2154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as ASCII file avoiding the use

of special characters and any form of

encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, 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

requirements.

Dated: January 7, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–983 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[PF–687; FRL–5580–4]

W. Neudorff GmbH KG; 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 a

regulation for an exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for residues

of copper octanoate when used in

accordance with good agricultural

practice as an active ingredient in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops. This notice includes a

summary of the petition that was

prepared by the petitioner, W. Neudorff

GmbH KG (‘‘Neudorff’’).

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket number [PF–687], must be

received on or before February 14, 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 Rm. 1132, CM #2. 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202. 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 docket number

[PF–687]. Electronic comments on this

notice may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found below this document.

Information submitted as a 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 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 Rm. 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:

Philip V. Errico, Acting Product

Manager (22), Rm. 229, CM#2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

22202, 703–305–5540, e-mail:

errico.philip@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received a pesticide petition (PP

6F4734) from W. Neudorff GmbH KG

(‘‘Neudorff’’), c/o Walter G. Talarek,

1008 Riva Ridge Drive, Great Falls, VA

22066, proposing pursuant to section

408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. section 346a(d),

to amend 40 CFR Part 180 by

establishing an exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for residues

of the fungicide copper octanoate when

used in accordance with good

agricultural as an active ingredient in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops.

As required by section 408(d) of the

FFDCA, as recently amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act, Neudorff

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 Neudorff. EPA 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 has made minor edits to the

summary for the purpose of clarity.

I. Petition Summary

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Magnitude of the residue

anticipated at the time of harvest and

method used to determine the residue.

No residues are expected at the time of

harvest on crops treated with copper

octanoate, because rainwater readily

washes copper octanoate off plants, and

this chemical is biodegraded by water

hydrolysis into its copper ion and fatty

acid components, and then the fatty

acids are further degraded by two

carbon units at a time until they

eventually degrade to water and CO2. In

addition, the physio-chemical

properties of soils naturally modify

copper ion availability, and when soils

are adjusted/limed to the pH required

for normal crop production, the effect is

to reduce copper availability to the crop.

Furthermore, toxic copper levels in

plants induce an imbalance with iron

which causes plant dwarfing, stunted

roots and decreased growth and yields,

which effects appear before significant

copper buildup occurs, and

consequently acts as a warning which

prevents excess application of copper

compounds to food/feed crops. Last,

even if residues were to remain on

plants, the copper ion is a trace element,

or micronutrient, essential for the

growth and well being of higher plants

and animals, including man. Therefore,

the amount of this chemical proposed

for application to plants is highly

unlikely to cause harm to plants or

animals or to leave excess residues on

the plants.

2. Statement of why an analytical

method for detecting and measuring the

levels of the pesticide residue are not

needed. Neudorff has not proposed a

new analytical method, because copper

levels harmful to plants and animals are

highly unlikely to occur when its

copper octanoate product is applied

according to label instructions.

However, should EPA require such a

method, because copper octanoate is a

copper salt of a fatty acid, Neudorff

would propose the use of the same

analytical method submitted by

registrants of products containing other

copper salts of fatty acids.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2155

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. Result of studies

conducted on a concentrate product

containing copper octanoate and for

which Neudorff has applied for

registration indicate that this chemical

has low acute toxicities.

2. Genotoxicity, reproductive and

developmental toxicity, subchronic

toxicity, and chronic toxicity. There is

adequate information available from

literature sources to characterize the

toxicity of the copper ion. The available

literature shows that copper is

ubiquitous in nature and is a necessary

nutritional element for both animals and

plants. It is one of 26 elements found

essential to life. The copper ion is

present in the adult human body at

levels of 80–150 mg. Oral ingestion of

excessive amounts of the copper ion

from pesticidal uses is unlikely; copper

compounds are irritating to the gastric

mucosa and emesis usually occurs

promptly, thereby reducing the amount

of copper ion available for absorption

into the human body. Moreover, copper

is a trace element essential for the

growth and well being of man. However,

man is protected from excess copper ion

in the body by an effective homeostatic

mechanism which integrates absorption,

retention and excretion to stabilize the

copper ion burden in the body. Only a

small percentage of copper ingested is

absorbed, and most of the absorbed

copper is excreted. In view of the facts

that the copper ion occurs naturally in

most foods and the metabolism of

copper is well understood, there is no

reason to expect that long-term exposure

to copper ion in the diet is likely to pose

the risks of chronic or sub-chronic

adverse effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. a. Food. There is

no known evidence of sub-chronic or

chronic adverse health effects from

dietary exposure to the copper ion,

except in the case of massive intake

disrupting the natural homeostatic

mechanism controlling body level of

copper.

b. Drinking water. As a copper salt of

a fatty acid, copper octanoate can be

washed off growing plants by rain and

during processing of crops by water.

However, as stated previously, copper

octanoate is biodegraded first by water

hydrolysis into the copper ion and fatty

acid components, and then the fatty

acids are further degraded by two

carbon units at a time until they

eventually degrade to water and CO2.

But, even if the chemical were to wash

off plants and the copper ion were to get

into a public drinking water source,

EPA has promulgated Safe Drinking

Water Act standards for copper which

would be protective of pubic health.

2. Non-dietary exposure. The only

non-dietary exposure expected is that to

applicators. However, the protective

measures prescribed by the product’s

label are expected to be adequate to

minimize exposure and protect

applicators of the chemical.

D. Cumulative Effects

No cumulative adverse effects are

expected from long-term exposure to

this chemical.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. The metabolism of

copper in man and growing plants is

well understood and documented in the

available literature. The use of copper

octanoate as a pesticide would have

essentially the same results in terms of

contribution of copper ion to growing

crops as the use of copper sulfate and

the Group II copper compounds that

have already been granted exemptions

from tolerance by EPA. Further, there is

adequate information to show that there

is no toxicological concern raised by the

contribution of the copper ion to

growing crops which is likely to result

from application of pesticides

containing copper, and consequently no

tolerances should be required for the

use of copper octanoate.

2. Infants and children. Because the

fetus and newborn have elevated copper

levels (Sternlieb, 1980), and since

homeostatic mechanisms are not fully

developed at birth (Underwood, 1977),

the newborn represents a risk group that

may not be able to cope with excess

copper exposure. However, the fetus

does not have a ‘‘abnormal burden’’ of

copper; it needs a store of copper from

which it will start fulfilling its

requirements as a newborn (USEPA,

1987). Data show that in small children

ingestion of approximately 10 mg Cμ/10

kg child/day from contaminated milk

can cause severe liver disorders (Tanner

et al, 1983). EPA theorizes that ‘‘given

that 1 mg/kg bw is an upper limit of

exposure, it is conceivable that, for

instance, 20 percent of this level (2 mg/

child/day) could result in less severe,

though still significant, liver damage.

This intake is well within the normal

adult recommended nutritional level,

indicting that children may be more

susceptible systematically to copper

than adults. The main action my be the

intestinal mucosa, especially in infants

with preexisting GI tract disturbances.’’

(USEPA, 1987).

F. Existing Tolerances

1. Existing tolerances or tolerance

exemptions. EPA has not established a

tolerance or an exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for this

chemical. However, EPA has

promulgated a tolerance exemption for

a group of similar copper-based

chemicals, i. e., Bordeaux mixture,

copper acetate, basic copper carbonate

(malachite), copper hydroxide, copperlime mixtures, copper linoleate, copper

oleate copper oxychloride, copper

sulfate basic, copper sulfate

monohydrate, copper sulfate

pentahydrate, copper-zinc chromate,

cupric oxide, and cuprous oxide (two of

these chemicals are copper salts of fatty

acids), when they are applied to

growing crops in accordance with good

agricultural practice. See 40 CFR

180.1001(b)(1). In addition, EPA has

promulgated a tolerance exemption for

copper residues in meat, milk, poultry,

eggs, fish, and irrigated crops when they

result from the use of certain copper

compounds, i. e., copper sulfate, basic

copper carbonate, copper

triethanolamine, copper

monoethanolamine, and cuprous oxide,

at certain sites. See 40 CFR 180.1021.

The common basis for EPA’s tolerance

exemptions for the compounds in these

two classes of copper compounds

appears to be the fact that the copper

ion is the entity responsible for their

fungicidal action, and there is adequate

data on the copper ion upon which EPA

can make judgments about its potential

for causing unreasonable adverse effects

on the environment.

2. International tolerances. No

maximum residue level has been

established for this substance by the

Codex Alimentarius Commission.

II. Administrative Matters

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the this notice of

filing. Comments must bear a notation

indicating the document control

number, [PF–687]. 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 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays.

A record has been established for this

notice under docket number [PF–687]

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
2156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

holidays. The public record is located in

Rm. 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 ASCII file avoiding the use

of special characters and any form of

encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, 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

requirements.

Dated: January 7, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–985 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5677–3]

CERCLA 104 (c)(9) Capacity Assurance

Planning: National Capacity

Assessment Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Section 104(c)(9) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) requires States to assure

that adequate capacity exists to manage

hazardous wastes generated in their

State for 20 years before EPA can

provide any Superfund Remedial Action

Trust funds to the State. Under a

program the Agency has implemented to

help States fulfill this statutory

mandate, States submit Capacity

Assurance Plans (CAPs) as the basis for

their assurance. On May 1, 1994, States

submitted CAPs to EPA pursuant to the

May 1993 Guidance for Capacity

Assurance Planning, OSWER Directive

9010.02. On November 3, 1994, the

Agency made available for comment a

draft of the National Capacity

Assessment Report, in which the

Agency made a proposed determination

that there existed adequate national

capacity, and which presented the

Agency’s analysis of State data. Based

on the information contained in the

CAPs, internal Agency studies, and

comments received on the draft

Assessment Report, the Agency is today

finalizing the determination that there

exists adequate national capacity in all

CAP management categories. Therefore,

as with the proposed determination, all

States continue to be eligible to receive

Superfund Trust funds.

The Agency will continue to collect

and evaluate additional data to ensure

that the requirements of CERCLA 104

(c)(9) are satisfied. At this time, the

Agency does not anticipate the need to

conduct another CAP for the next few

years. The National Capacity

Assessment Report, which describes the

entire CAP process, is available for

public review in the RCRA Docket. The

information collection activities that

occurred for the Capacity Assurance

Planning process were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under OMB Control Number

2050–0099.

ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are

available for viewing in the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,

Virginia. Docket number F–94–CAGA–

FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding federal holidays. To review

docket materials, the public must make

an appointment by calling (703) 603–

9230. The public may copy a maximum

of 100 pages from any regulatory docket

at no charge. Additional copies cost

$.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). In

the Washington metropolitan area, call

703–412–9610 or TDD 703–412–3323.

For information on specific aspects of

the Report, contact Robert Burchard,

Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

(703) 308–8450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For a

paper copy of the National Capacity

Assessment Report, please contact the

National Technical Information Service

(NTIS) at 1–703–487–4650. The

document number is PB95–209672

(EPA530–R–95–016). The Report is also

available in electronic format on the

Internet. Follow these instructions to

access the report: WWW: http://

www.epa.gov/epaoswer; Gopher:

gopher.epa.gov; Dial-up: (919) 558–

0335.

If you are using the gopher or direct

dialup method, once you are connected

to the EPA Public Access Server, look

for this report in the directory EPA

Offices and Regions/Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER)/Office of Solid Waste (RCRA)/

Subtitle C—Hazardous Waste/

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities (TSDFs).

FTP: ftp.epa.gov.

Login: anonymous.

Password: Your Internet address.

Files are located in /pub/gopher/

OSWRCRA.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–976 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPPT–59357A; FRL–5582–9]

Certain Chemical; Test Marketing

Exemption Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is correcting a document

publsished in the Federal Register of

December 26, 1996, which contained an

incorrect e-mail address for written

comments and an incorrect FRL number

for test marketing exemption (TME)–97–

3. As a result of the incorrect e-mail

address, EPA is extending the comment

period.

DATES: This notice became effective on

December 19, 1996. Written comments

will now be received until January 30,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darlene Jones, New Chemicals Branch,

Chemical Control Division (7405),

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–447, 401 M St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–2279;

jones.darlene@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of December 26, 1996,

(61 FR 68039), in FR Doc. 96–32794, on

page 68039, in the first column, make

the following corrections: