29096 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

VIII Conference Center, 999 18th Street,

Denver, CO, 80202–2466.

ADDRESSES: Materials, or written

comments, may be transmitted to the

Committee through Joe Sierra,

Designated Federal Official, NACEPT/

IIC, U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative

Environmental Management (1601–F),

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Sierra, Designated Federal

Official for the Information Impacts

Committee at 202–260–6839.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Joseph A. Sierra,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 96–14457 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5513–8]

Community-Based Environmental

Protection Committee of the National

Advisory Council for Environmental

Policy and Technology; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Pub. L. 92463, EPA

gives notice of a two-day meeting of the

Community-Based Environmental

Protection Committee of the National

Advisory Council for Environmental

Policy and Technology (NACEPT).

NACEPT provides advice and

recommendations to the Administrator

of EPA on a broad range of

environmental policy issues, and the

Community-Based Environmental

Protection Committee was formed to

identify opportunities for harmonizing

environmental policy, economic

activity, and ecosystem management.

The meeting is being held to discuss

recommendations the Committee plans

to submit to EPA. Scheduling

constraints preclude oral comments

from the public during the meeting.

Written comments can be submitted by

mail, and will be transmitted to

Committee members for consideration.

DATES: The public meeting will be held

on Wednesday, July 17, and Thursday,

July 18, 1996, at the U.S. EPA

Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 410

Severn Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland.

On Wednesday, July 17, the Committee

will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,

and on Thursday, July 18, the

Committee will meet from 8:30 a.m. to

4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Mark Joyce, Office of

Cooperative Environmental

Management, U.S. EPA (1601F), 401 M

Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Joyce, Designated Federal Official,

Direct line (202) 260–6889, Secretary’s

line (202) 260–9744.

Dated: May 23, 1996.

Mark Joyce,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 96–14462 Filed 6–06–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPP–30112; FRL–5373–8]

Chlorothalonil; Request for Exception

to Worker Protection Standard’s

Prohibition of Early Entry Into

Pesticide-Treated Areas to Harvest

Muskmelons by Hand

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of receipt of

petition for an exception; request for

comment.

SUMMARY: EPA’s Worker Protection

Standard (WPS) permits the Agency to

grant exceptions to restrictions on

worker entry into pesticide-treated

areas. This permission is found in 40

CFR 170.112(e). The State of Indiana has

petitioned the Agency to allow workers

to enter into muskmelon fields that have

been treated with chlorothalonil, to

engage in hand harvesting before the 48-

hour restricted entry interval (REI) has

expired. An REI is the amount of time

that must expire after a pesticide

application before workers are allowed

to enter the treated area. The request

covers the period of June 15 through

August 30, 1996, the general range of

time when muskmelons are harvested.

This Notice acknowledges receipt of

Indiana’s petition and invites comments

from the public on the substance of the

petition.

DATES: Comments, data, or evidence

should be submitted on or before July 8,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The Agency invites any

interested person to submit written

comments identified by docket number

‘‘OPP–30112’’ to: By mail: Public

Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), 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 number

‘‘OPP–30112.’’ No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments on

this document may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked 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 Virginia

address given above from 8 a.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua First, Field Operations Division,

Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Rm. 1121, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Crystal Mall #2,

Arlington, VA, (703-305-7437), e-mail:

first.joshua@epamail.epa gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Statutory Authority

This Notice is issued under the

authority of 40 CFR 170.112, authorized

by section 25(a) of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a). Under

FIFRA, EPA is authorized to mitigate

unreasonable adverse effects that may

result from exposure to pesticides,

taking into account risks of pesticide

exposure to human health and the

environment and the benefits of

pesticide use to society and the

economy.

B. The Worker Protection Standard

Introduced in 1974, the Worker

Protection Standard (WPS) is intended

to reduce the risk of pesticide

poisonings and injuries among

agricultural workers who are exposed to

pesticide residues, and to reduce the

risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29097

among pesticide handlers who may face

more hazardous levels of exposure.

Updated in 1992, the WPS scope now

includes workers performing hand labor

operations in fields treated with

pesticides, workers in or on farms,

forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and

pesticide handlers who mix, load,

apply, or otherwise handle pesticides.

The WPS contains requirements for

pesticide safety training, notification of

pesticide applications, use of personal

protective equipment (PPE), restricted

entry intervals following pesticide

application, decontamination supplies,

and emergency medical assistance.

C. Early Entry Exceptions

In general, § 170.112 of the WPS

prohibits agricultural workers from

entering a pesticide-treated area during

a restricted entry interval (REI). REIs are

specified on the pesticide product label

and typically range from 12 to 72 hours.

Product-specific longer REIs have been

set for a few pesticides.

The WPS contains the following

exceptions to the general prohibition

against worker entry into treated areas

during the REI:

(1) Entry resulting in no contact with

treated surfaces.

(2) Entry allowing short-term tasks

(less than 1 hour) to be performed by

workers wearing PPE and meeting other

conditions.

(3) Entry to perform tasks associated

with agricultural emergencies.

Under § 170.112(e) of the WPS, EPA

may establish additional exceptions to

the Standard’s provision of prohibiting

early entry to perform routine hand

labor tasks. Before implementing such

changes, however, EPA is required to

provide a 30-day public comment

period. EPA will grant or deny a request

for an exception based on a risk-benefit

analysis. This analysis is required by 40

CFR 170.112(e)(3), and takes into

account both the added risks and the

benefits from allowing early entry to

perform hand labor tasks.

Under 40 CFR 170.112(b) and (c),

workers engaging in early entry work

are not permitted to engage in hand

labor, which results in substantial

contact with pesticide-treated surfaces,

and under § 170.112(d) and (e), workers

are explicitly allowed to engage in hand

labor. The WPS defines hand labor as

any agricultural activity performed by

hand or with hand tools that causes a

worker to have substantial contact with

treated surfaces (such as plants or soil)

that may contain pesticide residues.

On June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30265), EPA

granted an exception which allows,

under specific conditions, early entry

into pesticide-treated areas in

greenhouses to harvest roses by hand

cutting. In the Federal Register of May

3, 1995 (60 FR 21953) (FRL–4950–9),

two additional exceptions were granted

which allow early-entry to perform

irrigation and limited contact tasks

under specified conditions.

On September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49841)

(FRL–4974–4), EPA denied the State of

Delaware an exception to the 48-hour

REI for chlorothalonil that had been

submitted in a petition. The petition

had requested an exception for the

purpose of allowing workers early entry

(a 12–hour REI) into treated areas to

hand harvest cantaloupes and squash.

An additional 10 States submitted

similar requests during the 30-day

public comment period after EPA

published notice of its receipt of

Delaware’s petition, and EPA denied

those requests as well.

D. Basic Information about

Chlorothalonil

Chlorothalonil is a wettable granular

fungicide used to control powdery

mildew, downey mildew, and

Alternaria leaf blight diseases, among

others. Under the WPS, the REI has been

set at 48 hours, an increase from 12

hours. The pre-harvest interval (PHI) for

melons and squash is 0 days. The PHI

is the period that must elapse, in days,

from the last day of application to the

first day that a crop can be harvested.

Chlorothalonil is in acute Toxicity

Category I for primary eye irritation and

has been classified as a probable human

carcinogen (Category B2). Chlorothalonil

poses risks of severe eye irritation and

delayed health effects (kidney effects).

Currently EPA is working on a

Reregistration Eligibility Document

(RED) for chlorothalonil. A RED is a

document that combines all scientific

and economic information about a

pesticide and which is used for

determining whether or not a pesticide

should be reregistered. The

chlorothalonil RED is scheduled for

completion this year.

II. Summary of Indiana’s Petition

The State of Indiana has petitioned

the Agency under § 170.112(e) to allow

early entry by workers into

chlorothalonil-treated muskmelon fields

to perform hand labor harvesting

immediately after application of the

fungicide. The current REI for

chlorothalonil is 48 hours. Indiana’s

petition states that muskmelon growers

will suffer substantial economic losses if

they cannot harvest their crop on a daily

basis. The time period for the exception

requested is from June 15 through

August 30, 1996.

A. Need for Early Entry

According to the request, Indianagrown muskmelons are under strong

disease pressure from Alternaria leaf

blight, anthracnose, bacterial wilt,

gummy stem blight, and powdery

mildew. According to Indiana, if

unchecked, these diseases can destroy

the crop and result in serious reductions

in muskmelon yield and quality.

Indiana states that muskmelons ripen

quickly, and must therefore be

harvested daily to avoid the fruit

becoming over-ripe. Indiana contends

that considerable amounts of fruit could

be damaged or lost during the 48-hour

REI, and even during a 24-hour REI, due

to the inability to harvest mature crops

daily. Indiana states that over-ripe

muskmelons are not harvested; their

connection to the vine is cut; and they

are simply left in the field. Moreover,

Indiana contends that if left on their

vines, mature (over-ripe) muskmelons

act as ‘‘suckers,’’ depriving less mature

melons on the vine of nutrients

necessary for their growth. Indiana

estimated that a 7 percent crop loss

would result from over-ripe fruit being

left on the vine for 48 hours, and that

a 2 percent loss would result from a 24-

hour delay of harvest. It is also claimed

that these over-ripe melons interfere

with the production of female flowers,

which are necessary for producing new

fruit.

Indiana said that additional labor

costs may be incurred to remove overripe fruit, posing a second set of costs

to growers beyond costs associated with

direct losses in sales.

Indiana states that fungicides applied

after the first melon harvest result in

greater muskmelon yields and a longer

production period of fruit graded as

United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) #1 quality. Powdery mildew is

controlled primarily with ‘‘timely

applications’’ of systemic fungicides,

such as triadimefon and benomyl.

Bacterial wilt is controlled through

managing cucumber beetle populations,

which spread the disease. Alternaria

leaf blight, anthracnose, and gummy

stem blight must be controlled with

repeated applications of fungicides.

Indiana says that, of the available

appropriate fungicides for these three

diseases, only chlorothalonil can be

used during harvest, because

muskmelons are harvested daily and

chlorothalonil has a 0-day PHI. Indiana

states that cultural controls for

Alternaria leaf blight are not readily

available and are not very effective in

any case. Where powdery mildew is a

problem, chlorothalonil is usually

applied as necessary.
29098 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

The alternative to chlorothalonil on

muskmelons is mancozeb, which has a

PHI of 5 days and is therefore not

considered to be a practical alternative

during the harvest. Indiana’s petition

implies that rescheduling chlorothalonil

applications during the conventional 7-

day spray schedule would not be

practical because regardless of how a

grower reschedules applications, there

would be a 48-hour REI following a

spray application; weather and crop

maturity would most likely require

harvest during that time.

According to Indiana, the average

melon field size is 20 to 40 acres. Large

fields are 250 acres. Other States have

previously said that two to five workers

are required to harvest for 1 hour per

field, and that workers would harvest

several fields over an 8-hour day.

Machine harvesting of cantaloupe or

squash is not possible. The State of

Indiana says that it is open to

suggestions from the Agency for any

means to mitigate eye hazards to harvest

crews posed by chlorothalonil. Indiana

does not believe that workers should be

required to wear any additional PPE,

because EPA has stated that it believes

that workers will not wear it (because of

heat stress).

B. Proposed Terms of Exception

The State of Indiana has proposed the

following terms:

1. Harvesting would be performed

immediately after application.

2. All Indiana muskmelon growers

would be required to use the MELCAST

disease warning system (described

below), and only apply chlorothalonil

according to MELCAST times of

predicted need. Indiana states that the

MELCAST system is part of an

integrated pest management program

that results in two to four fewer annual

chlorothalonil applications than the

conventional 7-day program.

3. Limitations on current use patterns

(and thereby lowering potential risk) by

reducing the application rate and

reducing the number of applications.

The maximum chlorothalonil

application rate would be 0.78 pounds

of active ingredient per acre (lbs ai/

acre), as opposed to the maximum rate

of 1.5 lbs ai/acre. This lower rate would

begin 2 days prior to the beginning of

the melon harvest and continuing

through the harvest.

4. Growers would be subject to

unannounced inspections by the Office

of Indiana State Chemist to ensure

compliance, especially with the lower

application rate of 0.78 pounds of active

ingredient.

MELCAST is a computerized,

weather-based disease advisory system

that helps growers determine when the

most appropriate times are for applying

only essential fungicides. The Purdue

Cooperative Extension Service has

shown that using MELCAST will result

in two to four fewer fungicide

applications without increasing risk of

crop losses. MELCAST can be used with

Alternaria leaf blight, anthracnose, and

gummy stem blight. It is assumed that

the State of Indiana believes that the

costs of these measures are less than the

expected costs associated with crop

losses without the exception being

granted.

C. Economic Impacts

The State of Indiana has claimed that

a significant economic loss may occur if

the 48–hour REI remains in effect.

Indiana has said that the daily harvest

of muskmelons is essential to maximize

crop production. Indiana projects that,

with a 0-day REI, a muskmelon crop

that yields 4,500 melons per acre over

a 4-week harvest period (picked every

day) results in a net return of $2,000 per

day. With a 24-hour REI, Indiana

calculates that the net return will be

$1,440 per acre, an income reduction of

28 percent. With the current 48-hour

REI, Indiana has projected a net return

of $810 per acre, a 59 percent reduction

from the best-case scenario of $2,000 per

acre. Indiana states that the vast

majority of Indiana muskmelon growers

derive their incomes from farms that are

40 acres or less. For these farmers,

whose incomes are claimed to be

between $30,000 and $40,000, a 28

percent or 59 percent reduction in

income could seriously affect their

ability to make a living from growing

muskmelons.

The following are the most significant

points that EPA needs to address before

an economic analysis can be completed.

First, the applicant did not estimate the

loss of fruit to disease if chlorothalonil

is not used at all. Such an estimate

would also include the reduced costs of

not using chlorothalonil. Because the

applicant has projected the costs of

adhering to the 48–hour REI to be quite

high, it is possible that not using

chlorothalonil at all could be preferable

in some situations.

Second, it is unclear to EPA how

cutting over-ripe muskmelons (‘‘sucker

fruit’’) from fruit-producing vines is

considered an additional labor cost.

EPA believes that it is labor that would

have occurred in any case, and that

picking fewer melons actually requires

less labor. If the activity is claimed as

an additional cost resulting from

unproductive labor, the applicant has

not clarified or explained that.

Moreover, the applicant has not

explained how a delay in harvest of 1

day will result in all of the fruit that

would have been harvested being overripe; nor has the applicant explained

how over-ripe melons are automatically

economically valueless.

Third, the applicant did not consider

the relative savings in reduced usage of

chlorothalonil due to implementing

MELCAST, and assumed one

application per week in projecting yield

reductions. The use of the MELCAST

system reportedly should reduce

chlorothalonil applications to be, on

average, less frequent than once every 7

days.

Finally, better explanation and

documentation of the basis and

methodology for estimating the stated

quantitative yield loss estimates of 2

percent and 7 percent for the 24–hour

REI and the 48-hour REI are needed.

D. Potential Risks

Prior to the introduction of WPSbased interim REIs, chlorothalonil’s REI

was 12 hours; its current REI is 48

hours. Based on new data received

through its reregistration program, EPA

is now reviewing the length of

chlorothalonil’s REI. At the current

standard application rate (for

muskmelons) of 1.5 lbs ai/acre,

chlorothalonil appears to pose risks to

most workers, risks that could be

mitigated by a longer REI.

EPA has conducted several

preliminary qualitative assessments,

based on different assumptions, to

evaluate the potential carcinogenic and

toxicity risks from exposure to

chlorothalonil. When chlorothalonil

treatment begins before the harvest

season at 1.5 lbs ai/acre, and then drops

in rate to 0.78 lbs ai/acre during the

harvest season (as Indiana is proposing),

the risk is substantially reduced from

the current treatment schedule. The REI

for this application schedule would be

24 hours. However, because

chlorothalonil has a half-life of 3.5 days,

the residue remaining after the

application at the rate of 1.5 lbs ai/acre,

coupled with the subsequent rate of 0.78

lb ai/acre, will still leave residues that

pose risks of some concern to workers,

if they entered the treated site

immediately after application.

It appears that still lower potential

risk could be attained by reducing the

chlorothalonil application to 0.78 lb ai/

acre for the entire growing and

harvesting season. Lowest risk seems to

be posed by use of alternative fungicides

prior to harvest with chlorothalonil

application at the reduced rate starting

just prior to the harvest period in order

to accommodate the PHI of the

alternatives.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29099

EPA’s assessment of worker risk from

re-entry may be affected by additional

information about foliar dislodgable

residue, especially about chlorothalonil

residue levels between applications, and

other information.

III. Comments and Information

Solicited

The Agency is interested in receiving

comments on this proposed exception.

In particular, the Agency welcomes

comments supported by data or

additional information about

muskmelons, about the potential risks

associated with granting this exception

request, about cultural practices, and

about the potential economic impacts.

This would include evidence

demonstrating whether or not the risks

to workers would be acceptable given

Indiana’s proposed terms, and an REI of

0 hours. It would also include evidence

about whether or not REIs of 4, 12, or

24 hours are appropriate given varying

application schedules and the

substitution of alternative fungicides

during the growing season. An REI of 4

hours has not been proposed, and EPA

maintains concerns about the potential

worker risks associated with a 4-hour

REI, but EPA nevertheless is soliciting

comments on it. An alternative but

similar application schedule using

another fungicide (mancozeb) during

the growing season may warrant an REI

of 12 hours, and an application

schedule similar to that proposed by

Indiana might result in an REI of 24

hours.

The Agency is also interested in

evidence about whether or not the use

of PPE, engineering controls, or any

additional decontamination procedures

or safety training would be useful

should the exception be granted. The

Agency is interested in obtaining data

on how heat stress from PPE can be

mitigated, and if there are any reports of

poisoning incidents involving

harvesters being exposed to

chlorothalonil.

The Agency also would like

information about cultural practices and

economic impacts, such as an

appropriate time limit on activities

performed during the REI; this would

include information about the affect the

WPS had on the 1995 melon season.

Comments on feasible alternative

fungicides or integrated pest

management practices that would make

early entry for hand harvesting

unnecessary, and their associated costs,

are also solicited. The Agency welcomes

any additional information concerning

the economic impact on Indiana’s

muskmelon industry (such as crop yield

and/or price) resulting from continuing

to prohibit hand harvesting during

chlorothalonil’s 48-hour REI on

muskmelons. Also solicited is

additional information on the average

life of muskmelon fruit, uses for overripe fruit, uses for canned muskmelon

fruit and juice, and the stages of

maturity that are required for different

markets.

IV. Public Record

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on this action.

Comments must bear a notation

indicating the docket control number

[OPP–30112].

A record has been established for this

action under docket number ‘‘OPP–

30112’’ (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 8 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Rm. 1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for the proposal as

well as the public version, as described

above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record which will also include

all comments submitted directly in

writing. The official rulemaking record

is the paper record maintained at the

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Occupational safety and health,

Pesticides and Pests.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 96–14449 Filed 6–06–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5516–3]

Strategic Plan for the Office of

Research and Development

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of the Strategic Plan for the

Office of Research and Development

(EPA–600/R–96/059), prepared by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Office of Research and

Development (ORD). This document

describes the process and criteria for

selecting ORD’s high priority research

and defines the foundation for ORD’s

management and budget planning

process.

DATES: The Strategic Plan for the Office

of Research and Development will be

available to the public on or about June

7, 1996. Interested parties can access the

Executive Summary of the Document

via the Internet on the ORD Home Page

(http://www.epa.gov/ORD) on or about

June 3, 1996. In addition, the entire

document will be available on the

Internet on or about June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The document is available

for inspection at the EPA Headquarters

Library, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC. EPA Library

hours are 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. On or about June 7, 1996,

interested parties can obtain a single

copy of the Strategic Plan by contacting:

ORD Publications Office, Technology

Transfer Division, National Risk

Management Research Lab, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 26

W. Martin Luther King Drive,

Cincinnati, OH 45268; Telephone: (513–

569–7566.) Please provide your name

and mailing address, and request the

document by the title and EPA

Document No. (EPA–600/R–96/059). A

limited number of paper copies will be

available from this source, and requests

will be filled on a first come-first served

basis. After the supply is exhausted,

copies of the Strategic Plan can be

purchased from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS) by calling

(703) 487–4650 or sending a facsimile to

(703) 321–8547. The NTIS order number

for the Strategic Plan is (PB96–175385.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sherry Hawkins Office of Research and

Science Integration, (8104), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone

(202) 260–5593; Facsimile (202–260–

0106.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In recent

years, many important groups,