Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31073

would have a return linked to the

inflation rate in prices or wages. The

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

was published in the Federal Register

on May 20, 1996 (61 FR 25164) and

comments were to be received on or

before June 19, 1996.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Government Securities Regulations

Staff, Bureau of the Public Debt,

Department of the Treasury, 999 E

Street, NW., Room 515, Washington, DC

20239–0001. Comments received will be

available for public inspection and

copying at the Treasury Department

Library, Room 5030, Main Treasury

Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Carleton, Director, Office of

Federal Finance Policy Analysis, Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Financial

Markets, at 202–622–2680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of the Treasury (Department

or Treasury) announced its intention to

issue a new type of marketable bookentry security with a nominal return

linked to the inflation rate in prices or

wages, as officially published by the

United States Government. In the

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

that was published May 20, 1996, the

Treasury specifically requested

comments concerning the choice of

index, structure of the security, auction

technique, offering sizes, and maturities.

The Treasury also invited comments on

other specific issues raised, as well as

on any other issues relevant to the new

type of security.

Given the importance of this issue

and the desire to provide sufficient time

for parties to evaluate and consider

Treasury’s inflation-protection security

proposal, particularly since a series of

public meetings to describe further the

Department’s current thinking on the

subject and to obtain potential investor

input just concluded on June 12, 1996,

the Department believes that additional

time is appropriate for market

participants and other interested parties

to provide written comments. Therefore,

the Department is extending the

comment period for 14 days until

Wednesday, July 3, 1996.

Dated: June 14, 1996.

Roger L. Anderson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Federal Finance.

[FR Doc. 96–15658 Filed 6–14–96; 3:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA–16–1–7165b; FRL–5522–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Plans; Louisiana; Revision to

the State Implementation Plan (SIP);

Addressing Ozone Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve a revision to Louisiana’s SIP for

ozone. This action is based upon a

revision request which was submitted

by the State to satisfy the requirements

of the Clean Air Act, as amended

November 15, 1990, and the

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring

Stations (PAMS) regulations. The PAMS

regulations require the State to provide

for the establishment and maintenance

of an enhanced ambient air quality

monitoring network in the form of

PAMS by November 12, 1993.

In the final rules section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the State’s SIP revision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If the EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn, and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by July 19,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), at the EPA Regional

Office listed below. Copies of the

documents relevant to this proposed

rule are available for public inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Divison, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733, telephone (214) 665–

7214.

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality, Office of Air Quality and

Radiation Protection, H. B. Garlock

Building, 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd.,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jeanne McDaniels, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

action of the same title which is located

in the rules section of the Federal

Register.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Allyn M. Davis,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15590 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 2E4042/P661; FRL–5374–6]

RIN 2070–AC18

Chlorothalonil; Pesticide Tolerance for

Use in or on Asparagus

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a

tolerance for combined residues of the

fungicide chlorothalonil and its

metabolite in or on the raw agricultural

commodity asparagus. The proposed

regulation to establish a maximum

permissible level for residues of the

fungicide was requested in a petition

submitted by the Interregional Research

Project No. 4 (IR-4).

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket number [PP 2E4042/P661], must

be received on or before July 19, 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
31074 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 2E4042/P661]. 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 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)

2E4042 to EPA on behalf of the

Agricultural Experiment Stations of

Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

Virginia, and Washington.

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 180.275 by

establishing a tolerance for combined

residues of the fungicide chlorothalonil

[tetrachloroisophthalonitrile] and its

metabolite, 4-hydroxy-2,5,6-

trichloroisophthalonitrile, in or on the

raw agricultural commodity asparagus

at 0.1 part per million (ppm).

The scientific data submitted in the

petition and other relevant material

have been evaluated. A discussion of

the toxicological data considered in

support of the proposed tolerance for

asparagus can be found in a proposed

rule (PP 0E3889, 2E4113, and 5E4538/

P639) published in the Federal Register

of January 24, 1996 (61 FR 1884). The

Federal Register notice of January 24,

1996, also provides a discussion of the

basis for the EPA’s classification of

chlorothalonil and hexachlorobenzene

(HCB), a manufacturing impurity found

in chlorothalonil formulations, as

probable human carcinogens (Group B2

of EPA’s classification system for

carcinogens).

Dietary risk assessments were

conducted using Reference Doses (RfD),

the applicable cancer potency factors to

assess chronic exposure and risk from

chlorothalonil and HCB residues, and

the Margin of Exposure (MOE) to assess

acute toxicity from chlorothalonil

residues.

The Reference Dose (RfD) for

chlorothalonil is established at 0.018

mg/kg of body weight (bwt)/day, based

on a no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of

1.8 mg/kg/day from the 2–year feeding

study in dogs, which demonstrated as

effects increased urinary bilirubin levels

and kidney vacuolated epithelium, and

an uncertainty factor of 100. Available

information on anticipated residues

and/or percent of crop treated was

incorporated into the analysis to

estimate the Anticipated Residue

Contribution (ARC) from existing uses.

The proposed tolerance level of 0.1 ppm

and 100 percent crop treated were

assumed to estimate dietary exposure to

residues of chlorothalonil from the

proposed use on asparagus. The ARC

from existing uses and the proposed

uses utilizes less than 1 percent of the

RfD for chlorothalonil for the U.S.

population and all population

subgroups. EPA generally has no cause

for concern for exposures below 100

percent of the RfD.

The RfD for HCB is established at

0.0008 mg/kg bwt/day based on a NOEL

of 0.08 mg/kg of bwt/day and an

uncertainty factor of 100. The NOEL

was taken from a 130 week feeding

study in rats that showed hepatic

centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis.

Since there are no published tolerances

for HCB, the ARC was generally

calculated by multiplying the

anticipated residues for chlorothalonil

by 0.05 percent, an adjustment based on

comparisons of residue data for the two

compounds from controlled field trials.

The ARC for HCB from existing uses of

chlorothalonil and the proposed use on

asparagus utilizes less than 1 percent of

the RfD for the U.S. population and all

population subgroups.

The upper bound carcinogenic risks

were calculated using the ARC estimates

for dietary exposure from existing uses

and the proposed use on asparagus, and

Q*s (Q stars) of 0.00766 (mg/kg/day)-1

for chlorothalonil and 1.02 (mg/kg/

day)-1 for HCB. The upper bound

carcinogenic risk from existing and all

pending uses of chlorothalonil is

estimated at 6.5 × 10-7, with the

proposed use for asparagus contributing

1.05 × 10-8 to the cancer risk assessment.

The upper bound carcinogenic risk for

HCB is estimated at 3.2 × 10-7 from

existing and all pending uses, with the

proposed use for asparagus contributing

1.2 × 10-7 to the cancer risk assessment.

The proposed use on asparagus would

contribute negligible increases in the

total cancer risks from dietary exposure

to residues of chlorothalonil and HCB.

The Margin of Exposure (MOE) is a

measure of how closely the high-end

acute dietary exposure comes to the

NOEL from the toxicity endpoint of

concern. For chlorothalonil, the MOE

was calculated as ratio of the lowestobserved effect level (LOEL) of 175 mg/

kg/day from the subchronic study in

rats. A NOEL was not established since

an effect (renal and gastric lesions) was

observed at the single dose tested. An

uncertainty factor of 300 was used to

calculate the MOE since there was no

available NOEL from the study. The

acute dietary MOE for chlorothalonil is

calculated to be greater than 1,500 for

the general population and all

population subgroups. Chlorothalonil

poses minimal acute dietary risk.

The nature of the residue in asparagus

is adequately understood. The parent

compound and its metabolite (4-

hydroxy- 2,5,6-

trichloroisophthalonitrile) are the

regulated residues. An adequate

analytical method, is available for

enforcement purposes. The method is

listed in the Pesticide Analytical

Manual, Volume II (PAM II).

There is no reasonable expectation

that secondary residues will occur in

milk, eggs, or meat, fat, or meat

byproducts of livestock or poultry as a

result of this action; there are no

livestock feed items associated with

asparagus.

There are presently no actions

pending against the continued

registration of this chemical. 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 would
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31075

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.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

proposed regulation. Comments must

bear a notation indicating the docket

number [PP 2E4042/P661].

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

2E4042/P661] (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.

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 t his

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.

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 requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 explaing the

factual basis for this determination 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: June 4, 1996.

Stephen L. Johnson,

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 § 180.275, the table in paragraph

(a) is amended by adding alphabetically

the raw agricultural commodity

asparagus, to read as follows:

§ 180.275 Chlorothalonil; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Asparagus ................................. 0.10

* * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–15478 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 6E4653/P665; FRL–5377–4]

RIN 2070–AC18

Sodium Salt of Fomesafen; Pesticide

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

the herbicide sodium salt of fomesafen

(also referred to in this document as

fomesafen) in or on the raw agricultural

commodity snap beans. 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 6E4653/P665], must

be received on or before July 19, 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:

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. 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 6E4653/P665].

Electronic comments on this proposed

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional