other territory or

possession of the United States.

II. Authority

The ‘‘TSCA Title IV State Lead Grants

Program’’ is a financial assistance

program administered by EPA under

authority of TSCA section 404(g). Each

of EPA’s 10 regional administrators will

be delegated the authority to enter into

cooperative agreements with eligible

‘‘states.’’ However, because EPA’s

authority to award 404(g) funding to

Indian governing bodies is contingent

upon final promulgation of the

forthcoming regulations mandated

under sections 402 and 404 of TSCA,

EPA plans to award all funds to Indian

governing bodies under authority of

TSCA section 10(a) during this award

cycle (FY95). Further, all references in

this notice to Indian governing bodies

being treated as states is contingent

upon EPA’s final promulgation of the

regulations mandated under TSCA

sections 402 and 404.

EPA recognizes that when TSCA Title

IV was enacted on October 28, 1992,

states had widely varying capabilities

for addressing lead hazards. Individual

states currently fall within one of three

broad categories of program

development: (1) States without lead

programs, (2) states with programs that

qualify for authorization that may need

assistance in carrying out these

programs, and (3) states with lead

programs that will require modification

before qualifying for authorization. Each

state’s need for assistance will vary, in

part, according to the level of lead

program development the state has

attained. The type of program activity a

given state seeks to pursue may also

vary in a corresponding manner.

Although EPA generally supports all

state activities aimed at developing or

carrying out authorized state lead

programs, the Agency does recognize

certain priorities. Because few states

presently have adequate lead program

capabilities, as measured against TSCA

sections 402 and 406, EPA’s highest

priority will be to support the

development of new state programs. A

second priority will be to support the

continued implementation of authorized

state programs. A third priority will be

to support the implementation of

existing state programs which do not

presently qualify for authorization but

which are otherwise willing to work

toward timely authorization. Although

these priorities do not constitute the

Agency’s criteria for award

determinations, EPA will consider these

items in its cooperative agreement

negotiations with applicants.

EPA has established three general

funding categories that reflect the

different status, or levels, of state lead

program development. They are not

mutually exclusive, and it is permissible

for a state’s work plan to combine

elements from two or more categories.

Numerous examples of activities

considered to be eligible for funding are

described in a separate EPA publication

entitled ‘‘State and Tribal Cooperative

Agreement Guidance for FY 1995

(January 1995). Copies of the grant

guidance may be obtained through any

of EPA’s ten regional offices at the

addresses listed under unit VI. of this

notice. It is important to note, however,

that the examples presented in the

guidance are not exhaustive, and

applicants are not limited in their

proposals to the listed tasks. Individual

state program innovations are eligible

and encouraged, so long as the proposed

tasks relate to the purposes set forth in

TSCA section 404(g) and fit within one

or more of the three general funding

categories.

III. Selection Criteria

During the FY95 award cycle, EPA

expects a total of $12,500,000 to be

available for distribution to eligible

applicants. The Agency will use a twotiered system to allocate these funds.

This system is aimed at achieving the

broadest possible state participation,

while at the same time, targeting areas

with the greatest potential lead hazard

and risk. It accomplishes this by

providing for a tier-one distribution of

‘‘base funding,’’ followed by a tier-two

distribution of ‘‘formula funding,’’

where additional funds are distributed

based upon the relative lead burden

estimated to exist within a state.

Each state and the District of

Columbia (excluding territories and

federally-recognized Indian governing

bodies) that submits a qualifying

proposal will be entitled to a base

funding allotment of $100,000. In

addition, base funding of up to $50,000

will be reserved for each of the four

‘‘territories’’ (used generically in this

context) that have been administratively

assigned to an EPA regional office and

that have historically participated in

EPA toxics cooperative agreement

programs. These ‘‘base’’ territories

include the U.S. Virgin Islands (Region

2), the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

(Region 2), Guam (Region 9), and

American Samoa (Region 9). The two

remaining ‘‘non-base’’ territories, the

Canal Zone and the Northern Mariana

Islands, are also eligible to apply for

funding up to $50,000 apiece, but are

not considered in determining the base

funding allotments. Base allotments are

primarily intended to ensure that those

states and base territories wishing to

pursue authorization under TSCA

section 404 will be guaranteed a

minimum level of funding for this

purpose. Any unsubscribed base

funding will be added to the formula

funds pool.

Once base funding allotments have

been reserved for all eligible applicants,

remaining funds will be treated as

‘‘formula funds.’’ Before applying the

lead burden formula, however, EPA will

set-aside an amount not to exceed

$1,500,000 for Federally recognized

Indian governing bodies. Indian

governing body will be given funding

based upon tribal population and if an

Indian governing body received funding

in the FY 1994 grant process, they will

be supported to the same extent in FY95

process. EPA cannot reliably predict the

level of participation from Indian

governing bodies and non-base

territories; therefore, where these

eligible parties do apply for funds, they

will be assigned to an appropriate

regional office for administrative

oversight, and that regional office will

become responsible for determining the

appropriate level of funding. These

parties, however, will not receive a

formula ranking, and will not be eligible

to compete for additional formula

allocations based upon lead burden

calculations.

As a third step, states and base

territories with funding requirements

exceeding their base allotments will

then be apportioned additional sums

based upon their relative lead burden.

In calculating lead burden for the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices 10585

formula rankings, EPA used readily

available data derived from the 1990

Census of Population and Housing,

together with other data from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD). The formula uses

four factors to generate an estimate of

the potential lead problem, or ‘‘lead

burden,’’ in each state. Two of these

factors, the number of housing units

with lead-based paint and the number of

children under age 7, express the

potential magnitude of the lead

problem. The remaining two factors, the

fraction of young children in poverty

and the fraction of low-income housing

units with lead-based paint, express the

potential severity of the problem.

In determining formula rankings, each

state and base territory is scored

independently for each factor, and the

four individual factor scores for the state

or base territory are then summed to

obtain an overall score for that state or

base territory (a combined factor score).

The combined factor scores of all states

and base territories applying for formula

funds (or amounts in excess of their

base allotment) are then summed, and

the percentage of the total sum

represented by the individual state’s or

base territory’s score is then identified.

When the total formula funding

available is then multiplied by the

percentage score of an individual state

or territory, the state’s or base territory’s

ceiling formula allotment can be

obtained. For example, assume that: (1)

All 50 states but none of the base

territories apply for formula allotments,

(2) state X has a percentage score of 2

percent, and (3) a total of $4,000,000 in

formula funding is available. In

determining how much money to allot

to state X, EPA would multiply

$4,000,000 by .02. The product,

$80,000, represents the maximum

additional funding that could be

awarded to state X to supplement its

base allocation. State X would then

qualify for up to $180,000 in total

funding for the fiscal year ($100,000 in

base funding + $80,000 in formula

funding).

In general, the maximum, or ceiling,

formula allotments will fluctuate

inversely with the number of applicants.

The greater the number of applicants,

the lower the ceiling will tend to be, and

vice versa. Formula allotments will be

determined only after the annual

application deadline has passed and

EPA has full knowledge of the total

amount of funds requested. If one or

more states or base territories request

formula fund amounts below their

ceiling allotments, residual formula

funds will be available. Where this

situation develops, if there are still other

states or base territories with unfunded

needs, the formula will be run again.

This procedure can be repeated until all

formula funds have been fully allotted.

IV. Submission Requirements

To be considered for funding, each

application must include, at a

minimum, the following forms and

certifications which are contained in

EPA’s ‘‘Application Kit for Assistance’’:

(1) Standard Form 424 (Application for

Federal Assistance), (2) EPA Form

5700–48 (Procurement Certification), (3)

Drug-Free Workplace Certification, (4)

Debarment and Suspension

Certification, (5) Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities, and (6) a return mailing

address. In addition to these standard

forms, each application must also

include a work program, a detailed lineitem budget with sufficient information

to clearly justify costs, a list of work

products or deliverables, and a schedule

for their completion. Work programs are

to be negotiated between applicants and

their EPA regional offices to ensure that

both EPA and state priorities can be

addressed. In addition, any application

from a state, territory or Indian

governing body without an authorized

program must demonstrate how the

proposed activities will lead to that

state’s pursuit of authorization. Finally,

any applicant proposing the collection

of environmentally related

measurements or data generation must

adequately address the requirements of

40 CFR 31.45 relating to quality

assurance/quality control. These

requirements are more specifically

outlined in the ‘‘Guidance Document for

the Preparation of Quality Assurance

Project Plans’’ (May 1993) published by

EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics. This document, as well as

the application kits referred to above,

may be obtained from EPA’s regional

offices.

V. Application Procedures and

Schedule

Applications must be submitted to the

appropriate EPA regional office in

duplicate; one copy to the regional lead

program branch and the other to the

regional grants management branch.

Early consultations are recommended

between prospective applicants and

their EPA regional offices. Because

TSCA Title IV cooperative agreements

will be administered at the regional

level, these consultations can be critical

to the ultimate success of a state’s

project or program.

For more information about this

financial assistance program, or for

technical assistance in preparing an

application for funding, interested

parties should contact the Regional

Primary Lead Contact person in the

appropriate EPA regional office. The

mailing addresses and contact telephone

numbers for these offices are listed

below.

Region I: (Connecticut, Massachusetts,

Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

Vermont), JFK Federal Building, One

Congress St., Boston, MA 02203.

Telephone: (617) 565–3836 (Jim Bryson)

Region II: (New York, New Jersey,

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Building 5,

SDPTSB, 2890 Woodbridge Ave.,

Edison, NJ 08837–3679. Telephone:

(908) 321–6671 (Lou Bevilacqua)

Region III: (Delaware, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,

District of Columbia), 841 Chestnut

Bldg., Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Telephone: (215) 597–2450 (Gerallyn

Valls)

Region IV: (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Tennessee), 345

Courtland St., NE, Atlanta, GA 30365.

Telephone: (404) 347–3555, ext. 6927

(Connie Landers-Roberts)

Region V: (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), SP–14J,

77 W. Jackson St., Chicago, IL 60604.

Telephone: (312) 886–7836 (David

Turpin)

Region VI: (Arkansas, Louisiana, New

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 12th Floor,

Suite 2000, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX

75202. Telephone: (214) 655–7577 (Jeff

Robinson)

Region VII: (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

Nebraska), TOPE/TSC, 726 Minnesota

Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101.

Telephone: (913) 551–7518 (Mazzie

Talley)

Region VIII: (Colorado, Montana, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming),

999 18th St., Suite 500, Denver, CO

80202. Telephone: (303) 293–1442

(David Combs)

Region IX: (Arizona, California, Hawaii,

Nevada, American Samoa, Guam), 75

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA

94105. Telephone: (415) 744–1121

(Larry Biland)

Region X: (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,

Washington), Toxics Section, 1200 Sixth

Ave., Seattle, WA 98101. Telephone:

(206) 553–1985 (Barbara Ross)

The deadline for EPA’s receipt of final

FY95 applications is March 31, 1995.

Once the application deadline has

passed, EPA will process the formula

funding calculations and determine the

initial formula ceiling allocations. Final

negotiations for the award of

cooperative agreements can then

proceed, but all FY95 agreements must

be executed no later than September 30,

1995.
10586 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Grants,

Lead, Training and accreditation.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–4756 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5159–2]

Common Sense Initiative Council,

Petroleum Refining Sector

Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Common Sense Initiative

Council, Petroleum Refining Sector

Subcommittee; notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency established the Common Sense

Initiative Council (CSIC) on October 17,

1994 to provide independent advice and

counsel to EPA on environmental issues

associated with the petroleum refining

industry and other industrial sectors.

The charter for the CSIC was authorized

through October 17, 1996, under

regulations established by the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The

Petroleum Refining Sector (PRS)

Subcommittee operates as a

subcommittee of the CSIC.

OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is hereby

given that the CSIC–PRS Subcommittee

will hold an open meeting on Friday

March 10, 1995, from 8 a.m to 3 p.m.

at the Radisson Inn Hotel, 2150 Veterans

Blvd., Kenner, LA 70062, [1–800–333–

3333 or 504–467–3111]. The purpose of

the meeting is to further define areas on

which the CSIC–PRS will focus. The

Subcommittee will also convene in

working groups to begin identifying

specific issues. Seating will be available

on a first come, first served basis.

INSPECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE

DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the

topics above will be publicly available

at the meeting. Thereafter, these

documents, together with the CSIC-PRS

meeting minutes, will be available for

public inspection in room 2417M of

EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Anyone who

would like further information should

contact the Common Sense Initiative

Program Staff office by phone on (202)

260–417, or by FAX on (202) 260–766.

Members of the public may submit

written comments of any length prior to

the meeting. One hour of meeting time

will be set aside for oral presentations.

Each individual or group making an oral

presentation will be limited to a total of

five minutes. Attendees should provide

their names and telephone numbers to

the Common Sense Initiative Program

Staff so that the Agency can advise them

of any schedule changes.

Date: February 16, 1995.

Prudence Goforth,

CSIC/Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–4752 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5162–2]

Science Advisory Board

Environmental Engineering Committee

and Subcommittee; Open Meetings

March 8–10, 1995.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that the OSWER

Exposure Model Subcommittee of the

Science Advisory Board’s (SAB’s)

Environmental Engineering Committee

(EEC), will meet Wednesday March 8

and that the full Committee (EEC) will

meet Thursday and Friday March 9–10,

1995. The meetings will begin each day

at 8:30 a.m. The meetings will be held

at the One Washington Circle Hotel,

Washington Circle, NW., Washington,

DC (Hotel telephone is 202/872–1680 or

800/424–9671). The meetings are open

to the public and seating will be on a

first come basis.

OSWER Exposure Model Subcommittee

Meeting

On March 8 the Subcommittee will

review the EPA’s Composite Model for

Leachate Migration with Transformation

Products (EPACMTP) and the Finite

Source Methodology. Copies of the

documents to be reviewed are not

available from the SAB; they can be

obtained from Dr. Zubair Saleem, Office

of Solid Waste (5304), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460

(202/260–4767). The tentative charge to

this subcommittee is as follows:

(a) EPACMTP is the latest and most

advanced of the OSW subsurface fate

and transport models designed to be

computationally efficient for usage in

monte carlo analysis for national

rulemaking. The question of interest to

EPA is the mathematical formulation in

EPACMTP of the subsurface fate and

transport of daughter products from

degrading organic chemical

constituents, and the appropriateness

for EPA’s use of this approach in

establishing nation-wide exit levels for

hazardous waste in future regulations.

(b) The Office of Solid Waste (OSW)

has been using a national monte carlo

procedure in which national

distributions of parameters are used as

input to the model. OSW has developed

a regional site-based approach in which

hydrogeologic parameters are selected

from hydrogeologic regions and in

general have cross-correlations. They

are used as input to the model. Is this

site-based approach better or should

OSW continue to use the approach

based on national distributions of input

parameters?

(c) The OSW’s most recently-used

approach is based on an infinite source

steady-state model. EPA has developed

a finite-source approach for use with

EPACMTP. OSW would like SAB

comments on the adequacy of the

approach for regulatory purposes.

(d) MINTEQ (metal speciation model)

was developed by EPA. EPA has

recently developed the linkage of the

output of the model with EPACMTP to

assess the subsurface fate and transport

of metals. EPA would like SAB

comments on the appropriateness of the

use of this linkage for metals in EPA’s

national rulemaking efforts.

Environmental Engineering Committee

Meeting

On March 9–10, the EEC will discuss

its final draft report on the review of the

Use Cluster Scoring System (UCSS) of

the Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics; receive briefings from the

Agency on various programs; and plan

the remainder of its FY95 activities.

Copies of the EEC’s draft UCSS report

are available from Mrs. Dorothy Clark,

address below.

Any member of the public wishing

further information, such as a proposed

agenda on either meeting should contact

Mrs. Dorothy Clark, Secretary, Science

Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. EPA,

Washington, DC 20460, at 202/260–6552

or 202/260–7118 (fax). Written

comments of any length may be

provided up until the meetings, but 35

copies must be supplied. Members of

the public who wish to make a brief oral

presentation should contact Mrs.

Kathleen Conway by phone 202/260–

2558, or internet CONWAY.

KATHLEEN@epamail.epa.gov no later

than noon (eastern time) Wednesday

March 1 in order to have time reserved

on the agenda.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

A. Robert Flaak,

Acting Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 95–4755 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P