Environmental Protection Agency March 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), announces the cancellation of two meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Drinking Water Subcommittee. These meetings (teleconference March 23, 2005, and face-to-face meeting March 29-31, 2005) were announced in a Federal Register notice published on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 70 FR 11241. The purpose of these public meetings was to evaluate EPA's Drinking Water Research Program, and they will be rescheduled at a later date.

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is requesting nominations to augment expertise to the SAB's Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) to review EPA's implementation of RadNet, a nationwide system to track environmental radiation. RadNet incorporates an upgrade to the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) air network, which was developed to provide for real-time monitoring of environmental levels of radiation in the United States (U.S.).

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Advisory Panel.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

This document proposes to revoke specific tolerances for residues of the herbicide alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon, disulfoton, and pirimiphos-methyl, and fungicide vinclozolin. Some of these specific tolerances correspond to commodities either no longer considered to be significant livestock feed items or which have registration restrictions against feeding to livestock. Other tolerances are associated with food registrations that EPA canceled or for which the Agency deleted food uses following requests for voluntary cancellation or use deletion by the registrants. EPA expects to determine whether any individuals or groups want to support these tolerances. The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to the proposed revocation of 15 tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which 9 would be counted as tolerance reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline.

North Carolina has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to North Carolina. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of mesotrione in or on sweet corn. Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of dinotefuran, [N-methyl-N'-nitro-N''-((tetrahydro-3- furanyl)methyl)guanidine] and its metabolites DN [1-methyl-3- (tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine] and UF [1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3- furylmethyl)urea], expressed as dinotefuran in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; grape; grape, raisin; potato; potato, chips; potato, granules/flakes; tomato, paste; cotton, undelinted seed; cotton, gin byproducts; and for residues of dinotefuran, [N-methyl-N'-nitro-N''- ((tetrahydro-3-furanyl)methyl)guanidine] alone in or on cattle meat, fat, and meat byproducts (mbyp); goat meat, fat, and mbyp; hog meat, fat, and mbyp; horse meat, fat, and mbyp; sheep meat, fat, and mbyp; and milk. Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

EPA is announcing the meeting of the Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action (FOSTTA) to enable state and tribal leaders to collaborate with EPA on environmental protection and pollution prevention issues. Representatives and invited guests of the Chemical Information and Management Project, the Pollution Prevention Project, and the Tribal Affairs Project (TAP), components of FOSTTA, will be meeting April 4-5, 2005. The meeting is being held to provide participants an opportunity to have in-depth discussions on issues concerning environmental and human health. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth some tentative agenda topics. EPA invites all interested parties to attend the public meeting.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq.) EPA is seeking public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR): Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (EPA ICR No. 1188.08, OMB Control No. 2070-0038). This ICR involves a collection activity that is currently approved and scheduled to expire on January 31, 2006. The information collected under this ICR relates to the requirement that persons notify EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process a chemical substance for a significant new use, as defined by TSCA section 5. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection activity and its expected burden and costs. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the collection.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92- 463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), announces a meeting (via conference call) of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Human Health Subcommittee.

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), EPA gives notice of a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) Management Committee (MC).

EPA is correcting the delegation of standards for national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants which EPA approved as part of the delegation of authority to Louisiana on March 26, 2004. This document corrects an error in the final rule pertaining to the EPA's delegation of national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for asbestos to Louisiana.

EPA expressed lack of objections to the preferred alternative. ERP No. D-NPS-G02014-TX Rating EC2, Big Thicket National Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan, Implementation, Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper and Polk Counties, TX. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and requests additional information on the delineation of these wetlands be incorporated in the Final EIS.

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Metals Risk Assessment Framework Review Panel.

A brief synopsis of no more than two pages identifying: 1. The institution requesting funding and its key partners (where the applicant is a consortium of institutions); 2. The goals, objectives, outputs, and outcomes of the program by the end of years one, two, and three; 3. How the proposed program builds on existing national efforts and programs; 4. The estimated number of education professionals to be reached as well as the expected demographics of the audiences reached; and 5. How the funds will be used. (b) Mission Statement: A statement of the short (first year) and long-term (three to five year) goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of the program. Include a discussion about the needs of the environmental education and education communities and how these needs will be met. (c) Management and Implementation Plan: A detailed plan of how the project will be managed and implemented in the first year of the program (plus a summary of the project in the second and third years). The plan must: (1) Identify the proposed training and long-term support; (2) discuss how these activities build on existing national efforts and programs; (3) identify all key outputs and outcomes of the project consistent with section II.F.; (4) describe the major responsibilities, qualifications, expertise, and abilities of the Program Director, Program Manager, and key staff as well as key partners where the applicant is a consortium to effectively manage and implement the program; and (5) include a matrix or table identifying all key goals, objectives, outputs, and outcomes, as well as a schedule for conducting and completing these outputs and outcomes during the first year. EPA will consider information provided by the applicant and may consider information from other sources, including Agency files, in evaluating programmatic capability. (d) Evaluation Plan: A detailed plan on how the effectiveness of the program will be evaluated. It is important that the applicant demonstrate how the outputs and outcomes of their program will meet the goals of the program as well as the needs of the environmental education and education communities. The evaluation must be conducted by an institution that has appropriate credentials and expertise in evaluating education programs and is independent of the applicant and key partners where the applicant is a consortium. (e) Appendices: Attachments to the work plan containing information on the budget, qualifications and experience of key personnel, and letters of commitment from key partners. Budget: A statement describing how funds will be used in the first year, including budget milestones for each major proposed output and a timetable showing the month/year of completion. Estimates must include the allocation of funding for all major outputs. Include indirect costs as well as a statement on the relative effectiveness of the program in terms of the ratio of indirect to direct costs. Key Personnel and Letters of Commitment: Include brief resumes of no more than three pages each for the Program Director, Program Manager, key staff, and key partners where the applicant is a consortium with major responsibilities for managing and implementing the program. Resumes should describe educational, administrative, management, and professional qualifications and experience. Also, include a one page ``letter of commitment'' from each key partner with major responsibilities in the program where the applicant is a consortium of institutions. ``Letters of endorsement'' from individuals or institutions will not be considered in the evaluation process. C. How Should the Application be Submitted? The applicant must submit one original and two copies of the application (a signed SF 424, SF 424A, and a work plan). To help ensure the applications are readable and can be reproduced, please adhere to the following guidelines. Applications should not be bound. They should be on white paper with page numbers. Work plans must be limited to 20 pages (not including the appendices). Evaluators will not read work plans beyond the 20th page. A ``page'' refers to one side of a single- spaced typed page. The page should be letter sized (8 x 11 inches) with normal type size (10 or 12 cpi). To conserve paper, please provide double-sided copies of the work plan and appendices, where possible. D. What is the Deadline for Submitting an Application and Where Should it be Sent? Applications must be sent to EPA through the U.S. Postal Service or through a commercial overnight delivery service. The applications must be postmarked or received by the delivery service no later than April 30, 2005. Any application postmarked or received by the delivery service after this date will not be considered for funding. All applications must be sent to: Kathleen MacKinnon, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Education, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. (MC: 1704A, RM 1426), Washington, DC 20460 (zip code for U.S. Postal Service deliveries), 20004 (zip code for commercial overnight deliveries). E. Can I Claim my Proposal as Confidential Business Information? In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may claim all or a portion of their application/proposal as confidential business information. EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance with 40 CFR part 2. Applicants must clearly mark applications/proposals or portions of applications/proposals they claim as confidential. If no claim of confidentiality is made, EPA is not required to make the inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure. F. Is Intergovernmental Review Required? This program may be eligible for coverage under Executive Order 12372 ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.'' An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review. You may obtain additional information on intergovernmental review at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/grants/spoc.html.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources. These regulations apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by EPA, as adopted by the TCEQ. The delegation of authority under this notice does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.

EPA is approving Ohio's March 1, 2005, submittal of a revision to the Clinton County 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. Ohio held a public hearing on the submittal on February 8, 2005. This maintenance plan revision establishes a new transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for the year 2006. EPA is approving the allocation of a portion of the safety margin for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to the area's 2006 MVEB for transportation conformity purposes. This allocation will still maintain the total emissions for the area at or below the attainment level required by the transportation conformity regulations. The transportation conformity budget for volatile organic compounds will remain the same as previously approved in the maintenance plan. In this action, EPA is also correcting the codification for a previous approval action for Cincinnati, Ohio.

EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the fiberboard saturation process at W.R. Meadows, Inc., Goodyear, AZ. We are proposing to approve a local permit condition that regulates these source-specific emissions under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This is a request for a new collection. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection (Airline Questionnaire) as described below. EPA is also extending the comment period on a related, previously-announced collection (Airport Questionnaire).

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Superfund Benefits Analysis Advisory Panel.

The EPA is announcing a stay of the immediate final rule published in the Federal Register of January 27, 2005 (70 FR 3894), authorizing revisions to Georgia's hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The effect of the stay is to allow for an extended public comment period. EPA did not publish a public notice in the newspaper concurrent with publication of the Federal Register notice published on January 27, 2005. Therefore, since EPA is committed to its policy of ensuring public involvement in the decision-making process, EPA is reopening the comment period.

This notice announces a correction to the Notice of Filing of a pesticide petition proposing an amendment to an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.

This notice announces EPA's amendment to the 2003 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide imazalil and informs the public of a correction of the docket identification (ID) number.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92- 463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), announces a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Ecological Research Subcommittee.