1114 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices

1As a result of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of

1995, EPA (and other federal agencies) may not

award grants to non-profit, section 501(c)(4)

organizations that engage in lobbying activities.

This restriction applies to any lobbying activities of

a secton 501(c)(4) organization without

distinguishing between lobbying funded by federal

money and lobbying funded by other sources.

DATES: All applications must be

received by EPA’s contractor, ERG,

located in Arlington, Virginia, by April

15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

obtain copies of the EJP2 grant program

guidance and application package, or to

obtain more information regarding the

EJP2 grant program, please contact Chen

Wen at (703) 841–0483. A complete

electronic copy of the EJP2 grant

program guidance and application

package is also available on the EPA

Homepage on the Internet. The EJP2

grant program guidance and application

package is located at: http:/

www.epa.gov/opptintr/ejp2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scope and Purpose of the EJP2 Grant

Program

The purpose of the FY 1997 EJP2

grant program is to support the use of

pollution prevention approaches to

address the environmental problems of

minority communities and/or lowincome communities. This grant

program is designed to fund projects

which have a direct impact on affected

communities. Funds awarded must be

used to support pollution prevention

programs in minority and/or lowincome communities. The Agency

strongly encourages cooperative efforts

between communities, business,

industry, and government to address

common pollution prevention goals.

Projects funded under this grant may

involve public education, training,

demonstration projects, public-private

partnerships, or approaches to develop,

evaluate, and demonstrate nonregulatory strategies and technologies.

II. Definition of Environmental Justice

and Pollution Prevention

Environmental justice is defined by

EPA as the fair treatment of people of all

races, cultures, and incomes with

respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws, regulations,

programs, and policies. Fair treatment

means that no racial, ethnic, or social

economic group should bear a

disproportionate share of the negative

environmental consequences resulting

from the operation of industrial,

municipal, and commercial enterprises,

and from the execution of federal, state,

local, and tribal programs and policies.

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

establishes a hierarchy of environmental

preferences. These practices include, in

order of preference:

• Pollution prevention

• Recycling

• Treatment

• Disposal

Pollution prevention means source

reduction. That is, any practice that

reduces or eliminates any pollutant at

the source of generation prior to

recycling, treatment, or disposal.

Pollution prevention also includes

practices that reduce or eliminate the

creation of pollutants through:

Increased efficiency in the use of raw

materials, energy, water, or other

resources; and

Protection of natural resources by

conservation.

This grant program is focused on

using the top of the hierarchy--pollution

prevention--to bring about better

environmental protection.

III. Eligibility

Any affected, non-profit community

organizations with section 501(c)(3) or

section 501(c)(4) 1 IRS tax status, or state

and federally recognized tribal

organizations may submit an

application upon the publication of this

solicitation. ‘‘Non-profit organization’’

is defined as any corporation, trust,

association, cooperative, or other

organizations that is:

(1) Operated primarily for scientific,

educational, service, charitable, or

similar purposes in the public interest.

(2) Not organized primarily for profit.

(3) Uses its net proceeds to maintain,

improve, and/or expand its operations.

While state and local governments and

academic institutions are also eligible to

receive grants, preference will be given

to private, non-profit, communitybased/grassroots organizations, and state

and federally recognized tribal

organizations. Organizations must be

incorporated by April 15, 1997, in order

to be eligible to receive funds. Private

businesses, federal agencies, and

individuals are ineligible for this grant.

Organizations excluded from applying

directly, as well as those inexperienced

in grant-writing, are encouraged to

develop partnerships and prepare joint

proposals with national, regional, or

local organizations.

No applicant can receive two grants

for the same project at one time. EPA

will consider only one proposal for a

given project. Applicants may submit

more than one application as long as the

applications are for separate and

distinct projects.

Organizations seeking funds from the

EJP2 grant program can request up to

$100,000 for local projects, and up to

$250,000 for projects that involve

multiple communities located in more

than one EPA Region, or projects that

are national in scope. In accordance

with 40 CFR parts 30 and 23, EPA no

longer requires cost sharing or matching

under this grant program as it applies to

institutions of higher education,

hospitals, and other non-profit

organizations, unless otherwise required

by statute, regulation, Executive Order,

or official Agency policy. Therefore, any

matching requirements may need to be

determined on a case-by-case basis

depending upon the substantive focus of

the grant proposal. Applicants that are

governmental entities, such as state and

local governments, are subject to a

twenty-five (25) percent matching or

cost-sharing requirement. Matching or

cost-sharing requirement may be

satisfied through either cash or in-kind

contributions.

Dated: December 23, 1996.

William H. Sanders, III

Director, Office of Pollution, Prevention, and

Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–414 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[PF–688; FRL–5582–6]

Interregional Research Project Number

4; Pesticide Tolerance Petitions Filing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

filing of amendments to pesticide

petitions 0E3909, 2E4052, 2E4065,

2E4092, and 3E4162. These

amendments propose to extend the

effective date for time-limited tolerances

established for the combined residues of

the herbicide 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-

5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-

cyclohexen-1-one (also referred to in

this document as sethoxydim) and its

metabolites in or on various raw

agricultural commodities. This notice

contains a summary of the amended

petition prepared by BASF Corporation

(BASF) and submitted by the

Interregional Research Project Number 4

(IR–4), the petitioner.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket number [PF–688; FRL–5582–6],

must be received on or before February

7, 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.,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices 1115

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to Rm. 1132, CM #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 on this notice may also be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Information submitted as comments

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

CBI should not be submitted through email. 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 Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

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 number

PF–688. No CBI should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments on

this proposed rule may be filed online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found in Unit III of

this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC

20460. Office location and telephone

number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,

2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308–8783, email:jamerson.hoyt@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received amendments to pesticide

petitions 0E3909, 2E4052, 2E4065,

2E4092, and 3E4162 from the

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR–

4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment

Station, P.O. Box 231, Rutgers

University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.

These amendments propose, pursuant to

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug

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

346a, to amend 40 CFR part 180 by

extending the effective date to expire on

December 31, 1998, for time-limited

tolerances established for residues of the

herbicide 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-

(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-

cyclohexen-1-one) and its metabolites

containing the 2-cyclohexen-1-one

moiety (calculated as the herbicide) in

or on asparagus at 4.0 parts per million

(ppm), carrot at 1.0 ppm, cranberry and

endive at 2.0 ppm, and peppermint and

spearmint at 30 ppm. Registration for

use of sethoxydim on endive is limited

to Florida based on the geographical

representation of the residue data

submitted. Additional residue data will

be required to expand the area of usage.

Persons seeking geographically broader

registration should contact the Agency’s

Registration Division at the address

provided above.

EPA has determined that the

amendment contains data or

information regarding the elements set

forth in section 408(d)(2); 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.

The nature of the residue is

adequately understood, and practical

and adequate analytical methods are

available for enforcement purposes.

Enforcement methods for sethoxydim

are listed in the Pesticide Analytical

Manual, Volume II (PAM II).

Enforcement methods have also been

submitted to the Food and Drug

Administration for publication in PAM

II.

As required by section 408(d) of the

FFDCA, as recently amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act, IR–4

submitted a summary of amendments to

the pesticide petitions and authorization

for the summary to be published in the

Federal Register in a notice of receipt of

the petition. The summary was prepared

by and represents the views of BASF;

EPA, as mentioned above, is in the

process of evaluating the petition. As

required by section 408(d)(3) EPA is

including the summary as a part of this

notice of filing. EPA may have made

minor edits to the summary for the

purpose of clarity.

I. Petition Summary

A. Toxicological Profile

1. Data summary. A summary of

toxicological studies for sethoxydim

follows:

i. A 1–year feeding study with dogs

fed diets containing 0, 8.86/9.41, 17.5/

19.9, and 110/129 milligrams (mg)/

kilogram (kg)/day (males/females) with

a no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of

8.86/9.41 mg/kg/day (males/females)

based on equivocal anemia in male dogs

at the 17.5-mg/kg/day dose level.

ii. A 2–year chronic feeding/

carcinogenicity study with mice fed

diets containing 0, 40, 120, 360, and

1,080 ppm (equivalent to 0, 6, 18, 54,

and 162 mg/kg/day) with a systemic

NOEL of 120 ppm (18 mg/kg/day) based

on non-neoplastic liver lesions in male

mice at the 360 ppm (54 mg/kg/day)

dose level. There were no carcinogenic

effects observed under the conditions of

the study. The maximum tolerated dose

(MTD) was not achieved in female mice.

iii. A 2–year chronic feeding/

carcinogenic study with rats fed diets

containing 0, 2, 6, and 18 mg/kg/day

with a systemic NOEL greater than or

equal to 18 mg/kg/day (highest dose

tested). There were no carcinogenic

effects observed under the conditions of

the study. This study was reviewed

under current guidelines and was found

to be unacceptable because the doses

used were insufficient to induce a toxic

response and an MTD was not achieved.

iv. A second chronic feeding/

carcinogenic study with rats fed diets

containing 0, 360, and 1,080 ppm

(equivalent to 18.2/23.0, and 55.9/71.8

mg/kg/day (males/females). The dose

levels were too low to elicit a toxic

response in the test animals and failed

to achieve an MTD or define a lowest

effect level (LEL). Slight decreases in

body weight in rats at the 1,080-ppm

dose level, although not biologically

significant, support a free-standing noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)

of 1,080 ppm (55.9/71.8 mg/kg/day

(males/females)). There were no

carcinogenic effects observed under the

conditions of the study.

v. A developmental toxicity study in

rats fed dosages of 0, 50, 180, 650, and

1,000 mg/kg/day with a maternal

NOAEL of 180 mg/kg/day and a

maternal LEL of 650 mg/kg/day

(irregular gait, decreased activity,

excessive salivation, and anogenital

staining); and a developmental NOAEL

of 180 mg/kg/day and a developmental

LEL of 650 mg/kg/day (21 to 22 percent

decrease in fetal weights, filamentous

tail, and lack of tail due to the absence

of sacral and/or caudal vertebrae, and

delayed ossification in the hyoids,

vertebral centrum and/or transverse

processes, sternebrae and/or

metatarsals, and pubes).

vi. A developmental toxicity study in

rabbits fed doses of 0, 80, 160, 320, and

400 mg/kg/day with a maternal NOEL of

320 mg/kg/day and a maternal LOEL of

400 mg/kg/day (37 percent reduction in
1116 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices

body weight gain without significant

differences in group mean body weights

and decreased food consumption during

dosing); and a developmental NOEL

greater than 400 mg/kg/day (highest

dose tested).

vii. A 2–generation reproduction

study with rats fed diets containing 0,

150, 600, and 3,000 ppm (approximately

0, 7.5, 30, and 150 mg/kg/day) with no

reproductive effects observed under the

conditions of the study.

viii. Mutagenicity studies including:

Ames assays were negative for gene

mutation in Salmonella typhimurium

strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and

TA1537, with and without metabolic

activity; a Chinese hamster bone

marrow cytogenetic assay was negative

for structural chromosomal aberrations

at doses up to 5,000 mg/kg in Chinese

hamster bone marrow cells in vivo; and

recombinant assays and forward

mutations tests in Bacillus subtilis,

Escherichia coli, and S. typhimurium

were all negative for genotoxic effects at

concentrations of greater than or equal

to 100 percent.

ix. In a rat metabolism study,

excretion was extremely rapid and

tissue accumulation was negligible.

2. Chronic toxicity. Based on the

available chronic toxicity data, EPA has

established the Reference Dose (RfD) for

sethoxydim at 0.09 milligrams (mg)/

kilogram (kg) bw/day. The RfD for

sethoxydim is based on a 1–year feeding

study in dogs with a threshold noobserved effect level (NOEL) of 8.86 mg/

kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100.

3. Acute toxicity. Based on the

available acute toxicity data,

sethoxydim does not pose any acute

dietary risks. Several acute toxicology

studies place technical sethoxydim in

acute toxicity category IV for primary

eye and dermal irritation and acute

toxicity category III for acute oral,

dermal, and inhalation. The dermal

sensitization-guinea pig study was

waived because no sensitization was

seen in guinea pigs dosed with the enduse product Poast (18 percent active

ingredient).

4. Carcinogenicity. These tolerances

were established as time-limited

tolerances since an acceptable

carcinogenicity study is needed in one

rodent species. A repeat chronic

feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats

was submitted to EPA in November of

1995 and is awaiting review. The

Agency will reassess sethoxydim

tolerances based on the outcome of the

rat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity

study and, if appropriate, will establish

permanent tolerances for asparagus,

carrot, cranberry, endive, peppermint

and spearmint. In the interim, there is

little risk from the proposed time

extension for these uses of sethoxydim,

since available studies in rats and mice

indicate no carcinogenic effects, there

are adequate data to establish a RfD,

existing tolerances (including these

time-limited tolerances) do not exceed

the RfD, and the tolerances for

asparagus, carrot, cranberry, endive, and

mint utilize less than 1 percent of the

Reference Dose. Thus a cancer risk

assessment is not necessary.

B. Aggregate Exposure

For purposes of assessing the

potential dietary exposure, BASF has

estimated aggregate exposure based on

the Theoretical Maximum Residue

Contribution (TMRC) from the

tolerances of sethoxydim on: asparagus

at 4.0 ppm, carrot at 1.0 ppm, cranberry

and endive at 2.0 ppm, and peppermint

and spearmint at 30.0 ppm. (The TMRC

is a ‘‘worst case’’ estimate of dietary

exposure since it is assumed that 100

percent of all crops for which tolerances

are established are treated and that

pesticide residues are at the tolerance

levels.) The TMRC from existing

tolerances for the overall U.S.

population is estimated at 0.0311961

mg/kg bw/day, or 36 percent of the RfD.

Dietary exposure to residues of

sethoxydim in or on asparagus, carrot,

cranberry, endive and mint increases

the TMRC by 0.000701 mg/kg bw/day

and accounts for less than 1 percent of

the RfD for the overall U.S. population.

EPA estimates indicate that dietary

exposures will not exceed the RfD for

any population subgroup for which EPA

has data [See Proposed Rule at 60 FR

13941, March 15, 1995]. This exposure

assessment relies on very conservative

assumptions—100 percent of crops will

contain sethoxydim residues and those

residues would be at the level of the

tolerance which results in an

overestimate of human exposure.

Other potential sources of exposure of

the general population to residues of

pesticides are residues in drinking water

and exposure from non-occupational

sources. Based on the available studies

used in EPA’s assessment of

environmental risk, BASF does not

anticipate exposure to residues of

sethoxydim in drinking water. There is

no established Maximum Concentration

Level (MCL) for residues of sethoxydim

in drinking water under the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

EPA has not estimated nonoccupational exposure for sethoxydim.

Sethoxydim is labeled for use by

homeowners on the following use sites:

flowers, evergreens, shrubs, trees, fruits,

vegetables, ornamental ground covers,

and bedding plants. Hence, the potential

for non-occupational exposure to the

general population exists. However,

these use sites do not appreciably

increase exposure. Protective clothing

requirements, including the use of

gloves, adequately protect homeowners

when applying the product. The

product may only be applied through

hose-end sprayers or tank sprayers as a

0.14% solution. Sethoxydim is not a

volatile compound so inhalation

exposure during and after application

would be negligible. Dermal exposure

would be minimal in light of the

protective clothing and the low

application rate. Post-treatment (reentry) exposure would be negligible for

these use sites as contact with treated

surfaces would be low. Dietary risks

from treated food crops are already

adequately regulated by the established

tolerances. The additional uses endive,

asparagus , carrots, cranberries,

peppermint, and spearmint will not

increase the non-occupational exposure

appreciably, if at all. Thus, BASF

believes that the potential for nonoccupational exposure to the general

population is insignificant.

BASF also considered the potential

for cumulative effects of sethoxydim

and other substances that have a

common mechanism of toxicity. BASF

is aware of one other active ingredient

which is structurally similar, clethodim.

However, BASF believes that

consideration of a common mechanism

of toxicity is not appropriate at this

time. BASF does not have any reliable

information to indicate that toxic effects

produced by sethoxydim would be

cumulative with clethodim or any other

chemical; thus, BASF is considering

only the potential risks of sethoxydim in

its exposure assessment.

C. Determination of Safety for U.S.

Population

Reference Dose (RfD). Using the

conservative exposure assumptions

described above, based on the

completeness and the reliability of the

toxicity data, EPA has estimated that

aggregate exposure to sethoxydim will

utilize 37 percent of the RfD for the U.S.

population. EPA generally has no

concern for exposures below 100

percent of the RfD. Therefore, based on

the completeness and reliability of the

toxicity data, and the conservative

exposure assessment, BASF concludes

that there is a reasonable certainty that

no harm will result from aggregate

exposure to residues of sethoxydim,

including all anticipated dietary

exposure and all other non-occupational

exposures.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices 1117

D. Determination of Safety for Infants

and Children

1. Developmental toxicity.

Developmental toxicity was observed in

a developmental toxicity study using

rats but was not seen in a

developmental toxicity study using

rabbits. A developmental NOAEL of 180

mg/kg/day and developmental LEL of

650 mg/kg/day were established for the

rat study. Effects noted in the rat study

included decrease in fetal weights (21 to

22 percent), filamentous tail, lack of tail

(due to absence of sacral and/or caudal

vertebrae), and delayed ossification

(hyoids, vertebral centrum and/or

transverse processes, sternebrae and/or

metatarsals, and pubes). The

developmental NOEL for the rabbit

study was greater than 400 mg/kg/day

and was the highest dose tested. The

developmental effects observed in the

rat study are believed to be secondary

effects resulting from maternal stress.

2. Reproductive toxicity. A twogeneration reproduction study with rats

fed diets containing 0, 150, 600, and

3,000 ppm (approximately 0, 7.5, 30,

and 150 mg/kg/day) produced no

reproductive effects during the course of

the study. Although the dose levels

were insufficient to elicit a toxic

response, the Agency has considered

this study usable for regulatory

purposes and has established a freestanding NOEL of 3,000 ppm

(approximately 150 mg/kg/day) [See

Proposed Rule at 60 FR 13941, March

15, 1995].

RFD. Based on the demonstrated lack

of significant developmental or

reproductive toxicity BASF believes that

the RfD used to assess safety to children

should be the same as that for the

general population, 0.09 mg/kg/day.

Using the conservative exposure

assumptions described above, BASF has

concluded that the most sensitive child

population is that of children ages 1 to

6. BASF calculates the exposure to this

group to be less than 70 percent of the

RfD for all uses (including those

proposed in this document). The

proposed tolerances in endive,

asparagus, carrot, cranberry, peppermint

and spearmint represent an exposure to

this group of less than 1 percent. Based

on the completeness and reliability of

the toxicity data and the conservative

exposure assessment, BASF concludes

that there is a reasonable certainty that

no harm will result to infants and

children from aggregate exposure to the

residues of sethoxydim, including

dietary exposure and all other nonoccupational exposures.

3. Endocrine effects. No special

studies investigating potential

estrogenic or endocrine effects of

sethoxydim have been conducted.

However, the standard battery of

required studies has been completed.

These studies include an evaluation of

the potential effects on reproduction

and development, and an evaluation of

the pathology of the endocrine organs

following repeated or long-term

exposure. These studies are generally

considered to be sufficient to detect any

endocrine effects but no such effects

were noted in any of the studies.

II. Other Considerations

There is no reasonable expectation

that secondary residues will occur in

milk, eggs, or meat of livestock and

poultry from the proposed uses of

sethoxydim on asparagus, cranberries,

endive, and mint; there are no livestock

feed commodities associated with these

commodities. Any secondary residues

occurring in meat, fat, meat byproducts

and milk of cattle, goats, hogs, horses

and sheep from the proposed use on

carrots will be covered by existing

tolerances. There are no residues

expected to occur in poultry meat, meat

byproducts, fat or eggs since carrots are

not considered a poultry feed item.

There are no Codex maximum residue

levels established for residues of

sethoxydim on asparagus, carrots,

cranberry, endive, or mint.

III. Public Record

EPA invites interested persons to

submit comments on this notice of

filing. Comments must bear a notation

indicating the docket number, [PF–688;

FRL–5582–6]. All written comments

filed in response to this petition will be

available in the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, at the

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

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except legal holidays.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PF–

688; FRL–5582–6] (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 4:00 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 of

filing, 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 rulemaking 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,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping.

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

Dated: December 31, 1996.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–415 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than January 23, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand,

Vice President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:

1. Gib S. Nichols, Helena, Montana; to

acquire an additional 6.4 percent, for a