Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Notices 15143

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Information submitted in any

comment concerning this notice may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information.’’

Information so marked 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 Confidential Business

Information must be provided by the

submitter for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments filed pursuant to this notice

will be available for public inspection in

Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA,

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Andrea Beard, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

20460. Office location and telephone

number: Floor 6, Crystal Station #1,

2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, (703) 308–8417; e-mail:

beard.andrea@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

(7 U.S.C. 136p), the Administrator may,

at her discretion, exempt a state agency

from any registration provision of

FIFRA if she determines that emergency

conditions exist which require such

exemption. The Applicant has requested

the Administrator to issue a specific

exemption for the use of propazine on

sorghum to control pigweed.

Information in accordance with 40 CFR

part 166 was submitted as part of this

request.

Sorghum is grown as a rotational crop

with cotton and wheat, in order to

comply with the soil conservation

requirements. Propazine, which was

formerly registered for use on sorghum,

was voluntarily canceled by the former

Registrant, who did not wish to support

its re-registration. The Applicant claims

that this has left many sorghum growers

with no pre-emergent herbicides that

will adequately control certain broadleaf

weeds, especially pigweed. The

Applicant states that other available

herbicides have serious limitations on

their use, making them unsuitable for

control of pigweed in sorghum. The

Applicant claims that significant

economic losses will occur without the

availability of propazine.

Although the original Registrant of

propazine has decided not to support

this chemical through re-registration,

another company has committed to

support the data requirements for this

use. Propazine was once registered for

this use, but has now been voluntarily

canceled and is therefore considered to

be a new chemical.

The Applicant proposes to apply

propazine at a maximum rate of 1.2 lbs.

active ingredient (a.i.), (2.4 pt. of

product) per acre, by ground or air, to

a maximum of 300,000 acres of

sorghum, with one application allowed

per crop growing season. Therefore, use

under this exemption could potentially

amount to a maximum total of 360,000

lbs. of active ingredient (90,000 gal. of

product).

This notice does not constitute a

decision by EPA on the application

itself. The regulations governing section

18 require publication of a notice of

receipt of an application for a specific

exemption proposing use of a new

chemical (i.e., an active ingredient not

contained in any currently registered

pesticide). Such notice provides for

opportunity for public comment on the

application. Accordingly, interested

persons may submit written views on

this subject to the Field Operations

Division at the address above.

The Agency, accordingly, will review

and consider all comments received

during the comment period in

determining whether to issue the

emergency exemption requested by the

Kansas Department of Agriculture.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests, Crisis exemptions.

Dated: March 14, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–7062 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[OPPTS–42182; FRL–4943–6]

Certain Paint Stripping Chemicals;

Solicitation of Testing Proposals for

Negotiation of TSCA Section 4

Enforceable Consent Agreements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice invites

manufacturers and processors of certain

chemical substances used in

commercial paint strippers and other

interested parties to develop and submit

to EPA specific toxicity testing

proposals for these chemicals. Testing is

needed for three dibasic esters (DBEs),

specifically, dimethyl adipate, dimethyl

glutarate and dimethyl succinate. The

EPA, the Consumer Product Safety

Commission and the National

Toxicology Program have consulted on

the need for and nature of toxicity

testing of DBEs, and the means for

implementing such testing.

DATES: Written testing proposals must

be received by May 22, 1995. EPA may

extend the deadline for receipt of testing

proposals upon a showing of good faith

efforts to develop testing proposals by

the initial deadline.

ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of

written testing proposals to TSCA

Docket Receipts (7407), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

G–99, East Tower, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Submissions

should bear the document control

number (OPPTS–42182; FRL–4943–6).

The public docket supporting this

action, including comments, is available

for public inspection in the

Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm

NE-B607, at the above address from 12

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

except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Willis, Acting Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Rm. E543B, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554–1404,

TDD (202) 554–0551. For specific

information regarding this action or

related activities, contact George

Semeniuk, Project Manager, Chemical

Testing and Information Branch (7405),

Rm E221B, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, (202) 260–2134.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Rationale for Action

Known as dibasic esters (DBEs),

dimethyl adipate (DMA, CAS No. 627–

93–0), dimethyl glutarate (DMG, CAS

No. 1119–40–0) and dimethyl succinate

(DMS, CAS No. 106–65–0) are

component chemicals of solvent

mixtures used in paint stripping

formulations that are sold to the general

public. Consumers can be significantly

exposed to DBEs during use of these

formulations. This potential for

significant exposure, a reported adverse

human effect—blurred vision—resulting

from the use of DBE-based paint

strippers, and the results of limited

toxicity testing (rats), form the
15144 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Notices

foundation for the Agency’s concern for

the potential health risk that may be

posed to consumers by DBE-based paint

strippers. Upon further review of the

other chemicals being used in

commercial paint strippers, the Agency

may determine that other commercial

paint stripper chemicals in addition to

the DBEs may pose significant

exposures and possible risks to

consumers or to other users. It may then

seek additional testing, if necessary, to

evaluate more fully that risk, in

conjunction with, or apart from, the

testing of the DBEs.

EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics (OPPT) administers the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

and the TSCA section 4 testing program.

Under TSCA section 4, 15 U.S.C. 2603,

EPA may require that chemical

manufacturers and processors provide

to EPA test data that can be used to

assess the impact on human health and

the environment from exposure to such

chemicals. In addition to imposing

section 4 testing requirements by

rulemaking, OPPT has developed an

Enforceable Consent Agreement (ECA)

process for obtaining needed testing

often with less time and resources and

more flexibility than under a test rule.

See 40 CFR part 790. On numerous

occasions, chemical companies have

approached EPA to negotiate ECAs for

chemicals which are likely to become

the subject of proposed test rules.

Testing proposals for the DBEs should

cover all identified data needs of the

substances in order to be considered for

ECA negotiation. If, after receiving

testing proposals, EPA pursues

negotiations for one or more ECAs

applicable to these chemicals, EPA will,

through a notice in the Federal Register,

solicit requests by individuals to be

designated an interested party to the

negotiation(s). EPA has authority to

require testing for these chemical

substances under section 4 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA)(15

U.S.C. 2601–2692) and, if an ECA-based

approach does not prove viable, EPA

would proceed with proposed

rulemaking to require the needed

testing.

B. Chemical Data Needs

In 1986, the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) established a

labeling and enforcement policy for

methylene chloride, a chemical solvent

used in many paint strippers and

household products and considered

hazardous due to its potential

carcinogenicity. Use of such products

often resulted in widespread and

significant consumer exposure. Since

then, paint strippers that do not contain

methylene chloride have been

developed and marketed to consumers

as ‘‘safe alternatives’’ to the methylene

chloride-based formulations. Mixtures,

or blends, of dibasic esters (DBEs) are

becoming an important substitute

solvent in alternative paint stripper

formulations.

There is limited toxicity information

available on the individual DBEs and

the alternative paint stripper

formulations that use DBEs. An adverse

human health effect—blurred vision—

has been reported for a user who used

DBE-based paint strippers in a poorly

ventilated setting. This response was

associated with DBE-based paint

strippers that contained high

percentages of the more volatile DMG

and DMS and less than 20 percent

DMA.

A well-designed and executed battery

of tests was carried out by the E.I. Du

Pont de Nemours Company to evaluate

the effects of a mixture of DBEs on

experimental animals. These tests

included a single-dose acute study, a 2–

week subacute study, two separate

subchronic studies, a reproductive

toxicity study (one-generation), and a

developmental toxicity study. The

studies utilized male and female rats

that were exposed via inhalation of

vapor or vapor aerosols of a DBE blend

that contained 66 percent DMG, 17

percent DMA and 17 percent DMS.

Among other findings, these studies

established the lethal concentration

from a 4–hour exposure to be

approximately 4,000 mg/m-3.

Subchronic inhalation studies

demonstrated that DBE could produce,

depending upon the exposure

concentration, progressive degeneration

of the nasal olfactory epithelium, a

dose-dependent decrease in liver

weight, a depression in serum sodium

levels and, at high exposure

concentrations, a reduction in body

weight. In addition, studies of the

effects of DBE exposure on reproduction

showed decreases in parental and pup

weight gain and an increased incidence

of delayed renal papilla development.

One test animal developed a tumor

(meningeal sarcoma) on the olfactory

bulb of the brain. Results from the

developmental toxicity study revealed

significant reductions in body weight

gain and food consumption for female

rats exposed at higher concentrations

and significant increases in percent of

litters having one or more malformed

fetuses. The deposition and metabolism

of DBE vapors in the upper respiratory

tract of rats has also been studied by

DuPont researchers and yielded insight

into understanding DBE-induced

degeneration of the olfactory epithelium

in test animals and the potential for

similar effects in humans.

An EPA-led interagency workgroup

composed of representatives from EPA

and CPSC was formed in 1993 to: (1)

assess the human health risks posed by

the myriad chemical substances (or

‘‘cluster of chemicals’’) used in paint

stripper formulations sold to consumers

and (2) identify potential options for

reducing risk. CPSC identified a need to

develop test data on DMA that would

provide a more complete toxicity profile

that would be used in comparing DMA’s

hazards to that of methylene chloride

and other paint stripping chemicals. In

1994, CPSC formally nominated DMA as

its 1994 priority chemical for federallyfunded testing under the National

Toxicology Program (NTP) and

described an array of tests that would

meet its needs. The testing that CPSC

requested for DMA concerned the

following effects: oncogenicity and

genotoxicity, sensory irritation, toxicity

following subchronic dermal

administration, reproductive and

developmental toxicity in a mammalian

species other than the rat, neurotoxicity

(screening), and in vitro metabolism/

toxicity using human upper respiratory

tissue.

In December, 1994, the Executive

Committee of the NTP convened and

decided to refer the bulk of the testing

requested by CPSC to EPA for

implementation using TSCA testing

authorities. This decision was taken

because of the commercial significance

of DMA, TSCA’s stated policy that

testing is the responsibility of industry

(15 U.S.C. 2601), and EPA’s interest in

collecting needed data on the broader

class of DBEs currently used in paint

strippers. However, testing will be

conducted by NTP for each of the three

DBEs with regard to genotoxicity (the

Salmonella typhimurium reverse

mutation assay and the in vivo

mammalian bone marrow cytogenetic

test: micronucleus assay).

The testing regime identified by CPSC

for DMA is comparable to that recently

undertaken for N-methylpyrrolidone

under an ECA published in the Federal

Register of November 23, 1993 (58 FR

61814). EPA believes, however, that

testing that is similar, or

complementary, to that specified for

DMA is also needed for DMG and DMS

in order to compare and contrast the

toxicities of all three chemical

substances. When used in paint stripper

formulations, all three DBEs are usually

present, although their relative

proportions may vary among

commercial formulations.

After consultation, EPA and CPSC

have agreed that the 2–tier testing
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Notices 15145

regime identified in Table 1 below is

both appropriate and needed for the

individual DBEs. As a matter of policy,

EPA believes testing of the individual

components is preferable to testing

mixtures of the DBEs, although EPA

would consider favorably a testing

regime for the DBEs that included

mixture testing, provided the individual

components were also tested. EPA also

invites the submission of additional

testing proposals (beyond the testing

described in the following Table 1) that

address inter-species differences in

metabolism, dosimetry or mode of toxic

action for use in improving the

extrapolation of DBE-induced toxicity in

animal experiments to adverse effects

that may occur in humans at relevant

exposure levels.

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED TESTING AND TEST STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL DBES

Species Exposure route Test

duration Guidelines/notes

Tier 1 Testing

1.1 In vitro Gene mutation in mammalian cells (DMA, DMG &

DMS).

NA ...................... NA .................................... NA ............... 40 CFR 798.5300.

1.2 SIDS Reproductive toxicity

Screening (DMA, DMG & DMS).

Mouse ................ Inhalation for most volatile DBE; dermal for

other two..

45 days ....... OECD1 Guideline for SIDS Testing No.

422 ‘‘Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity

Study with the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test 1994.’’

1.3 Sensory irritation (DMA, DMG

& DMS).

Mouse ................ Inhalation ......................... NA ............... ASTM E981-84 standard test method.

Tier 2 Testing2

2.1 Two generation reproductive

study (DMA, DMG or DMS).

Mouse or rat ...... To be selected based on

Tier 1 results..

2 generation 40 CFR 798.4700, as proposed for revision

(59 FR 42272, August 17, 1994).

2.2 Subchronic neurotoxicity

(DMA, DMG or DMS).

Rat ..................... To be selected based on

Tier 1 results..

90 days ....... 1991 Neurotoxicity Testing Guidelines. Unless 2-generation reproductive study is

run using the rat, this testing will require

a second 90–day study.

2.3 Developmental toxicity study

(DMA, DMG or DMS).

2 species:

mouse or rat,

and rabbit.

To be selected based on

Tier 1 results..

NA ............... 40 CFR 798.4900, as proposed for revision

(59 FR 42272, August 17, 1994).

2.4 Oncogenicity studies (DMA,

DMG or DMS).

Mouse and rat ... To be selected based on

Tier 1 results..

2 years + ..... 40 CFR 798.3300

1Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.

2Tier 2 testing will be done on one of the three DBEs selected on the basis of available toxicity data and exposure potential, as appropriate.

II. Public Docket

EPA has established a docket for this

action (docket control number OPPTS–

42182; FRL–4943–6). The docket

contains basic information considered

by EPA in developing this action and

includes:

1. Letter from Marilyn L. Wind, Ph.D.,

Director of Poison Prevention and

Scientific Coordination, Consumer

Product Safety Commission to Dr. Errol

Zeiger, National Toxicology Program,

National Institute for Environmental

Health Sciences, January 31, 1994.

(Copies of unpublished material cited in

the letter are included in the docket.

Within 15 days of publication of this

notice, the Agency expects to add the

published material cited in the letter to

the docket.)

2. 1991 Neurotoxicology Testing

Guidelines.

3. OPPTS Health Effects Test

Guidelines for reproductive and fertility

effects (OPPTS 870.3800).

4. OPPTS Health Effects Test

Guidelines for developmental toxicity

(OPPTS 870.3700).

EPA will supplement the docket with

additional information as it is received.

A public version of this docket is

available in the TSCA Non-confidential

Information Center (NCIC) from 12 noon

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except legal holidays. The NCIC is

located in Rm NE-B607, Mail Code

7407, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. Written requests for copies of

documents contained in this docket may

be sent to the above address or faxed to

(202) 260–9555.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603.

Dated: March 16, 1995.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 95–7060 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Petitions For Reconsideration Of

Action In Rulemaking Proceeding;

Correction

A Public Notice dated March 7, 1995,

DA 95–439, in the proceeding below

inadvertently failed to list both

petitioners and is, therefore, superseded

by this Public Notice. These petitions

for reconsideration have been filed in

the Commission rulemaking proceeding

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).

The full text of these documents are

available for viewing and copying in the

Reference Room, 1250 23rd Street,

N.W., Plaza Level, Washington, D.C. or

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor ITS, Inc.

(202) 857–3800. Opposition to both of

the petitions listed below must be filed

on or before April 6, 1995, of the date

of public notice of these petitions in the

Federal Register. See § 1.4(b)(1) of the

Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)).

Replies to an opposition must be filed