Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices 7451

The applications were approved on

November 15, 1996, for an end-use and

a technical product as listed below:

1. Able Biological Insecticide (EPA

Reg. No. 100–776) for control of

lepidopteran insect of tree fruits,

terrestrial small fruits and vegetables,

tree nuts, alfalfa, herbs, cranberries,

corn, cotton, and soybeans.

2. Technical CGA-269941 (EPA Reg.

No. 100–775) for formulating into enduse products for control of lepidopterus

insect pests of tree fruits, terrestrial

small fruits and vegetables, tree nuts,

herbs, spices, cranberries, alfalfa, corn,

peanuts, cotton, and soybeans.

The Agency has considered all

required data on risks associated with

the proposed use of Bacillus

thuringiensis var. kurstaki strain M-200,

and information on social, economic,

and environmental benefits to be

derived from use. Specifically, the

Agency has considered the nature of the

chemical and its pattern of use,

application methods and rates, and level

and extent of potential exposure. Based

on these reviews, the Agency was able

to make basic health safety

determinations which show that use of

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki

strain M-200 when used in accordance

with widespread and commonly

recognized practice, will not generally

cause unreasonable adverse effects to

the environment.

More detailed information on these

registrations is contained in an EPA

Pesticide Fact Sheet on Bacillus

thuringiensis var. kurstaki strain M-200.

A copy of this fact sheet, which

provides a summary description of the

chemical, use patterns and

formulations, science findings, and the

Agency’s regulatory position and

rationale, may be obtained from the

National Technical Information Service

(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of

FIFRA, a copy of the approved label and

the list of data references used to

support registration are available for

public inspection in the office of the

Regulatory Action Leader. The data and

other scientific information used to

support registration, except for material

specifically protected by section 10 of

FIFRA, are available for public

inspection in the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. 1132, CM #2,

Arlington, VA 22202 (703–305–5805).

Requests for data must be made in

accordance with the provisions of the

Freedom of Information Act and must

be addressed to the Freedom of

Information Office (A-101), 401 M St.,

SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Such

requests should: (1) Identify the product

name and registration number and (2)

specify the data or information desired.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests, Product registration.

Dated: February 5, 1997.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–3929 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[PF–703; FRL–5585–6]

Ciba-Geigy Corporation; Pesticide

Tolerance Petition Filing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

initial filing of a pesticide petition

proposing the establishment of

tolerances for residues of

difenoconazole in or on raw agricultural

commodities of barley. This notice

includes a summary of the petition that

was prepared by the petitioner, CibaGeigy Corporation.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number [PF–703], must

be received on or before March 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Crystal Mall #2, Room

1132, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically be 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 in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket control

number [PF–703]. Electronic comments

on this notice may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found in Unit II. of

this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this notice may be claimed

confidential by marking any part or all

of that information as ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI). CBI should

not be submitted through e-mail.

Information marked as CBI 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 Room 1132 at the address

given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail, Cynthia Giles-Parker, Product

Manager (PM 22), Registration Division,

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Crystal Mall #2, Room

229, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, 703–305–5540, e-mail:

giles-parker.cynthia@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received a pesticide petition (PP–

6F4748)) from Ciba-Geigy Corporation,

410 Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC 27401,

proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to

amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing

a tolerance for residues of the fungicide,

difenoconazole, in or on the raw

agricultural commodities barely forage,

hay, and straw at 0.05 parts per million

(ppm) and barley grain at 0.01 ppm.

EPA has determined that the petition

contains data or information regarding

the elements set forth in section

408(d)(2) of FFDCA; however, EPA has

not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the

submitted data at this time or whether

the data supports granting of the

petition. Additional data may be needed

before EPA rules on the petition.

As required by section 408(d) of the

FFDCA, as recently amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

Pub. L. 104-170, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

(Ciba-Geigy) included in the petition a

summary of the petition and

authorization for the summary to be

published in the Federal Register in a

notice of receipt of the petition. The

summary represents the views of CibaGeigy. EPA is in the process of

evaluating the petition. As required by

section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, EPA is
7452 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices

including the summary as a part of this

notice of filing. EPA has made minor

edits to the summary for the purpose of

clarity.

I. Petition Summary

The analytical method AG–575B

(MRID 42806504) was used to determine

residues of difenoconazole in or on

barley matrices. This method is

proposed as the regulatory enforcement

method for barley. It is a revised version

of AG–575A that incorporates

specificity data and methodology for

megabore column gas chromatography.

The procedures in AG–575A remain

unaltered in the revised method, AG–

575B. Procedural recoveries on barley

substrates, fortified prior to extraction at

levels ranging from 0.01 ppm to 5.0

ppm, ranged from 70% to 125% using

AG–575B.

One-year freezer storage stability was

demonstrated in lettuce, soybeans, and

wheat forage. A 2-year stability study

including wheat forage, grain, and straw

is now in progress.

A. Chemical Uses

Difenoconazole is the active

ingredient in dividend 3FS, a

fungicide that offers broad-spectrum

control of several seed, soil borne, and

foliar pathogens of wheat. In the current

petition, dividend is being developed as

a seed treatment for barley and triticale.

It is highly active at rates of 0.5 to 1.0

fl. oz. of 3FS formulation/100 lb of seed

(0.0125 to 0.025 lb active ingredient (ai)/

100 lb seed). In barley, dividend

controls barley stripe, general seed rots,

fusarium seed scab, and covered smut.

Dividend also partially controls take-all,

common root rot, fusarium root rot, and

fusarium crown rot. Dividend controls

general seed rots of triticale.

B. Difenoconazole Safety

1. Ciba-Geigy has submitted over 20

toxicity studies in support of tolerances

for difenoconazole. Difenoconazole has

a low order of acute toxicity, minimal

irritation potential, and no sensitization

potential. There was no evidence of

genotoxicity, and it is not fetotoxic,

embryolethal, or teratogenic. It is not a

reproductive toxin. The main target

organ of toxicity was the liver in the

species tested. There was an increase in

liver tumors only in mice, and only,

according to the EPA’s Carcinogenicity

Peer Review Committee (CPRC), at

doses considered excessively high for

carcinogenicity testing. EPA has

concluded that for the purpose of risk

characterization, the margin of exposure

(MOE) approach (threshold model)

should be used for quantification of

human risk. MOEs are extremely high

for the U.S. population and all

population subgroups for both chronic

effects and acute toxicity.

2. The following mammalian toxicity

studies were conducted and submitted

in support of tolerances for

difenoconazole. No observed effect

levels (NOELs) are consistent with those

published in the Federal Register of

August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43490, FRL–

4906–2).

i. A rat acute oral study with an LD50

of 1,453 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg).

ii. A rabbit acute dermal study with

an LD50 of >2,010 mg/kg.

iii. A rat acute inhalation study with

an LC50 of >3.285 milligram/liter (mg/L).

iv. A primary eye irritation study in

the rabbit which showed slight

irritation.

v. A primary dermal irritation study

in the rabbit which showed slight

irritation.

vi. A dermal sensitization study in the

guinea pig which showed no irritation.

vii. A 13-week rat feeding study

identified liver as a target organ and had

a NOEL of 20 ppm.

viii. A 13-week mouse feeding study

identified liver as a target organ and had

a NOEL of 20 ppm.

ix. A 26-week dog feeding study

identified liver and eye as target organs

and had a NOEL of 100 ppm.

x. A 21-day dermal study in rabbits

had a NOEL of 10 mg/mg/day based on

decreased body weight gain at 100 and

1,000 mg/kg/day.

xi. A 24-month feeding study in rats

had a NOEL of 20 ppm based on liver

toxicity at 500 and 2,500 ppm. There

was no evidence of an oncogenic

response.

3. An 18-month mouse feeding study

had an overall NOEL of 30 ppm based

on decreased body weight gain and liver

toxicity at 300 ppm. There was an

increase in liver tumors only at dose

levels that exceeded the maximum

tolerated dose (MTD). The oncogenic

NOEL was 300 ppm.

4. A 12-month feeding study in dogs

had a NOEL of 100 ppm based on

decreased food consumption and

increased alkaline phosphatase levels at

500 ppm.

5. An oral teratology study in rats had

a maternal NOEL of 16 mg/kg/day based

on excess salivation, decreased body

weight gain, and food consumption. The

developmental NOEL of 85 mg/kg/day

was based on effects seen secondary to

maternal toxicity including slightly

reduced fetal body weight and minor

changes in skeletal ossification.

6. An oral teratology study in rabbits

had a maternal NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day

based on decreased body weight gain,

death, and abortion.

7. The developmental NOEL of 25 mg/

kg/day was based on effects seen

secondary to maternal toxicity including

slight increase in post-implantation loss

and resorptions and decreased fetal

weight.

8. A two-generation reproduction

study in rats had a parental and

reproductive NOEL of 25 ppm based on

significantly reduced female body

weight gain, and reductions in male pup

weights at 21 days.

9. There was no evidence of the

induction of point mutations in an

Ames test.

10. There was no evidence of

mutagenic effects in a mouse

lymphomatest.

11. There was no evidence of

mutagenic effects in a nucleus anomaly

test with Chinese hamsters.

12. There was no evidence of

induction of DNA damage in a rat

hepatocyte DNA repair test.

13. There was no evidence of

induction of DNA damage in a human

fibroblast DNA repair test.

C. Threshold Effects

1. Chronic effects. Based on the data

from chronic studies in rats, mice, and

dogs, the reference dose (RfD) for

difenoconazole is 0.01 mg/kg/day

published in the Federal Register of

August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43490). The RfD

for difenoconazole is based on the

chronic study in rats with a threshold

NOEL of 1 mg/kg/day and an

uncertainty factor of 100.

2. Acute toxicity. i. EPA has

concluded that the dietary acute MOE

for developmental toxicity was 25,000

for high exposure in the females 13+

subgroup. The agency is generally not

concerned unless the MOE is below 100

for substances whose acute NOEL is

based on animal studies.

ii. Ciba-Geigy concurs, and has also

considered that since the percentage of

the RfD utilized in the chronic exposure

analysis for all population subgroups is

less than 10, it is highly unlikely that

any acute dietary exposure scenario

would utilize a significant percentage of

the RfD.

iii. Since MOEs of 100 or more are

considered satisfactory, there is no

concern for acute dietary exposure for

the U.S. population, for various

population subgroups, or for either

gender.

D. Non-Threshold Effects

1. The Health Effects Division, CPRC

evaluated the weight of the evidence on

difenoconazole with reference to its

carcinogenic potential. The CPRC

concluded that difenoconazole should

be classified a Group C carcinogen, and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices 7453

for the purpose of risk characterization

the MOE approach should be used for

quantification of human risk.

2. In the 18-month study with CD-1

mice, there was a statistically significant

increase in hepatocellular adenomas,

carcinomas, and combined adenomas/

carcinomas in both sexes, but only at

dose levels which were considered

excessively high for carcinogenicity

testing. This is considered very weak

evidence of carcinogenic potential.

Additionally, there was no evidence of

carcinogenicity in either sex of CD rat

after 24 months, and there was no

evidence of genotoxicity. Therefore, a

threshold model should be used for

estimating risk. The CPRC determined

that a NOEL of 4.7 mg/kg/day, based on

endpoints related to hepatic tumor

development, should be used for

calculating MOEs. The calculated

margin of exposure, using worst case

assumptions, was 9,958 for the U.S.

population.

E. Aggregate Exposure

1. When the potential dietary

exposure to difenoconazole is

calculated, the theoretical maximum

residue concentration (TMRC) of

0.00041 mg/kg/day utilizes 4% of the

RfD for the overall U.S. population. For

the most exposed population subgroups,

children and non-nursing infants, the

TMRC is 0.000946 mg/kg/day, utilizing

9% of the RfD published in the Federal

Register of August 24, 1994 (59 FR

43490).

2. Ciba-Geigy has conducted another

exposure analysis using additional

crops and similar conservative

assumptions. In this analysis, oats,

barley, and bananas (pending import

tolerance) were included in addition to

wheat. Tolerances or proposed

tolerances were 0.1 ppm each for wheat,

oats, and barley, and 0.2 ppm for

bananas. Tolerances were 0.01 ppm for

milk and 0.05 ppm for all other

commodities: beef, goat, horse, rabbit,

sheep, pork, turkey, eggs, chicken, and

other poultry. Very conservative

assumptions were used to estimate

residues (i.e. 100% of all wheat, oats,

barley, and imported bananas used for

human consumption or forage was

treated and all raw agricultural

commodities contained tolerance level

residues). These estimates result in a

extreme overestimate of human dietary

exposure. Calculated TMRC values from

these assumptions utilize 4.7% of the

RfD for the U.S. population and 12.51%

of the RfD for non-nursing infants.

3. Other potential sources of exposure

of the general population to residues of

pesticides are drinking water and nonoccupational sources. Difenoconazole is

currently used as a seed treatment and

residues are, therefore, incorporated

into the soil at very low rates (0.0125 to

0.025 lb ai/100 lb of seed). The

likelihood of contamination of surface

water from run-off is essentially

negligible. In addition, parent and aged

leaching, soil absorption/desorption,

and radiolabeled pipe studies indicated

that difenoconazole has a low potential

to leach in the soil and it would not be

expected to reach aquatic environments.

For these reasons and because of the

low-use rate, exposures to residues in

ground water are not anticipated.

4. Non-occupational exposure for

difenoconazole has not been estimated

since the current registration is limited

to seed treatment. Therefore, the

potential for non-occupational exposure

to the general population is

insignificant.

5. Ciba-Geigy has considered the

potential for cumulative effects of

difenoconazole and other substances of

common mechanism of toxicity. CibaGeigy has concluded that consideration

of a common mechanism of toxicity in

aggregate exposure assessment is not

appropriate at this time. Ciba-Geigy has

no information to indicate that the toxic

effects (generalized liver toxicity) seen

at high doses of difenoconazole would

be cumulative with those of any other

compound. Thus, Ciba-Geigy is

considering only the potential risk of

difenoconazole from dietary exposure in

its aggregate and cumulative exposure

assessment.

F. Determination of Safety for U.S.

Population

1. Using the very conservative

exposure assumptions described in Unit

I.E. of this document, and based on the

completeness of the toxicity data base

for difenoconazole, Ciba-Geigy

calculates that aggregate exposure to

difenoconazole utilizes <5% of the RfD

for the U.S. population based on chronic

toxicity endpoints (NOEL = 1 mg/kg/

day). When using the carcinogenic

NOEL of 4.7 mg/kg/day and the MOE

approach recommended by the CPRC,

approximately 1% of the RfD is utilized.

2. If more realistic assumptions were

used to estimate anticipated residues

and appropriate market share, this

percentage would be considerably

lower, and would be significantly lower

than 100%, even for the highest exposed

population subgroup. EPA generally has

no concern for exposures below 100%

of the RfD. Therefore, Ciba-Geigy

concludes that there is reasonable

certainty that no harm will result from

daily aggregate exposure to residues of

difenoconazole over a lifetime.

G. Determination of Safety for Infants

and Children

Developmental toxicity and twogeneration toxicity studies were

evaluated to determine if there is a

special concern for the safety of infants

and children from exposure to residues

of difenoconazole. There was no

evidence of embryotoxicity or

teratogenicity, and no effects on

reproductive parameters, including

number of live births, birth weights, and

post-natal development, at dose levels

which did not cause significant

maternal toxicity. In addition, there

were no effects in young post-weaning

animals that were not seen in adult

animals in the two-generation

reproduction study. Therefore, CibaGeigy concludes that it is inappropriate

to assume that infants and children are

more sensitive than the general

population to effects from exposure to

residues of difenoconazole.

H. Estrogenic Effects

1. Developmental toxicity studies in

rats and rabbits and a two-generation

reproduction study in rats gave no

specific indication that difenoconazole

may have effects on the endocrine

system with regard to development or

reproduction. Furthermore, histologic

investigations were conducted on

endocrine organs (thyroid, adrenal, and

pituitary, as well as endocrine sex

organs) from long-term studies in dogs,

rats, and mice. There was no indication

that the endocrine system was targeted

by difenoconazole, even when animals

were treated with maximally tolerated

doses over the majority of their lifetime.

2. Difenoconazole has not been found

in raw agricultural commodities at the

limit of quantitation (LOQ). Based on

the available toxicity information and

the lack of detected residues, it is

concluded that difenoconazole has no

potential to interfere with the endocrine

system, and there is no risk of endocrine

disruption in humans.

I. Chemical Residues

1. The nature of the residue is

adequately understood in plants and

animals. The metabolism of

difenoconazole has been studied in

wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, and grapes.

The metabolic pathway was the same in

these four separate and distinct crops.

There are no Codex maximum residue

levels established for residues of

difenoconazole in barley. Ciba-Geigy

has submitted a practical analytical

method for detecting and measuring

levels of difenoconazole in or on food

with a LOQ that allows monitoring of

food with residues at or above the levels
7454 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 1997 / Notices

set in the proposed tolerances. EPA will

provide information on this method to

the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA). The method is available to

anyone who is interested in pesticide

residue enforcement from EPA’s Field

Operations Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

2. Nine-barley trials were conducted

in eight states. Fifty-four one-time

treated grain, hay, and straw samples

(fed commodities) were analyzed. In

addition, eighteen one-time treated

forage samples were analyzed. Residues

of difenoconazole in barley grown from

seed treated with difenoconazole were

below the LOQ in forage, hay, and straw

(<0.05 ppm), and grain (<0.01 ppm).

The feeding of difenoconazole-treated

barley products to beef or dairy cattle

will not require an increase in existing

beef tissue or milk tolerances. Similarly,

the feeding of difenoconazole-treated

barley grain to poultry will not require

increasing existing established poultry

tissue and egg tolerances.

J. Environmental Fate

Since the Agency classifies seed

treatment uses as ‘‘indoor,’’ the only

environmental fate data requirement is

hydrolysis. Difenoconazole is

hydrolytically stable in solution at 25 °C

at pH 5, 7, or 9.

II. Public Record

EPA invites interested persons to

submit comments on this notice of

filing. Comments must bear a

notification indicating the docket

control number [PF–703].

A record has been established for this

notice under docket control number

[PF–703] 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 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 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 this notice, 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 record is the paper record

maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

notice.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–3930 Filed 2–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[PF–699; FRL–5585–5]

Zeneca Ag Products; Pesticide

Tolerance Petition Filing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

filing of a pesticide petition proposing

the establishment of a regulation for

residues of lambda-cyhalothrin and its

epimer in or on rice. The names for

lambda-cyhalothrin and its epimer are

as follows: lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1

mixture of (S)-alpha-cyano-3-

phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and

(R)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-

(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate.

Epimer of lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1

mixture of (S)-alpha-cyano-3-

phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and

(R)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-

(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate. The

summary was prepared by the

petitioner, Zeneca Ag Products.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number [PF–699], must

be received on or before March 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Crystal Mall #2, Room

1132, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington VA.

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 in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket control

number [PF–699]. Electronic comments

on this notice may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found in Unit II. of

this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this notice may be claimed

confidential by marking any part or all

of that information as ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI). CBI should

not be submitted through e-mail.

Information marked as CBI 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 Room 1132 at the address

given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail, George LaRocca, Product Manager,

(PM 13), Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location,

telephone number, and e-mail address:

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, 703-305-6100,

e-mail: larocca.george@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received a pesticide petition (PP–

6F4769) from Zeneca Ag Products, 1800

Concord Pike, P.O. Box 15458,

Wilmington, DE 19850-5458. The

petition proposes, pursuant to section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to

establish tolerances for residues of the

insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin in or on

the raw agricultural commodities rice