21728 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

agricultural practice, this ingredient is

useful for the purpose for which the

tolerance exemption is sought. Based on

the information considered, EPA

concludes that a tolerance is not

necessary to protect the public health.

Therefore, the exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance is established

as set forth below.

Acceptable daily intake (ADI) and

maximum permissible intake (MPI)

considerations are not relevant to this

petition because the data and

information submitted demonstrate that

this active ingredient is not toxic to

mammalian species. No enforcement

actions are expected, based upon the

toxicity for this plant pesticide.

Therefore, the requirement for an

analytical method for enforcement

purposes is not applicable to this

exemption request.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

and/ or a request for a hearing with the

Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections, and must

conform to the other requirements of 40

CFR 178.25. Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on each such

issue, and a summary of any evidence

relied upon by the objector (40 CFR

178.27). A request for a hearing will be

granted if the Administrator determines

that the material submitted shows the

following: There is a genuine and

substantial issue of fact; there is a

reasonable possibility that available

evidence identified by the requestor

would, if established, resolve one or

more of such issues in favor of the

requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

3F4273/R2132] (including copies of any

objections and requests for hearings

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 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal 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.

An electronic copy of objections and

requests for hearings can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.

A copy of electronic objections and

requests for hearings must be submitted

as an 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 any copy of objections and

requests for hearings 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 any

objections and requests for hearings

submitted directly in writing. The

official rulemaking record is the paper

record maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),

the order defines a ‘‘significant’’

regulatory action’’ as an action that is

likely to result in a rule (1) having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local or tribal

governments or communities (also

referred to as ‘‘economically

significant’’); (2) creating serious

inconsistency or otherwise materially

altering the budgetary impacts of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations or

recipients thereof; or (3) raising novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, EPA has determined that this

rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemption from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4,1981 (49

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In subpart D, by adding new

§ 180.1147, to read as follows:

§ 180.1147 Bacillus thuringiensis CryIIIA

delta-endotoxin and the genetic material

necessary for its production.

Bacillus thuringiensis CryIIIA deltaendotoxin and the genetic material

necessary for its production are

exempted from the requirement of a

tolerance when used as a plant pesticide

in potatoes. ‘‘Genetic material necessary

for its production’’ means the CryIIIA

gene and its regulatory regions.

‘Regulatory regions’’ are the genetic

materials that control the expression of

the gene, such as promoters,

terminators, and enhancers.

[FR Doc. 95–10864 Filed 4–28–95; 12:21 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4F4317/R2125; FRL–4949–4l

RIN No. 2070–AB78

Myclobutanil; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a

tolerance for the combined residues of

the fungicide myclobutanil and a

metabolite in or on the raw agricultural
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21729

commodity cottonseed at 0.02 part per

million (ppm). The Rohm & Haas Co.

requested establishment of this

tolerance.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation became

effective on March 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 4F4317/

R2125], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the document control

number and submitted 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 a copy of the objections

and hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA 22202. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

A copy of objections and requests for

hearings filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and requests for hearings

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Copies of

objections and requests for hearings will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All copies of objections and

requests for hearings in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

[PP 4F4317/R2125]. No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

copies of objections and requests for

hearings on this rule may be filed online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found below in this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Connie B. Welch, Product

Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

6900; e-mail:

welch.connie@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice, published in the

Federal Register of February 8, 1995 (60

FR 7539), which announced that the

Rohm & Haas Co., Independence Mall

West, Philadelphia, PA 19105, was

proposing the establishment of a

tolerance of 0.02 part per million (ppm)

in pesticide petition (PP) 4F4317 for the

residues of the fungicide myclobutanil,

[alpha-butyl-alpha-(3-hydroxybutyl)-

1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-propanenitrile], and

both the free and bound forms of its

metabolite, alpha-(3-hydroxybutyl)-

alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-

triazole-1-propanenitrile, in or on the

raw agricultural commodity cottonseed.

There were no comments received in

response to the Federal Register notice.

The data submitted in support of the

petition and other relevant material

have been evaluated. The pesticide is

considered useful for the purpose for

which the tolerance is sought. The

toxicological data considered in support

of the tolerance include the following:

1. A 1-year dog feeding study using

doses of 0, 10, 100, 400, and 1,600 ppm

(equivalent to doses of 0, 0.34, 3.09,

14.28 and 54.22 milligrams/kilogram

(mg/kg) body weight (bwt)/day in males

and 0, 0.40, 3.83, 15.68 and 58.20 mg/

kg bwt/day in females). The noobserved-effect level (NOEL) is 100 ppm

(3.09 mg/kg/day for males and 3.83 mg/

kg/day for females) based upon

hepatocellular hypertrophy, increases in

liver weights, ‘‘ballooned’’ hepatocytes,

and increases in alkaline phosphatase,

SGPT and GGT, and possible slight

hematological effects. The lowestobserved-effect level (LOEL) is 400 ppm

(14.28 mg/kg/day for males and 15.68

mg/kg/day for females).

2. A 2-year chronic feeding/

carcinogenicity study in rats using

dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 200 and

800 ppm (equivalent to doses of 0, 2.49,

9.84 and 39.21 mg/kg bwt/day in males

and 0, 3.23, 12.86 and 52.34 mg/kg bwt/

day in females). The NOEL for chronic

effects other than carcinogenicity is 2.49

mg/kg/day, and the LOEL is 9.84 mg/kg/

day based on testicular atrophy in

males. No other significant effects were

observed in either sex at the stated dose

levels over a 2-year period. In addition,

no carcinogenic effects were observed in

either sex at any of the dose levels

tested. Based on the toxicological

findings, the maximum tolerated dose

(MTD) selected for testing (based on the

90-day feeding study) was not high

enough to fully characterize the

compound’s carcinogenic potential.

The study was repeated at dose levels

of 0 and 2,500 ppm (125 mg/kg/day) in

the diet, which approaches the MTD, in

order to characterize the carcinogenic

potential. At 2,500 ppm the observed

effects included: decreases in absolute

and relative testes weights, increases in

the incidences of centrilobular to

midzonal hepatocellular enlargement

and vacuolation in the liver of both

sexes, increases in bilateral

aspermatogenesis in the testes, increases

in the incidence of hypospermia and

cellular debris in the epididymides, and

increased incidence of arteritis/

periarteritis in the testes. In this study,

a NOEL could not be established

because there were effects at the only

dose level tested. Myclobutanil was not

oncogenic when tested under the

conditions of the study.

3. A 2-year carcinogenicity study in

mice using dietary concentrations of 0,

20, 100, and 500 ppm (equivalent to 0,

2.7, 13.7, and 70.2 mg/kg/day in males

and 0, 3.2, 16.5, and 85.2 mg/kg/day in

females). The NOEL for chronic effects

other than carcinogenicity was 20 ppm

(2.7 mg/kg/day in males and 3.2 mg/kg/

day in females). The LOEL was 100 ppm

(13.7 mg/kg/day in males and 16.5 mg/

kg/day in females) based on a slight

increase in liver mixed-function oxidase

(MFO). Microscopic changes in the liver

were evident in both sexes at 500 ppm

(70.2 mg/kg/day in males and 85.2 mg/

kg/day in females). There were no

carcinogenic effects in either sex at any

dose level tested. The highest selected

dose was satisfactory for evaluating

carcinogenic potential in male mice but

was lower than the MTD in females.

The above study was reevaluated

since the increase in the MFO at 3

months in females was not considered

to be significant enough to establish an

LOEL. The LOEL was raised to 500 ppm

(70.2 mg/kg/day for males and 85.2 mg/

kg/day for females) based on increases

in MFO in both sexes, increases in

SGPT values in females and in absolute

and relative liver weights in both sexes

at 3 months, increased incidences and

severity of centrilobular hepatocytic

hypertrophy, Kupffer cell pigmentation,

periportal punctate vacuolation and

individual hepatocellular necrosis in

males, and increased incidences of focal

hepatocellular alteration and multifocal

hepatocellular vacuolation in both

sexes. The NOEL has been raised to 100

ppm (13.7 mg/kg/day for males and 16.5

mg/kg/day for females).

An 18-month study was conducted

with female mice using a dose level of

2,000 ppm, which approaches the MTD,

to evaluate the carcinogenic potential in

female mice. In this study, a NOEL

could not be established because there

were effects at the only dose level

tested. These effects included: decreases

in body weight and body weight gain,

increases in liver weights,
21730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

hepatocellular hypertrophy,

hepatocellular vacuolation, necrosis of

single hypertrophied hepatocytes,

yellow-brown pigment in the Kupffer

cells and cytoplasmic eosinophilia and

hypertrophy of the cells of the zona

fasciculata area of the adrenal cortex.

Myclobutanil was not oncogenic when

tested under the conditions of the study.

4. A rabbit developmental toxicity

study at dosages of 0, 20, 60, and 200

mg/kg/day administered by oral gavage.

The LOEL for maternal toxicity was 200

mg/kg/day, and the maternal toxicity

NOEL was 60 mg/kg/day based on

reduced body weight and body weight

gain during the dosing period, clinical

signs of toxicity, and possibly abortions.

The LOEL for developmental toxicity is

200 mg/kg/day, and the NOEL for

developmental toxicity is 60 mg/kg/day

based on increases in resorptions,

decreases in litter size, and a decrease

in the viability index.

5. A developmental toxicity study on

rats treated with dosages of 0, 31.26,

93.77, 312.58, and 468.87 mg/kg/day.

The maternal toxicity LOEL was 312.6

mg/kg/day, and maternal toxicity NOEL

was 93.8 mg/kg/day based on clinical

signs of toxicity. The developmental

toxicity LOEL was 312.6 mg/kg/day, and

the developmental toxicity NOEL was

93.8 mg/kg/day based on increased

incidences of 14th rudimentary and 7th

cervical ribs.

6. A two-generation rat reproduction

study with dosage rates of 0, 50, 200,

and 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 2.5, 10,

and 50 mg/kg/day). The parental

(systemic) toxicity LOEL was 200 ppm

(10 mg/kg/day), and the parental

(systemic) toxicity NOEL was 50 ppm

(2.5 mg/kg/day) based on hepatocellular

hypertrophy and increases in liver

weights. The reproductive toxicity

LOEL was 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day)

and reproductive toxicity NOEL was

200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day) based on an

increased incidence in the number of

stillborns and atrophy of the testes and

prostate. The developmental toxicity

LOEL was 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day)

and the developmental toxicity NOEL

was 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day) based on

a decrease in pup body weight gain

during lactation.

7. A reverse mutation assay (Ames),

point mutation in CHO/HGPRT cells, in

vitro and in vivo (mouse) cytogenetic

assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis,

and a dominant-lethal study in rats, all

of which were negative for mutagenic

effects.

The Reference Dose (RfD) based on

the 2-year rat chronic feeding study

(NOEL of 2.49 mg/kg bwt/day) and

using a hundredfold uncertainty factor,

is calculated to be 0.025 mg/kg bwt/day.

The theoretical maximum residue

contribution (TMRC) from previously

established tolerances and the tolerance

established here is 0.002075 mg/kg bwt/

day for the general population and

utilizes 8% of the RfD. The percentage

of the RfD for the most highly exposed

subgroup, nonnursing infants (less than

1 year old) is 49%. The TMRC was

calculated based on the assumption that

myclobutanil occurs at the maximum

legal limit in the dietary commodity for

which a tolerance is proposed. Even

with this probable large overestimate of

exposure/risk, the TMRC is well below

the RfD for the population as a whole

and for each of the 22 subgroups

considered. Thus, the dietary risk from

exposure to myclobutanil appears to be

minimal for the use on cottonseed.

The nature of the residues is

adequately understood, and adequate

analytical methodology is available for

enforcement. Prior to their publication

in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol.

II, the enforcement methodology is

being made available in the interim to

anyone who is interested in pesticide

enforcement when requested from:

Calvin Furlow, Public Information

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

5232.

The pesticide is considered useful for

the purpose for which the tolerance is

sought. Based on the information and

data considered, the Agency has

determined that the tolerance

established by amending 40 CFR part

180 will protect the public health.

Therefore, the tolerances are established

as set forth below. By way of public

reminder, this document also reiterates

the registrant’s responsibility under

section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA, to submit

additional factual information regarding

adverse effects on the environment and

to human health by these pesticides.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

to the regulation and may also request

a hearing on those objections.

Objections and hearing requests must be

filed with the Hearing Clerk, at the

address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A

copy of the objections and/or hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

should be submitted to the OPP docket

for this rulemaking. The objections

submitted must specify the provisions

of the regulation deemed objectionable

and the grounds for the objections (40

CFR 178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33 (i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issues(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

4F4317/R2125] (including any

objections and requests for hearings

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 a.m. to

4:30 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.

Written objections and requests for

hearings, identified by the document

control number [4F4317/R2125], may be

submitted to the Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

requests for hearings can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

requests for hearings must be submitted

as an 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 any copies of objections and

requests for hearings 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21731

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.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

all the requirements of the Executive

Order (i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis,

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the

order defines ‘‘significant’’ as those

actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local or tribal

governments or communities (also

known as ‘‘economically significant’’);

(2) creating serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfering with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs; or (4) raising novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this

Executive Order, EPA has determined

that this rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, chapter I of the title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. In part 180:

The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.443(a), by amending the

table therein by adding and

alphabetically inserting an entry for

cottonseed, to read as follows:

§ 180.443 Myclobutanil; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Cottonseed ................................ 0.02

* * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10862 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300377A; FRL–4949–6]

RIN 2070–AB78

Urea-Formaldehyde Copolymer;

Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA establishes an exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance for

residues of urea-formaldehyde

copolymer (CAS Reg. No. 9011-05-6)

when used as an inert ingredient in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops only under 40 CFR

180.1001(d) to include uses as a solid

diluent, filler, and/or carrier and to

modify the minimum molecular weight

from 30,000 to 20,000. Ciba-Geigy Corp.

requested this regulation pursuant to the

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective on May 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections,

identified by the document control

number, [OPP-300377A], may be

submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. A copy of any objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk should be identified by the

document control number and

submitted 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

copy of objections and hearing request

to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

A copy of objections and requests for

hearings filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and requests for hearings

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Copies of

objections and requests for hearings will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All copies of objections and

requests for hearings in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

[OPP-300377A]. No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

copies of objections and requests for

hearings on this rule may be filed online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found below in this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Kerry Leifer, Registration Support

Branch, Registration Division (7505W),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Westfield Building North, 6th Fl., 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202,

(703)-308-8323; e-mail:

leifer.kerry@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of January 26, 1995 (60

FR 5157), EPA issued a proposed rule

that Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box 18300,

Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, had

submitted pesticide peitition (PP)

4E04423 to EPA requesting that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

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

346a(e), propose to amend 40 CFR

180.1001(d) by revising the existing

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of ureaformaldehyde copolymer (CAS Reg. No.

9011-05-6), when used as an inert

ingredient (encapsulating agent) in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops only. The petitioner

sought to expand the use of ureaformaldehyde copolymer to include

solid diluent, filler, and carrier and to

revise the minimum number-average

molecular weight from 30,000 to 20,000.