Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61115 

at http://books.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=11688. 

EPA is now beginning to prepare a 

response to the NAS review of the 

dioxin reassessment. The Agency has 

requested that the SAB form an expert 

panel to provide independent advice 

regarding the draft technical plan, the 

revised draft, and the final draft of the 

EPA response to the recommendations 

of the NAS. 

Expertise Sought: The SAB Staff 

Office requests nominations of 

recognized experts with specific 

experience and knowledge of dioxin in 

one or more of the following areas: (a) 

Epidemiology; (b) toxicology (with 

expertise in cancer, reproductive 

toxicology, developmental toxicology, 

immunotoxicology, dosimetry, 

toxicokinetics, mechanisms of action, or 

mixtures); (c) endocrinology; (d) lipid 

metabolism; (e) cardiovascular 

mechanisms of pathology; (f) risk 

assessment (with expertise in statistics, 

quantitative uncertainty analysis, or 

dose-response modeling); and (g) 

exposure assessment (with expertise in 

bioavailability, weathering, or effects of 

partitioning in environmental media). 

How to Submit Nominations: Any 

interested person or organization may 

nominate qualified individuals to be 

considered for appointment on this SAB 

Panel. Candidates may also nominate 

themselves. Nominations should be 

submitted in electronic format (which is 

preferred over hard copy) following the 

instructions for ‘‘Nominating Experts to 

Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc 

Committees Being Formed’’ provided on 

the SAB Web site. The form can be 

accessed through the ‘‘Nomination of 

Experts’’ link on the blue navigational 

bar on the SAB Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/sab. To receive full 

consideration, nominations should 

include all of the information requested. 

EPA’s SAB Staff Office requests 

contact information about: The person 

making the nomination; contact 

information about the nominee; the 

disciplinary and specific areas of 

expertise of the nominee; the nominee’s 

curriculum vita; sources of recent grant 

and/or contract support; and a 

biographical sketch of the nominee 

indicating current position, educational 

background, research activities, and 

recent service on other national 

advisory committees or national 

professional organizations. 

Persons having questions about the 

nomination procedures, or who are 

unable to submit nominations through 

the SAB Web site, should contact Dr. 

Thomas Armitage, DFO, at the contact 

information provided above in this 

notice. Non-electronic submissions 

must follow the same format and 

contain the same information as the 

electronic. 

The SAB Staff Office will 

acknowledge receipt of the nomination 

and inform nominees of the panel for 

which they have been nominated. From 

the nominees identified by respondents 

to this Federal Register notice (termed 

the ‘‘Widecast’’) and other sources, the 

SAB Staff Office will develop a smaller 

subset (known as the ‘‘Short List’’) for 

more detailed consideration. The Short 

List will be posted on the SAB Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/sab and will 

include, for each candidate, the 

nominee’s name and biosketch. Public 

comments on the Short List will be 

accepted for 21 calendar days. During 

this comment period, the public will be 

requested to provide information, 

analysis, or other documentation on 

nominees that the SAB Staff Office 

should consider in evaluating 

candidates for the Panel. 

For the SAB, a balanced panel is 

characterized by inclusion of candidates 

who possess the necessary domains of 

knowledge, the relevant scientific 

perspectives (which, among other 

factors, can be influenced by work 

history and affiliation), and the 

collective breadth of experience to 

adequately address the charge. Public 

responses to the Short List candidates 

will be considered in the selection of 

the panel, along with information 

provided by candidates and information 

gathered by SAB Staff independently 

concerning the background of each 

candidate (e.g., financial disclosure 

information and computer searches to 

evaluate a nominee’s prior involvement 

with the topic under review). Specific 

criteria to be used in evaluation of an 

individual Panel member include: (a) 

Scientific and/or technical expertise, 

knowledge, and experience (primary 

factors); (b) absence of financial 

conflicts of interest; (c) scientific 

credibility and impartiality; (d) 

availability and willingness to serve; 

and (e) ability to work constructively 

and effectively in committees. 

Prospective candidates will be 

required to fill out the ‘‘Confidential 

Financial Disclosure Form for Special 

Government Employees Serving on 

Federal Advisory Committees at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’’ 

(EPA Form 3110–48). This confidential 

form allows Government officials to 

determine whether there is a statutory 

conflict between that person’s public 

responsibilities (which include 

membership on an EPA Federal 

advisory committee) and private 

interests and activities, or the 

appearance of a lack of impartiality, as 

defined by Federal regulation. Ethics 

information, including EPA Form 3110– 

48, is available on the SAB Web site at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/Web/ 

ethics?OpenDocument. 

Dated: October 6, 2008. 

Anthony F. Maciorowski, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. E8–24417 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1163; FRL–8383–2] 

Guidance for Conducting Prospective 

Ground-Water Monitoring Studies, 

Response to Public Comments and 

Final Guidance; Notice of Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of the final Guidance for 

Conducting Prospective Ground-Water 

(PGW) Monitoring Studies and EPA’s 

response to public comments on the 

development of the final PGW 

monitoring studies guidance. This PGW 

monitoring study, which is required on 

a case-by-case basis, is conducted in a 

controlled setting and provides EPA 

with data for evaluating the impact of 

legal pesticide use on ground-water 

quality. The PGW guidance document 

describes how to conduct a PGW 

monitoring study, milestones for 

consulting with EPA, and how to report 

results to EPA. Data generated from 

these field studies have proven valuable 

to EPA scientists and risk managers as 

they are specifically designed to relate 

pesticide use indicated on the label to 

measurements of the pesticide and its 

degradates in ground water used as a 

source of drinking water. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Betsy Behl, Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division (7507P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (703) 305– 

6128; fax number: (703) 305–6309; email address: behl.betsy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
61116 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2007–1163. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either in 

the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory 

Public Docket in Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of 

operation of this Docket Facility are 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

The PGW monitoring study, which is 

required on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 

158.1300), is conducted in a controlled 

setting and provides the Agency with 

data for evaluating the impact of legal 

pesticide use on ground-water quality. 

After assessing the overall 

environmental fate of a pesticide, the 

Agency may require the pesticide 

manufacturer (registrant) to conduct a 

PGW monitoring study, with input from 

EPA on key aspects of the PGW 

monitoring study design. The Agency’s 

assessment is based on a review of 

laboratory data on mobility and 

persistence of the compound, estimates 

of potential exposure, available 

monitoring and modeling information, 

and a consideration of the potential for 

risk from drinking-water exposure. Data 

generated from these field studies have 

proven valuable to EPA scientists and 

risk managers as they are specifically 

designed to relate pesticide use 

indicated on the label to measurements 

of the pesticide and its degradates in 

ground water used as a source of 

drinking water. The PGW guidance 

document describes how to conduct a 

PGW monitoring study, describes 

milestones for consulting with EPA, and 

describes how results should be 

reported to EPA. EPA uses the results of 

PGW monitoring studies to help answer 

questions such as: 

1. Will the pesticide leach in portions 

of the pesticide use area that are similar 

to the field study area? 

2. How do pesticide residues change 

over time? 

3. What measures might be effective 

in mitigating the pesticide leaching? 

Monitoring data generated in these 

PGW monitoring studies provide a timeseries of concentrations that can be used 

in exposure and risk assessments as a 

reasonable surrogate for pesticide 

concentrations in drinking water drawn 

from shallow private wells in 

agricultural areas. PGW monitoring 

studies have been used to test 

alternative mitigation strategies for 

pesticides that have adversely affected 

ground-water quality to determine, for 

example, if a reduction in application 

rate or specific irrigation technology 

will reduce or eliminate the impact. 

Data from these PGW monitoring 

studies have also been used to develop 

the EPA regression screening model, 

Screening Concentration in Ground 

Water (SCI-GROW) (http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ 

models4.htm#scigrow), which is used to 

estimate screening-level pesticide 

concentrations in ground water used as 

a source of drinking water. Currently, 

the results of these PGW monitoring 

studies are being used to evaluate 

models of subsurface pesticide 

transport, and as a basis for model 

scenarios for estimating pesticide 

concentrations in shallow-ground water. 

The original draft guidance for PGW 

monitoring studies was developed 

primarily in the early 1990s and has 

been subjected to substantial public 

review and comment, including a public 

workshop sponsored by EPA in 1995 

(Ref. 1), a Scientific Advisory Panel 

(SAP) review in 1998 (Ref. 2), and a 

request for final public comments in 

January 2008 (Ref. 3). From the January 

2008 final request for comments, two 

public comments were received: 

California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation and Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(Ref. 4). Conference calls were held with 

these two commenters to discuss 

proposed revisions in response to their 

comments. The comments received 

during the workshop (Ref. 1) and SAP 

meeting (Ref. 2) provided valuable 

suggestions from both a technical and 

practical perspective and were used to 

revise the PGW monitoring studies 

guidance document and to address other 

issues identified in the Agency’s review 

of PGW monitoring studies conducted 

for the registration of over 50 pesticides. 

EPA incorporated comments solicited 

from industry, academia, and 

consultants into the revised PGW 

monitoring studies guidance document. 

The recommendations in the PGW 

monitoring studies guidance document 

also represent the Agency’s substantial 

experience, over the last decade, in 

developing and articulating effective 

procedures for collecting high-quality 

data on pesticide movement into ground 

water. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), section 3. 

III. References 

1. EPA. Prospective Ground-Water 

Monitoring Study 1995 Workshop 

Notes. Document Number: EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2007–1163–0009. Available online at: http://www.regulations.gov. 

2. EPA. FIFRA Scientific Advisory 

Panel Meeting, October 14–15, 1998, 

Report. SAP Report No. 98–01. I— 

Review of Guidance Document for 

Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water 

Monitoring Studies. November 19, 1998. 

Available on-line at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/ 

1998/october/final.pdf. 

3. EPA. Guidance for Conducting 

Prospective Ground-Water Studies; 

Notice. Federal Register (73 FR 2910, 

January 16, 2008) (FRL–8347–5). 

Available on-line at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

4. EPA. Response to Public Comments 

Document on the Guidance for 

Conducting Prospective Ground-Water 

Monitoring Studies. Document Number: 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1163–0005. 

Available on-line at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61117 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Groundwater monitoring studies, Pesticides and 

pests. 

Dated: October 8, 2008. 

Donald J. Brady, 

Director, Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–24414 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0653; FRL–8383–4] 

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; 

Agency Decisions and State and 

Federal Agency Crisis Declarations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA has granted emergency 

exemptions under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as 

listed in this notice. The exemptions 

were granted during the period April 1, 

2008 through June 30, 2008, to control 

unforeseen pest outbreaks. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See 

each emergency exemption for the name 

of a contact person. The following 

information applies to all contact 

persons: Team Leader, Emergency 

Response Team, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

•Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed at the end of the 

emergency exemption of interest. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0653. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

II. Background 

EPA has granted emergency 

exemptions to the following State and 

Federal agencies. The emergency 

exemptions may take the following 

form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, 

or specific. 

Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can 

authorize the use of a pesticide when 

emergency conditions exist. 

Authorizations (commonly called 

emergency exemptions) are granted to 

State and Federal agencies and are of 

four types: 

1. A ‘‘specific exemption’’ authorizes 

use of a pesticide against specific pests 

on a limited acreage in a particular 

State. Most emergency exemptions are 

specific exemptions. 

2. ‘‘Quarantine’’ and ‘‘public health’’ 

exemptions are a particular form of 

emergency exemption issued for 

quarantine or public health purposes. 

These are rarely requested. 

3. A ‘‘crisis exemption’’ is initiated by 

a State or Federal agency (and is 

confirmed by EPA) when there is 

insufficient time to request and obtain 

EPA permission for use of a pesticide in 

an emergency. 

EPA may deny an emergency 

exemption: If the State or Federal 

agency cannot demonstrate that an 

emergency exists, if the use poses 

unacceptable risks to the environment, 

or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that 

the proposed pesticide use is likely to 

result in ‘‘a reasonable certainty of no 

harm’’ to human health, including 

exposure of residues of the pesticide to 

infants and children. 

If the emergency use of the pesticide 

on a food or feed commodity would 

result in pesticide chemical residues, 

EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance 

meeting the ‘‘reasonable certainty of no 

harm standard’’ of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

In this document: EPA identifies the 

State or Federal agency granted the 

exemption, the type of exemption, the 

pesticide authorized and the pests, the 

crop or use for which authorized, 

number of acres (if applicable), and the 

duration of the exemption. EPA also 

gives the Federal Register citation for 

the time-limited tolerance, if any. 

III. Emergency Exemptions: U.S. States 

and Territories 

Arkansas 

State Plant Board 

Crisis: On June 5, 2008, for the use of 

imazethapyr on rice to control weeds 

(red rice). This program ended on July 

20, 2008. Contact: Andrew Ertman. 

California 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Crisis: On May 15, 2008, for the use 

difenoconazole on almonds to control 

Alternaria leaf spot. This program 

ended on June 20, 2008. Contact: Stacey 

Groce. 

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the 

use of lavanduly senecioate on raisin, 

wine, and table grapes to control the 

vine mealybug; April 9, 2008 to 

September 30, 2008. Contact: Andrew 

Ertman. 

EPA authorized the use of 

propiconazole on peaches and 

nectarines to control sour rot; April 15, 

2008 to September 30, 2008. Contact: 

Andrea Conrath. 

Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of 

environ LpH (containing the active 

ingredients ortho-benzyl-parachlorophenol, para-tertiary-amylphenol, 

and ortho-phenylphenol) in government 

laboratories to disinfect surfaces 

potentially contaminated with prions; 

March 26, 2008 to March 26, 2011. 

Contact: Princess Campbell. 

Colorado 

Department of Agriculture 

Specific exemption: EPA authorized the 

use of acibenzolar on onions to control 

iris yellow spot virus; April 2, 2008 to 

September 1, 2008. Contact: Andrew 

Ertman. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES