6028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (703) 605– 

0513; e-mail address: 

casciano.gina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons who are or 

may be required to conduct testing of 

chemical substances under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since 

other entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD-ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

Under section 5 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 

136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to 

field test pesticides under development. 

Manufacturers are required to obtain an 

EUP before testing new pesticides or 

new uses of pesticides if they conduct 

experimental field tests on 10 acres or 

more of land or one acre or more of 

water. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the 

Agency has determined that the 

following EUP application may be of 

regional and national significance, and 

therefore is seeking public comment on 

the EUP application: 

Submitter: Fine Agrochemicals Ltd., 

(62097–EUP–R). 

Pesticide Chemical: Prohydrojasmon 

(PDJ). 

Summary of Request: Use as a plant 

growth regulator on red apple varieties 

in the states of California, Maryland, 

Michigan, New York, North Carolina, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

Washington, and West Virginia. 

A copy of the application and any 

information submitted is available for 

public review in the docket established 

for this EUP application as described 

under ADDRESSES. 

Following the review of the 

application and any comments and data 

received in response to this solicitation, 

EPA will decide whether to issue or 

deny the EUP request, and if issued, the 

conditions under which it is to be 

conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will 

be announced in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Experimental use permits. 

Dated: January 25, 2010. 

Keith A. Matthews, 

Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2383 Filed 2–4–??; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9110–6] 

Notice of a Project Waiver of Section 

1605 (Buy American Requirement) of 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to 

the City of LaSalle, IL (LaSalle) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is hereby granting a 

project waiver of the Buy American 

requirements of ARRA Section 1605 

under the authority of Section 

1605(b)(2) [manufactured goods are not 

produced in the United States of a 

satisfactory quality] to LaSalle for the 

purchase of membrane bioreactor (MBR) 

membrane racks, which include the 

hollow fiber membrane modules and the 

associated proprietary mechanical 

equipment to secure the membranes in 

the tank. This is a project-specific 

waiver and only applies to the use of the 

specified product for the ARRA funded 

project being proposed. Any other 

ARRA project that may wish to use the 

same product must apply for a separate 

waiver based on project-specific 

circumstances. These hollow fiber 

membrane racks, which are supplied by 

Siemens Water Technologies 

Corporation, are manufactured in 

Australia and China, and meet LaSalle’s 

performance specifications and 

requirements. The Acting Regional 

Administrator is making this 

determination based on the review and 

recommendations of EPA Region 5’s 

Water Division. LaSalle has provided 

sufficient documentation to support its 

request, as detailed below. The 

Assistant Administrator of the Office of 

Administration and Resources 

Management has concurred on this 

decision to make an exception to 

Section 1605 of ARRA. This action 

permits the purchase of hollow fiber 

membrane racks for LaSalle’s ‘‘East Side 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 6029 

Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility 

Project’’ that may otherwise be 

prohibited under Section 1605(a) of the 

ARRA. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Henning, SRF Financial Analyst (312) 

886–4882, or Puja Lakhani, Regional 

Counsel, (312) 353–3190, U.S. EPA 

Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 

IL 60613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with ARRA Section 1605(c) 

and pursuant to Section 1605(b)(2) of 

Public Law 111–5, Buy American 

requirements, EPA hereby provides 

notice that it is granting a project waiver 

to LaSalle for the acquisition of hollow 

fiber membrane racks which are 

manufactured in Australia and China. 

The manufacturer is Siemens Water 

Technologies Corporation. 

Section 1605 of the ARRA requires 

that none of the appropriated funds may 

be used for the construction, alteration, 

maintenance, or repair of a public 

building or public work unless all of the 

iron, steel, and manufactured goods 

used in the project are produced in the 

United States, or unless a waiver is 

provided to the recipient by the head of 

the appropriate agency, here EPA. A 

waiver may be provided if EPA 

determines that (1) Applying these 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the public interest; (2) iron, steel, 

and the relevant manufactured goods 

are not produced in the United States in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality; 

or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and the 

relevant manufactured goods produced 

in the United States will increase the 

cost of the overall project by more than 

25 percent. 

LaSalle proposes to construct a new 

0.50 million gallons per day (MGD) 

wastewater treatment plant. The plant is 

designed based upon membrane 

bioreactor (MBR) technology. The MBR 

technology will produce effluent which 

has superior quality than conventional 

secondary or tertiary treatment facilities. 

The superior effluent quality afforded 

by the MBR technology was necessary 

for this project due to the characteristics 

of the receiving stream, the Little 

Vermilion River. The segment of the 

Little Vermilion River into which the 

proposed wastewater treatment plant 

will discharge is on the list of impaired 

waters set forth in Section 303(d) of the 

Federal Clean Water Act and the Water 

Quality Planning and Management 

regulation at 40 CFR Part 130. The 

segment has been listed with the 

designated use of aquatic life as 

impaired by potential pollutants 

including total nitrogen, pH, total 

phosphorus, total suspended solids, 

zinc and fecal coliform. The MBR 

technology proved to be the costeffective alternative for achieving 

effluent of sufficient quality with regard 

to the pollutants that are the potential 

source of impairment that would be 

required in order to obtain a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit for a new discharge into 

the 303(d)-listed receiving stream (Little 

Vermilion River). 

During the bidding phase of the 

project, LaSalle received proposals from 

three MBR equipment manufacturers, of 

which Siemens Water Technologies 

Corporation was selected. None of the 

three equipment manufacturers 

produces the hollow fiber membrane 

rack components of the MBR systems 

within the U.S. LaSalle stated in the 

waiver application that based on 

information gathered during the 

planning and early design stages of the 

project, including their contact with 

contractors and equipment suppliers 

during the bidding phase of the project, 

to the best of their knowledge at the 

time of equipment selection and design, 

they could not identify any other 

reputable membrane system for 

wastewater treatment applications that 

was currently manufactured in the 

United States and available to meet 

LaSalle’s technical specifications and 

design requirements. 

The April 28, 2009 EPA HQ 

Memorandum, ‘‘Implementation of Buy 

American provisions of P.L. 111–5, the 

‘American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009’,’’ defines reasonably 

available quantity as ‘‘the quantity of 

iron, steel, or relevant manufactured 

good is available or will be available at 

the time needed and place needed, and 

in the proper form or specification as 

specified in the project plans and 

design.’’ 

EPA’s national engineering contractor 

prepared a technical assessment report 

dated September 29, 2009, based on the 

submitted waiver request, identifying 

one potential domestic manufacturer of 

membrane racks which appeared to 

have the potential to meet LaSalle’s 

performance criteria and specifications. 

Subsequent analysis by EPA and the 

national contractor, however, concluded 

that the potential domestic 

manufacturer only produces modules 

with flat plate membranes. LaSalle’s 

project design plans specify that hollow 

fiber configured modules are required, 

and discussions with both EPA’s 

national engineering contractors and 

LaSalle confirmed that the use of flat 

plate membranes would require redesigning major portions of the project, 

including the membrane bioreactor 

basins, process inlet and outlet piping, 

filtrate pumping system, recycle 

pumping system, air scour blowers and 

air piping system, chemical cleaning 

system, and other features. The redesign would involve major changes to 

the basin concrete structures, masonry 

building enclosure, piping and 

mechanical systems, electrical/controls 

systems, and access platforms. 

Therefore, the potential domestic 

manufacturer does not provide the 

required hollow fiber membrane racks 

in sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality to 

meet the design specifications. EPA’s 

national contractor’s technical 

assessment report from September 29, 

2009, did not find any additional 

domestic manufacturers of the specified 

manufactured good. 

The purpose of the ARRA is to 

stimulate economic recovery in part by 

funding current infrastructure 

construction, not to delay projects that 

are ‘‘shovel ready’’ by requiring 

communities such as Auburn to revise 

their standards and specifications and to 

start the bidding process again. The 

imposition of ARRA Buy American 

requirements on such projects otherwise 

eligible for ARRA State Revolving Fund 

assistance would result in unreasonable 

delay and thus displace the ‘‘shovel 

ready’’ status for this project. To further 

delay project implementation is in 

direct conflict with a fundamental 

economic purpose of the ARRA, which 

is to create or retain jobs. 

The State and Tribal Programs Branch 

has reviewed this waiver request and 

has determined that the supporting 

documentation provided by LaSalle is 

sufficient to meet the criteria listed 

under Section 1605(b) of the ARRA and 

in the April 28, 2009, ‘‘Implementation 

of Buy American provisions of Public 

Law 111–5, the ‘American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009’ 

Memorandum’’: Iron, steel, and the 

manufactured goods are not produced in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available quantities and of a 

satisfactory quality. The basis for this 

project waiver is the authorization 

provided in Section 1605(b)(2) of the 

ARRA. Due to the lack of production of 

this product in the United States in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality 

in order to meet LaSalle’s performance 

specifications and requirements, a 

waiver from the Buy American 

requirement is justified. 

The March 31, 2009 Delegation of 

Authority Memorandum provided 

Regional Administrators with the 

authority to issue exceptions to Section 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
6030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 

1605 of the ARRA within the geographic 

boundaries of their respective regions 

and with respect to requests by 

individual grant recipients. Having 

established both a proper basis to 

specify the particular good required for 

this project, and that this manufactured 

good was not available from a producer 

in the United States, LaSalle is hereby 

granted a waiver from the Buy American 

requirements of Section 1605(a) of 

Public Law 111–5 for the purchase of 

the MBR membrane racks using ARRA 

funds as specified in the community’s 

request of September 10, 2009. This 

supplementary information constitutes 

the detailed written justification 

required by Section 1605(c) for waivers 

‘‘based on a finding under subsection 

(b).’’ 

Authority: Pub. L. 111–5, section 1605. 

Dated: January 7, 2010. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2541 Filed 2–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9110–9] 

EPA Science Advisory Board Staff 

Office Request for Nominations of 

Experts for the SAB Lead (Pb) Review 

Panel 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; Request for 

Nominations. 

SUMMARY: The Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) Staff Office is requesting public 

nominations of experts to form an SAB 

Ad Hoc Panel to review EPA’s draft 

technical analyses which will be used to 

support the development of lead-based 

paint dust hazard standards and leadsafe work practice standards. 

DATES: Nominations should be 

submitted by February 26, 2010 per 

instructions below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing further 

information regarding this Request for 

Nominations may contact Mr. Aaron 

Yeow, Designated Federal Officer 

(DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/ 

voice mail at (202) 343–9878; by fax at 

(202) 233–0643; or via e-mail at 

yeow.aaron@epa.gov. General 

information concerning the EPA Science 

Advisory Board can be found on the 

EPA SAB Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/sab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: Human exposure to lead 

may cause a variety of adverse health 

effects, particularly in children. EPA’s 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics (OPPT) regulates toxic 

substances, such as lead, through the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

In 2001, EPA established standards for 

lead-based paint hazards, which include 

lead in residential dust. OPPT is 

developing draft technical analyses that 

will be used to support: (a) Possible 

revision of existing residential leadbased paint dust hazard standards, (b) 

the development of new lead-based 

paint dust hazard standards for public 

and commercial buildings, and (c) the 

development of lead-safe work practice 

standards for renovations of public and 

commercial buildings. OPPT has 

requested that the SAB conduct a 

review of these draft technical analyses. 

The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 

4365 to provide independent scientific 

and technical advice, consultation and 

recommendations to the EPA 

Administrator on the technical basis for 

Agency positions and regulations. The 

SAB Staff Office will form an expert 

Panel to review OPPT’s draft technical 

analyses. The SAB Panel will comply 

with the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and all 

appropriate SAB procedural policies. 

Upon completion, the Panel’s report 

will be submitted to the chartered SAB 

for final approval for transmittal to the 

EPA Administrator. The SAB Lead 

Review Panel is being asked to comment 

on the scientific soundness of the 

Agency’s draft technical analyses. 

Availability of the Review Materials: 

The EPA draft technical analyses to be 

reviewed by the SAB Panel will be 

made available on the SAB Web site. 

For questions concerning the review 

materials, please contact Dr. Jennifer 

Seed, at (202) 564–7634, or 

seed.jennifer@epa.gov. 

Request for Nominations: The SAB 

Staff Office is requesting nominations of 

nationally recognized experts with 

expertise in one or more of the 

following areas, particularly with 

respect to lead: dust transport, exposure 

assessment, epidemiology, general 

toxicology, neurotoxicology, pediatrics, 

biokinetic modeling, biostatistics, and 

risk assessment. 

Process and Deadline for Submitting 

Nominations: Any interested person or 

organization may nominate qualified 

individuals for possible service on the 

SAB Review Panel in the areas of 

expertise described above. 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 

instructions 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 vitae; sources of recent 

grants and/or contracts; 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 Mr. 

Aaron Yeow, DFO, as indicated above in 

this notice. Nominations should be 

submitted in time to arrive no later than 

February 26, 2010. EPA values and 

welcomes diversity. In an effort to 

obtain nominations of diverse 

candidates, EPA encourages 

nominations of women and men of all 

racial and ethnic groups. 

The EPA SAB Staff Office will 

acknowledge receipt of nominations. 

The names and biosketches of qualified 

nominees identified by respondents to 

the Federal Register notice and 

additional experts identified by the SAB 

Staff will be posted on the SAB Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public 

comments on this list of candidates will 

be accepted for 21 calendar days. The 

public will be requested to provide 

relevant information or other 

documentation on nominees that the 

SAB Staff Office should consider in 

evaluating candidates. 

For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a 

balanced subcommittee or review panel 

includes 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. In 

establishing the SAB Panel, the SAB 

Staff Office will consider public 

comments on the list of candidates, 

information provided by the candidates 

themselves, and background 

information independently gathered by 

the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria 

to be used for Panel membership 

include: (a) Scientific and/or technical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES