38646 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices

proposal utilizes <1% of the RfD for the

U.S. population. Non-nursing infants <l

represent the most exposed subpopulation and the percent of the RfD

consumed by this group is <3%. BASF

has estimated the theoretical oncogenic

risk for the currently registered uses of

hexythiazox (apples and pears) to be

approximately 1.5 x 10-6. This risk

number includes the very conservative

assumptions that all apples and pears

are treated with hexythiazox and that all

resulting residues are at the tolerance

level. In its recent FR Notice

establishing the tolerance in apples the

Agency recognized these conservative

overestimations and concluded ‘‘in

reality, the Agency knows that all

apples would not be treated with this

pesticide and expect that even apples

receiving maximum treatment will have

residues far below tolerance level. For

example, in field trials conducted using

application rates 10 times the label

amount, residues in apples still did not

exceed the tolerance level. Further, the

maximum residue level (MRL) in apple

juice would be expected to be less than

50% of the residue level in whole fruit.

Based on an assessment of the cancer

risks of the proposed use of

hexythiazox, the Agency believes that

the proposed use of hexythiazox on

apples will pose an extremely small risk

to humans.’’ The current proposal will

not increase the theoretical oncogenic

risk significantly.

In addition, the Agency has

concluded that based on the residue and

feeding levels of spent hops ‘‘meat and

milk tolerances are not required for this

petition.’’

2. ‘‘Other’’ 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. Since

this tolerance is for an ‘‘imported use,’’

BASF does not anticipate exposure to

residues of hexythiazox in drinking

water. BASF has not estimated nonoccupational exposure for hexythiazox.

Since the current registrations for

hexythiazox in the United States are

limited to commercial apple/pear

production, the potential for nonoccupational exposure to the general

population is considered to be

insignificant.

D. Cumulative Effects

BASF also considered the potential

for cumulative effects of hexythiazox

and other substances that have a

common mechanism of toxicity. BASF

is unaware of any conclusive data

regarding the potential for hexythiazox

to share a common mechanism for toxic

effects with any other compound. In

dietary assessment, the food factor for

hops is only 0.03%. Therefore, BASF

concluded that any concern regarding a

common mechanism of toxicity would

be insignificant.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Using the

exposure assumptions described above,

BASF concludes that aggregate exposure

to hexythiazox will utilize

approximately <1% of the RfD for the

U.S. population. EPA generally has no

concern for exposures below 100% of

the RfD. In addition the calculated

theoretical oncogenic risk associated

with this use is more than 100 times less

than the Agency’s general level of

concern (1 x 10-6).

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 hexythiazox, including all

anticipated dietary exposure and all

other non-occupational exposures.

2. Infants and children. The toxicity

database includes both developmental

and reproductive testing in which no

significant concerns were identified.

BASF therefore believes the established

RfD of 0.025 mg/kg/day is the

appropriate approach for assessing risk

in children. 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

hexythiazox, including all anticipated

dietary exposure and all other nonoccupational exposures.

F. Other Considerations

The qualitative nature of the residues

in plants and animals is adequately

understood. There is a practical

analytical method for detecting and

measuring levels of hexythiazox in or on

food with a limit of detection that

allows monitoring of food with residues

at or above the levels set in these

tolerances.

G. International Tolerances

A maximum residue level has not

been established for hexythiazox by the

Codex Alimentarius Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–19247 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6126–2]

Report on the Shrimp Virus Peer

Review Workshop

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft

final report.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

availability of a draft final report of a

peer review and risk assessment

workshop, sponsored by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), National Center for

Environmental Assessment, on behalf of

the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture

(JSA), National Science and Technology

Council, held January 7–8, 1998. The

report entitled, ‘‘Report on the Shrimp

Virus Peer Review and Risk Assessment

Workshop: Developing a Qualitative

Risk Assessment’’ (EPA/630/R–98/

001A), was completed under contract to

the EPA. It develops a qualitative

ecological risk assessment describing

the potential risks of nonindigenous

pathogenic shrimp viruses on wild

shrimp populations in U.S. coastal

waters. Expert conclusions and

recommendations contained in the

report are currently undergoing an

independent scientific review. The

results of this independent review and

the draft final report will be used as the

basis for a risk management workshop

on shrimp viruses scheduled for July

28–29, 1998 in New Orleans (see 63 FR

36895–36896 (July 8, 1998)).

DATES: The report will be available on

or about July 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: An electronic version of the

draft final report will be accessible on

the EPA National Center for

Environmental Assessment home page

at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

H. Kay Austin, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research

and Development, National Center for

Environmental Assessment (8601D), 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 564–3328; fax: (202)

565–0066; e-mail austin.kay@epa.gov.

For technical assistance contact Dr. Tom

McIlwain, Chairperson of the JSA

Shrimp Virus Work Group, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 3209

Frederick Street, Pascagoula, MS 39567,

(601) 762–4591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public

concerns over the potential introduction

and spread of nonindigenous

pathogenic shrimp viruses to the wild

shrimp fishery and shrimp aquaculture
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 1998 / Notices 38647

industry in U.S. coastal waters are

increasing. Although these viruses pose

no threat to human health, outbreaks on

U.S. shrimp farms, the appearance of

diseased shrimp in U.S. commerce, and

new information on the susceptibility of

shrimp and other crustaceans to these

viruses prompted calls for action. In

response, the JSA (representing Federal

organizations including the U.S.

Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service (DOC/NOAA/NMFS);

the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Cooperative State Research, Education

and Extension Service (DOA/CREES);

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

(DOA/APHIS); and Agricultural

Research Service (DOA/ARS); U.S.

Department of Energy; U.S. Department

of Defense; Army Corp of Engineers

(DOD/ACE); U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Food and Drug

Administration (HHS/FDA); Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA); the EPA; and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS)) tasked the Federal interagency

Shrimp Virus Workgroup (DOC/NMFS,

EPA, FWS, and USDA/APHIS) with

assessing the shrimp virus problem.

Publication of this draft final report is

another in a series of related activities

sponsored by EPA, in cooperation with

DOC/NMFS, USDA/APHIS, and FWS,

on behalf of the JSA. In June 1997, the

Shrimp Virus Workgroup summarized

the available information on shrimp

viruses in a report to the JSA entitled,

‘‘An Evaluation of Potential Shrimp

Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and

on Wild Shrimp Populations in the Gulf

of Mexico and Southeastern U.S.

Atlantic Coastal Water’’ (JSA Shrimp

Virus Report (JSVR)). The JSVR was

reviewed at four stakeholder meetings

(see 62 FR 31790–31791 (June 11,

1997)), jointly sponsored by EPA, DOC/

NMFS, and USDA/APHIS on behalf of

the JSA, during July 1997. Previous

products of these efforts include the

JSVR (see http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/

oit/oit.html) and the Minutes of the

Stakeholder Meetings Report (EPA/630/

R–92/001) (see http://www.epa.gov/

ncea/pdfs/shrimp5.pdf). These products

and additional stakeholder (public)

comments formed the basis for the

shrimp virus peer review and risk

assessment workshop. The workshop

participants considered potential

pathways to wild shrimp populations

including shrimp aquaculture, shrimp

processing and ‘‘other’’ sources and

pathways, and independently assessed

risks using a qualitative risk assessment

approach developed by the Aquatic

Nuisance Species Task Force.

The workshop report concludes that

viruses could survive in pathways

leading to coastal environments, and

that there is potential for viruses to

affect native shrimp in localized areas,

such as an estuary or bay. However, it

concludes that local populations of

shrimp would recover rapidly as a result

of reintroduction of shrimp or increases

in reproduction. Although there was

high uncertainty, the report concludes

that the risks from viral introductions to

the entire population of native shrimp

in U.S. coastal waters is relatively low.

Though limited by the time and

information available, the report

determines that impacts to organisms

besides shrimp deserved further

consideration.

Finally, while qualitative evaluations

are valuable, the report concludes that

they are associated with a great deal of

uncertainty. Therefore, given the limited

information currently available, it is not

feasible to conduct a more

comprehensive, quantitative assessment

of the risks associated with

nonindigenous pathogenic shrimp

viruses at this time. Participants noted

that there is a need to conduct further

systematic research efforts to reduce

uncertainty.

The workshop report, and the results

of the independent scientific review of

its conclusions and recommendations,

will be used as the basis for a risk

management workshop on shrimp

viruses scheduled for July 28–29, 1998,

in New Orleans. This workshop, jointly

sponsored by the EPA Gulf of Mexico

Program, DOC/NMFS, and DOA/CREES/

ARS, will develop options and strategies

for managing the threat of shrimp

viruses to cultured and wild stocks of

shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico and

southeastern U.S. Atlantic coastal

waters. Persons interested in attending

the upcoming risk management

workshop should contact William D.

Holland, Gulf of Mexico Program Office,

Building 1103, Room 202, Stennis Space

Center, MS 39529–6000; telephone:

(228) 688–3726; fax: (228) 688–2709; email:holland.bill@epa.gov.

Dated: July 10, 1998.

William H. Farland,

Director, National Center for Environmental

Assessment.

[FR Doc. 98–19248 Filed 7–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PB–402404–MS; FRL–5799–4]

Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities;

State of Mississippi’s Authorization

Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comments

and opportunity for public hearing.

SUMMARY: On March 12, 1998, the State

of Mississippi submitted an application

for EPA approval to administer and

enforce training and certification

requirements, training program

accreditation requirements, and work

practice standards for lead-based paint

activities in target housing and childoccupied facilities under section 402 of

the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA). This notice announces the

receipt of Mississippi’s application,

provides a 45–day public comment

period, and provides an opportunity to

request a public hearing on the

application.

DATES: Comments on the authorization

application must be received on or

before August 31, 1998. Public hearing

requests must be received on or before

August 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit all written

comments and/or requests for a public

hearing identified by docket control

number ‘‘PB–402404–MS’’ (in

duplicate) to: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IV, Air, Pesticides and

Toxics Management Division, Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW.,

Atlanta, GA 30303–3104.

Comments, data, and requests for a

public hearing may also be submitted

electronically to:

rudd.roseanne@epa.epamail.gov. Follow

the instructions under Unit V. of this

document. No information claimed to be

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Anne Rudd, Regional Lead Coordinator,

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IV, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta, GA

30303–3104, telephone: (404) 562–8998,

e-mail address:

rudd.roseanne@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 28, 1992, the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1992,

Pub. L. 102–550, became law. Title X of

that statute was the Residential Lead-