18536 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules

§ 180.415 Aluminum tris (Oethylphosphonate); tolerances for residues.

* * * * *

(c) Time-limited tolerances are

established for residues of the fungicide

aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate) in

or on the following raw agricultural

commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Expiration

date

Blueberry ............ 40 Dec. 31,

1998

[FR Doc. 96–10251 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 5E4590/P652; FRL–5363–5]

RIN 2070–AB18

Quizalofop Ethyl; Proposed Tolerance

for Residues on Pineapple

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a

tolerance for the residues of the

herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester and

its acid metabolite quizalofop-p and the

S enantiomers of both the ester and the

acid, all expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl

ester, in or on the raw agricultural

commodity pineapple. The proposed

regulation to establish a maximum

permissible level for residues of the

herbicide was requested in a petition

submitted by the Interregional Research

Project No. 4 (IR-4).

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket number [PP 5E4590/P652], must

be received on or before May 28, 1996.

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 to OPP 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 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [PP 5E4590/P652].

Electronic comments on this proposed

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found in the

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’

section of this document.

Information submitted as a comment

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 Virginia

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

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: The

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment

Station, P.O. Box 231, Rutgers

University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903,

has submitted pesticide petition (PP)

5E4590 to EPA on behalf of the

Agricultural Experiment Station of

Hawaii. This petition requests that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

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

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

346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.441 by

establishing a tolerance for combined

residues of the herbicide quizalofop-p

ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-(2-[4-((6-

chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl])-

propanoate], and its acid metabolite

quizalofop-p [R-(2-[4-((6-

chloroquinoxalin-2yl)oxy)phenoxy])

propanoic acid], and the S enantiomers

of both the ester and the acid, all

expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in

or on the raw agricultural commodity

pineapple at 0.1 part per million (ppm).

IR-4 proposed that use of quizalofop

ethyl on pineapple be limited to Hawaii

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.

The scientific data submitted in the

petition and other relevant material

have been evaluated. The toxicological

data considered in support of the

proposed tolerance include:

1. Several acute toxicology studies

placing technical-grade quizalofop ethyl

in Toxicity Category III.

2. An 18–month carcinogenicity study

with CD-1 mice fed diets containing 0,

2, 10, 80 and 320 ppm (equivalent to 0,

0.2, 1.5, 12, and 48 mg/kg/day) with no

carcinogenic effects observed under the

conditions of the study at levels up to

and including 80 ppm. There was an

elevated incidence of hepatocellular

adenomas and carcinomas combined in

CD-1 male mice at the 320 ppm dose

level, which exceeded the maximum

tolerated dose (MTD).

3. A 2–year chronic toxicity/

carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets

containing 0, 25, 100 and 400 ppm

(equivalent to 0, 0.9, 3.7, and 15.5 mg/

kg/day for males and 0, 1.1, 4.6, and

18.6 mg/kg/day for females) with no

carcinogenic effects observed under the

conditions of the study. The noobserved-effect-level (NOEL) for

systemic toxicity is established at 25

ppm (0.9 mg/kg/day) based on red blood

cell destruction in males, and slight/

minimal centrilobular enlargement of

the liver in females at the 100 ppm dose

level.

4. A 1–year feeding study in dogs fed

diets containing 0, 0.625, 2.5, and 10

mg/kg/day with a NOEL of 10 mg/kg/

day, the highest dose tested (HDT).

5. A developmental toxicity study in

rats fed dosage levels of 0, 30, 100, and

300 mg/kg/day, with no developmental

effects observed under the conditions of

the study. The NOEL for maternal

toxicity is established at 30 mg/kg/day.

6. A developmental toxicity study in

rabbits fed dosage levels of 0, 7, 20, and

60 mg/kg/day with no developmental

effects observed under the conditions of

the study. The NOEL for maternal

toxicity is established at 20 mg/kg/day

based on decreases in food consumption

and body weight gain at 60 mg/kg/day

(HDT).

7. A two-generation reproduction

study in rats fed diets containing 0, 25,

100 and 400 ppm (equivalent to 0, 1.25,

5, and 20 mg/kg/day with a NOEL for

developmental toxicity at 25 ppm based

on an increase in liver weight and

increase in the incidence of

eosinophillic changes in the liver at 100

ppm. The NOEL for parental toxicity is

established at 100 ppm based on
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18537

decreased body weight and premating

weight gain in males at the 400 ppm

dose level.

8. Mutagenicity data included gene

mutation assays with E. coli and S.

typhimurium (negative); DNA damage

assays with B. subtilis (negative); and a

chromosomal aberration test in Chinese

hamster cells (negative). OPP’s Health

Effects Division, Carcinogenicity Peer

Review Committee (CPRC) has

evaluated the rat and mouse cancer

studies for quizalofop ethyl along with

other relevant short-term toxicity

studies, mutagenicity studies, and

structure-activity relationships. The

CPRC has classified quizalofop ethyl as

a Group D carcinogen (not classifiable as

to human cancer potential). The Group

D classification is based on an

approximate doubling in the incidence

of male mice liver tumors between

controls and the high dose. This finding

was not considered strong enough to

warrant the classification of a Category

C (possible human carcinogen); the

increase was of marginal statistical

significance, occurred at a high dose

which exceeded the predicted MTD,

and occurred in a study in which the

concurrent control for liver tumors was

somewhat low as compared to the

historical controls, while the high dose

control group was at the upper end of

previous historical control groups. No

new cancer studies are required for

quizalofop ethyl at this time.

The Reference Dose (RfD) for

quizalofop ethyl is calculated at 0.009

mg/kg of body weight/day. The RfD is

based on the NOEL of 0.9 mg/kg/day

from the 2–year rat feeding study, and

a uncertainty factor of 100. The

theoretical maximum residue

contribution (TMRC) from existing

tolerances and the proposed tolerance

for pineapple utilizes 2.5 percent of the

RfD for the overall U.S. population and

10.6 percent of the RfD for non-nursing

infants (the population most highly

exposed). EPA generally has no concern

for dietary exposures below 100 percent

of the RfD.

The nature of the residues in livestock

is adequately understood. A bovine

feeding study using quizalofop ethyl

ester shows that finite residues will

occur from the feeding of treated

commodities or their processed feed

items. The established tolerances in

milk, and in fat, meat, and meat

byproducts of cattle, goats, and hogs,

horses and sheep are adequate to cover

secondary residues resulting from this

use on pineapple. Food and feed

tolerances are not required in

association with this action. EPA

concludes that the results of a pineapple

processing study show that residues of

quizalofop-p ethyl ester do not

concentrate in the processed

commodities juice or wet pulp

(pineapple process residue) .

The nature of the residue in pineapple

is adequately understood for the

purposes of this tolerance. An adequate

analytical method (HPLC-UV) is

available for enforcement purposes.

Prior to its publication in the Pesticide

Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II),

the enforcement method is being made

available in the interim to anyone who

is interested in pesticide residue

enforcement from: By mail, Calvin

Furlow, Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: Crystal Mall #2, Rm 1128, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA

22202, telephone: 703–305–5805.

There are presently no actions

pending against the continued

registration of this chemical.

Based on the information and data

considered, the Agency has determined

that the tolerance established by

amending 40 CFR part 180 would

protect the public health. Therefore, it is

proposed that the tolerance be

established as set forth below.

Any person who has registered or

submitted an application for registration

of a pesticide, under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) as amended, which

contains any of the ingredients listed

herein, may request within 30 days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register that this rulemaking proposal

be referred to an Advisory Committee in

accordance with section 408(e) of the

FFDCA.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

5E4590/P652] (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 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.

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

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 Virginia

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.

This action does not impose any

enforceable duty, or contain any

‘‘unfunded mandates’’ as described in

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), or

require prior consultation as specified

by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership, or

special consideration as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

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
18538 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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: April 16, 1996.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 180 be 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 § 180.441, by adding a new

paragraph (d), to read as follows:

§ 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for

residues.

* * * * *

(d) Tolerances with regional

registration, as defined in § 180.1(n), are

established for the combined residues of

the herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester

[ethyl (R)-(2-[4-((6- chloroquinoxalin-2-

yl)oxy)phenoxy)-propanoate], and its

acid metabolite quizalofop-p [R-(2-(4((6-

chloroquinoxalin-2-

yl)oxy)phenoxy])propanoic acid], and

the S enantiomers of both the ester and

the acid, all expressed as quizalofop-pethyl ester, in or on the following raw

agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Pineapple .................................. 0.1

[FR Doc. 96–10385 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–7164]

Proposed Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects a

Notice of Proposed Modified

Determinations of base (1% annual

chance) flood elevations previously

published at 61 FR 6601 on February 21,

1996. This correction document

provides a more accurate representation

of the Flood Insurance Study and Flood

Insurance Rate Map for the Town of

Owego, Tioga County, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard

Identification Branch, Mitigation

Directorate, 500 C Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management Agency

gives notice of the correction to the

Notice of Proposed Modified

Determinations of base (1% annual

chance) flood elevations for selected

locations in the Town of Owego,

previously published at 61 FR 6601 on

February 21, 1996, in accordance with

Section 110 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93–234),

87 Stat. 980, which added Section 1363

to the National Flood Insurance Act of

1968 (Title XIII of the Housing and

Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L.

90–448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001–4128, and 44

CFR Part 67.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

Flood Insurance, Floodplains.

On page 6605, in the February 21,

1996 issue of Federal Register, in the

fourth, fifth, and sixth column, the first

entry under ‘‘Owego (Town), Tioga

County’’, is corrected to read as follows:

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

New

York.

Owego (Town)

Tioga County.

Susquehanna

River.

Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of Apalachin Creek ............... *823 *822

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: April 17, 1996.

Richard W. Krimm,

Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 96–10374 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WT Docket No. 96–86; DA 96–604]

Wireless Services; National

Communications Services System

Petition

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks

comment on a petition for rulemaking

filed by the National Communications

System requesting that the Commission

adopt rules to provide ‘‘priority access’’

to cellular spectrum for National

Security/Emergency Preparedness

responsiveness. The action is taken to

establish a record upon which to base a

decision on this issue.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

June 3, 1996, and reply comments are

due on or before July 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert McNamara, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, Private

Wireless Division, (202) 418–0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition for Rulemaking Filed;

Commission Seeks Comment on

Petition for Rulemaking Filed by

National Communications System

Comments Due: June 3, 1996; Replies

Due: July 2, 1996

On October 19, 1995, the National

Communications System (‘‘NCS’’),

through the Secretary of Defense as an

Executive Agent of the NCS, filed a

Petition for Rulemaking requesting the

Commission to adopt rules to provide

‘‘priority access’’ to cellular spectrum

for National Security/Emergency

Preparedness (NS/EP) responsiveness.

Specifically, NCS requests that the

Commission establish the Cellular

Priority Access Service (CPAS).