Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0211-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Imazethapyr; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide
Chemical in of on Food
Posted Date: 2002-12-06T05:00Z

72678
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
235
/
Friday,
December
6,
2002
/
Notices
The
Agency
has
maintained
that
polymers
meeting
the
polymer
exemption
criteria
will
present
minimal
risk
to
human
health
when
used
as
inert
ingredients
in
pesticide
products
applied
to
food
crops.
EPA
has
also
established
exemptions
from
tolerance
for
polymeric
materials
used
as
pesticide
inert
ingredients
that
it
considers
to
be
intrinsically
safe
based
on
the
fact
that
they
are
listed
on
the
TSCA
Inventory
or
meet
the
requirements
of
the
amended
TSCA
polymer
exemption
and
are
thereby
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
premanufacturing
notification.
Any
exposure
resulting
from
the
approval
of
three
polymers
represented
by
a­
hydro­
 ­
hydroxypoly
oxyethylene)
C8­
C18­
alkyl
ether
citrates
in
pesticide
formulations
for
use
on
growing
crops
or
to
RAC
after
harvest
is
not
warranted.

D.
Cumulative
Effects
At
this
time
there
is
no
information
to
indicate
that
any
toxic
effects
produced
by
three
polymers
represented
by
ahydro
 ­
hydroxy­
poly(
oxyethylene)
C8­
C18­
alkyl
ether
citrates
having
a
number
average
molecular
weight
of
at
least
1,100
would
be
cumulative
with
those
of
any
other
chemical
substance(
s).
Given
the
categorization
of
these
polymers
as
a
``
low
risk
polymer''
(
40
CFR
723.250)
and
their
proposed
use
as
inert
ingredients
in
pesticide
formulations,
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
increased
risk
due
to
cumulative
exposure.

E.
Safety
Determination
1.
U.
S.
population.
As
a
matter
of
policy,
EPA
has
in
the
past
established
exemptions
from
tolerance
for
polymeric
substances
used
as
pesticide
inert
ingredients
that
it
considers
to
be
intrinsically
safe
based
on
the
fact
that
they
are
listed
on
the
TSCA
Inventory
or
meet
the
requirements
of
the
amended
TSCA
polymer
exemption
and
are
thereby
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
premanufacture
notice
(
PMN).
The
Agency
has
maintained
that
polymers
meeting
the
polymer
exemption
criteria
will
present
minimal
risk
to
human
health
when
used
as
inert
ingredients
in
pesticide
formulations.
2.
Infants
and
children.
FFDCA
section
408
provides
that
EPA
shall
supply
an
additional
tenfold
margin
of
safety
for
infants
and
children
in
the
case
of
threshold
effects
where
prenatal
and/
or
postnatal
toxicity
are
found
or
there
is
incompleteness
of
the
database,
unless
EPA
concludes
that
a
different
margin
of
safety
will
be
safe
for
infants
and
children.
Margins
of
safety
are
incorporated
into
EPA
risk
assessments
either
directly
through
the
use
of
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
analysis
or
through
using
uncertainty
(
safety)
factors
in
calculating
a
dose
level
that
poses
no
appreciable
risk
to
humans.
Due
to
the
low
expected
toxicity
of
these
three
polymers
represented
by
ahydro
 ­
hydroxy­
poly(
oxyethylene)
C8­
C18­
alkyl
ether
citrates,
a
safety
factor
analysis
is
not
required
for
assessing
the
risk.
For
the
same
reasons
the
additional
safety
factor
is
unnecessary.

F.
International
Tolerances
Akzo
Nobel
Industrial
Specialties,
Inc.
is
not
aware
of
any
country
requiring
a
tolerance
for
the
three
polymers
represented
by
a­
hydro­
 ­
hydroxy­
poly(
oxyethylene)
C8­
C18­
alkyl
ether
citrates
having
a
number
average
molecular
weights
of
at
least
1,100.
Nor
have
there
been
any
CODEX
Maximum
Residue
Levels
(
MRLs)
established
for
any
food
crops
at
this
time.

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30946
Filed
12
 
5
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0211;
FRL
 
7283
 
3]

Imazethapyr;
Notice
of
Filing
a
Pesticide
Petition
to
Establish
a
Tolerance
for
a
Certain
Pesticide
Chemical
in
or
on
Food
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
This
notice
announces
the
initial
filing
of
a
pesticide
petition
proposing
the
establishment
of
regulations
for
residues
of
a
certain
pesticide
chemical
in
or
on
various
food
commodities.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0211,
must
be
received
on
or
before
January
6,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Jim
Tompkins,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
5697;
e­
mail
address:
tompkins.
jim@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

You
may
be
affected
by
this
action
if
you
are
an
agricultural
producer,
food
manufacturer,
or
pesticide
manufacturer.
Potentially
affected
categories
and
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
 
Crop
production
(
NAICS
111)
 
Animal
production
(
NAICS
112)
 
Food
manufacturing
(
NAICS
311
 
Pesticide
manufacturing
(
NAICS
32532)
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
or
not
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0211.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
07
Dec
05,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
06DEN1.
SGM
06DEN1
72679
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
235
/
Friday,
December
6,
2002
/
Notices
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

C.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
in
this
unit,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
email
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0211
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
e­
mail
to
opp­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2002
 
0211.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB)
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2002
 
0211.
3.
By
hand
delivery
or
courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2002
 
0211.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
13:
52
Dec
05,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
06DEN1.
SGM
06DEN1
72680
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
235
/
Friday,
December
6,
2002
/
Notices
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?
You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
copies
of
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
the
estimate
that
you
provide.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
deadline
in
this
notice.
7.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
be
sure
to
identify
the
docket
ID
number
assigned
to
this
action
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
You
may
also
provide
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation.

II.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking?

EPA
has
received
a
pesticide
petition
as
follows
proposing
the
establishment
and/
or
amendment
of
regulations
for
residues
of
a
certain
pesticide
chemical
in
or
on
various
food
commodities
under
section
408
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
21
U.
S.
C.
346a.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
petition
contains
data
or
information
regarding
the
elements
set
forth
in
FFDCA
section
408(
d)(
2);
however,
EPA
has
not
fully
evaluated
the
sufficiency
of
the
submitted
data
at
this
time
or
whether
the
data
support
granting
of
the
petition.
Additional
data
may
be
needed
before
EPA
rules
on
the
petition.

List
of
Subjects
Environmental
protection,
Agricultural
commodities,
Feed
additives,
Food
additives,
Pesticides
and
pests,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
November
27,
2002.
Donald
R.
Stubbs,
Acting
Director,
Registration
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

Summary
of
Petition
The
petitioner
summary
of
the
pesticide
petition
is
printed
below
as
required
by
FFDCA
section
408(
d)(
3).
The
summary
of
the
petition
was
prepared
by
the
petitioner
and
represents
the
view
of
the
petitioner.
The
petition
summary
announces
the
availability
of
a
description
of
the
analytical
methods
available
to
EPA
for
the
detection
and
measurement
of
the
pesticide
chemical
residues
or
an
explanation
of
why
no
such
method
is
needed.

BASF
Corporation
PP
6F4746
EPA
has
received
a
pesticide
petition
(
PP
6F4746)
from
BASF
Corporation,
26
Davis
Drive,
P.
O.
Box
13528,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27709
 
3528,
proposing
pursuant
to
section
408(
d)
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
21
U.
S.
C.
346a(
d),
to
amend
40
CFR
part
180
by
establishing
tolerances
for
the
sum
of
the
residues
of
the
herbicide
imazethapyr,
2­[
4,5­
dihydro­
4­
methyl­
4­
(
1­
methylethyl)­
5­
oxo­
1H­
imidazol­
2­
yl]­
5­
ethyl­
3­
pyridine­
carboxylic
acid)
as
its
free
acid
or
its
ammonium
salt
(
calculated
as
the
acid),
and
its
metabolite
2­[
4,
5­
dihydro­
4­
methyl­
4­
(
1­
methylethyl­
5­
oxo­
1H­
imidazol­
2­
yl]­
5­(
1­
hydroxyethyl)­
3­
pyridinecarboxylic
acid
both
free
and
conjugated
in
or
on
nongrass
animal
feed
crops,
forage,
hay
and
seed
at
3.0
parts
per
million
(
ppm).
EPA
has
determined
that
the
petition
contains
data
or
information
regarding
the
elements
set
forth
in
section
408(
d)(
2)
of
the
FFDCA;
however,
EPA
has
not
fully
evaluated
the
sufficiency
of
the
submitted
data
at
this
time
or
whether
the
data
supports
granting
of
the
petition.
Additional
data
may
be
needed
before
EPA
rules
on
the
petition.

A.
Residue
Chemistry
1.
Plant
metabolism.
The
qualitative
nature
of
the
residues
of
imazethapyr
in
clover
is
adequately
understood.
Based
on
studies
conducted
on
soybean,
edible
and
forage
legumes,
corn
and
canola,
parent
imazethapyr
and
common
metabolites
CL
288511
and
CL
182704
are
the
only
residues
of
concern
for
tolerance
setting
purposes.
2.
Analytical
method.
A
practical
analytical
method
for
detecting
and
measuring
imazethapyr
residues
of
concern
in
alfalfa
and
clover
commodities
was
submitted
to
EPA
with
the
alfalfa
petition.
The
analytical
method
for
alfalfa
and
clover
forage,
hay
and
seed
is
based
on
Capillary
Electrophoresis
(
CE)
with
limits
of
quantitation
(
LOQ)
of
0.50
ppm.
This
validated
method
was
approved
for
analysis
in
alfalfa
and
is
appropriate
for
the
enforcement
purposes
of
this
petition.
3.
Magnitude
of
residues.
A
total
of
twelve
field
trials
were
conducted
with
imazethapyr
and
its
metabolites
on
clover
to
demonstrate
the
residues
in
clover
forage,
hay
and
seed.
In
all
clover
residue
studies,
imazethapyr
was
applied
at
0.094
lb
ae/
A,
the
maximum
proposed
label
rate.
Clover
samples
were
cut
at
15
DAT
and
30
DAT,
the
proposed
preharvest
interval
(
PHI).
At
30
DAT,
all
forage
samples
contained
residues
of
imazethapyr
and
CL
288511
at
less
than
0.5
ppm.
In
most
30
DAT
forage
samples,
residues
of
CL
182704
were
below
the
LOQ
(
0.5
ppm).
No
hay
samples
had
residues
of
imazethapyr
above
the
LOQ
(
0.5
ppm).
There
was
only
one
hay
sample
containing
residues
of
CL
288511
above
the
LOQ.
In
all
cases,
for
the
15
and
30
DAT
forage
and
hay
samples,
the
primary
residue
was
CL
182704
(
the
glucose
conjugate
of
CL
288511).
Since
CL
182704
is
the
derivitized
form
of
CL
288511,
the
residues
were
converted
to
a
total
CL
288511
equivalent
residue
basis.
Seed
and
seed
screening
samples
were
collected
from
studies
conducted
at
two
sites.
In
both
studies,
residues
of
imazethapyr,
CL
288511
and
CL
182704
were
less
than
the
LOQ.
The
proposed
tolerance
for
nongrass
animal
feeds
is
3.0
ppm
for
imazethapyr,
CL
288511
and
the
glucose
conjugate,
CL
182704.
Residue
levels
of
imazethapyr
and
CL
288511
in
clover
are
all
below
the
proposed
tolerance.
When
residues
of
CL
182704
are
adjusted
to
CL
288511
equivalents
residues,
the
total
equivalent
CL
288511
residues
are
below
the
proposed
3.0
tolerance
level
in
all
clover
studies.

B.
Toxicological
Profile.
A
complete,
valid
and
reliable
database
of
mammalian
and
genetic
toxicology
studies
supports
the
proposed
tolerance
for
imazethapyr
on
nongrass
animal
feeds.
This
database
was
previously
reviewed
by
the
EPA
in
support
of
the
tolerance
petitions
and
registration
of
imazethapyr
on
soybeans,
legume
vegetables,
corn,
alfalfa
and
peanuts.
1.
Acute
toxicity.
Imazethapyr
technical
is
considered
to
be
nontoxic
(
Toxicity
Category
IV)
to
the
rat
by
the
oral
route
of
exposure.
In
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
in
rats,
the
LD50
value
of
imazethapyr
technical
was
greater
than
5,000
milligrams/
kilogram/
body
weight
(
mg/
kg
b.
w.)
for
males
and
females.
The
results
from
an
acute
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rabbits
indicate
that
imazethapyr
is
slightly
toxic
(
Toxicity
Category
III)
to
rabbits
by
the
dermal
route
of
exposure.
The
dermal
LD50
value
of
imazethapyr
technical
was
greater
than
2,000
mg/
kg
b.
w.
for
both
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
13:
52
Dec
05,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
06DEN1.
SGM
06DEN1
72681
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
235
/
Friday,
December
6,
2002
/
Notices
male
and
female
rabbits.
Imazethapyr
technical
is
considered
to
be
non­
toxic
(
Toxicity
Category
IV)
to
the
rat
by
the
respiratory
route
of
exposure.
The
4
 
hour
LC50
value
was
greater
than
3.27
mg/
l
(
analytical)
and
greater
than
4.21
mg/
l
(
gravimetric)
for
both
males
and
females.
Imazethapyr
technical
was
shown
to
be
non­
irritating
to
rabbit
skin
(
Toxicity
Category
IV)
and
mildly
irritating
to
the
rabbit
eye
(
Toxicity
Category
III).
Based
on
the
results
of
a
dermal
sensitization
study
(
Buehler),
imazethapyr
technical
is
not
considered
a
sensitizer
in
guinea
pigs.
2.
Genotoxicity.
Imazethapyr
technical
was
tested
in
a
battery
of
four
in
vitro
and
one
in
vivo
genotoxicity
assays
measuring
several
different
endpoints
of
potential
genotoxicity.
Collective
results
from
these
studies
indicate
that
imazethapyr
does
not
pose
a
mutagenic
or
genotoxic
risk.
3.
Reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity.
The
developmental
toxicity
study
in
Sprague
Dawley
rats
conducted
with
imazethapyr
technical
showed
no
evidence
of
developmental
toxicity
or
teratogenic
effects
in
fetuses.
Thus,
imazethapyr
is
neither
a
developmental
toxicant
nor
a
teratogen
in
the
rat.
The
no
observed
adverse
effect
level
(
NOAEL)
for
maternal
toxicity
was
375
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
based
on
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
in
the
dams
(
e.
g.
excessive
salivation)
at
1,125
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day.
Imazethapyr
technical
did
not
exhibit
developmental
toxicity
or
teratogenic
effects
at
maternal
dosages
up
to
and
including
1,125
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
the
highest
dose
tested
(
HDT).
Results
from
a
developmental
toxicity
study
in
New
Zealand
White
rabbits
with
imazethapyr
technical
also
indicated
no
evidence
of
developmental
toxicity
or
teratogenicity.
Thus,
imazethapyr
technical
is
neither
a
developmental
toxicant
nor
a
teratogen
in
the
rabbit.
The
NOAEL
for
maternal
toxicity
was
300
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
based
on
decreased
food
consumption
and
body
weight
gain,
abortion,
gastric
ulceration
and
death
at
1,000
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
the
next
HDT.
The
NOAEL
for
developmental
toxicity
and
teratogenic
effects
was
determined
to
be
>
1,000
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
based
on
no
developmental
toxicity
or
fetal
malformations
associated
with
the
administration
of
all
doses.
The
results
from
the
2
 
generation
reproduction
toxicity
study
in
rats
with
imazethapyr
technical
support
a
NOAEL
for
reproductive
toxicity
of
10,000
ppm
(
equivalent
to
800
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day).
The
NOAEL
for
non­
reproductive
parameters
(
i.
e.
decreased
weanling
body
weights)
is
5,000
ppm.
4.
Subchronic
toxicity.
A
short­
term
(
21
 
day)
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rabbits
was
conducted
with
imazethapyr
technical.
No
dermal
irritation
or
abnormal
clinical
signs
were
observed
at
dose
levels
up
to
and
including
1,000
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
HDT,
supporting
a
NOAEL
for
dermal
irritation
and
systemic
toxicity
of
1,000
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day.
In
a
subchronic
(
13
 
week)
dietary
toxicity
study
in
rats
with
imazethapyr
technical,
no
signs
of
systemic
toxicity
were
noted,
supporting
a
NOAEL
of
10,000
ppm
the
highest
concentration
tested
(
HCT)
(
equivalent
to
820
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day).
In
a
subchronic
(
13
 
week)
dietary
toxicity
study
in
dogs
with
imazethapyr
technical,
no
signs
of
systemic
toxicity
were
noted,
supporting
a
NOAEL
of
10,000
ppm
(
equivalent
to
250
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day),
the
(
HCT).
5.
Chronic
toxicity.
A
1
 
year
dietary
toxicity
study
was
conducted
with
imazethapyr
technical
in
Beagle
dogs
at
dietary
concentrations
of
0,
1,000,
5,000
and
10,000
ppm.
In
this
study,
the
NOAEL
for
systemic
toxicity
was
1,000
ppm
(
equivalent
to
25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day),
based
on
slight
anemia,
i.
e.,
decreased
red
cell
parameters
observed
at
5,000
and
10,000
ppm
concentrations.
No
treatment­
related
histopathological
lesions
were
observed
at
any
dietary
concentration,
including
the
HCT
(
10,000
ppm).
In
a
2
 
year
chronic
dietary
oncogenicity
and
toxicity
study
in
rats
conducted
with
imazethapyr
technical,
the
NOAEL
for
oncogenicity
and
chronic
systemic
toxicity
was
10,000
ppm
(
equivalent
to
500
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day),
the
HCT.
An
18
 
month
chronic
dietary
oncogenicity
and
toxicity
study
in
mice
with
imazethapyr
technical
supports
a
NOAEL
for
oncogenicity
of
10,000
ppm,
the
HCT
(
equivalent
to
1,500
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day),
and
a
NOAEL
for
chronic
systemic
toxicity
of
5,000
ppm
(
equivalent
to
750
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day),
based
on
decreased
body
weight
gain
in
both
sexes).
The
EPA
has
classified
imazethapyr
as
negative
for
carcinogenicity
(
evidence
of
non­
carcinogenicity
for
humans)
based
on
the
absence
of
treatmentrelated
tumors
in
acceptable
carcinogenicity
studies
in
both
rats
and
mice.
6.
Animal
metabolism.
The
rat,
goat
and
hen
metabolism
studies
indicate
that
the
qualitative
nature
of
the
residues
of
imazethapyr
in
animals
is
adequately
understood.
In
three
rat
metabolism
studies
conducted
with
radiolabeled
imazethapyr
technical
the
major
route
of
elimination
of
the
herbicide
was
through
rapid
excretion
in
urine
and
to
a
much
lesser
extent
in
feces.
In
the
first
study,
almost
100%
of
the
administered
material
was
recovered
in
excreta
within
96
hours
(
89
 
95%
in
urine,
6
 
11%
in
feces).
The
major
residue
in
urine
and
feces
was
parent
compound.
Approximately
2%
of
the
dose
was
metabolized
and
excreted
as
the
ahydroxyethyl
derivative
of
imazethapyr.
In
the
second
study,
the
test
material
was
rapidly
and
completely
eliminated
unchanged
in
the
urine
within
72
hours
of
dosing.
After
24
hours,
92.1%
of
radioactivity
was
excreted
in
the
urine
with
4.67%
in
the
feces.
There
was
no
significant
bioaccumulation
of
radioactivity
in
the
tissues
from
this
rat
metabolism
study
(<
0.01
ppm
after
24
hours).
In
the
third
study,
four
groups
treated
with
radiolabeled
imazethapyr
readily
excreted
>
95%
of
the
test
material
in
the
urine
and
feces
within
48
hours.
A
high
percentage
(
97
 
99%)
of
the
test
material
was
excreted
in
the
urine
as
unchanged
parent,
the
remainder
as
the
a­
hydroxyethyl
derivative
of
imazethapyr.
For
all
three
studies,
the
major
route
of
elimination
of
the
herbicide
in
rats
was
through
rapid
excretion
of
unchanged
parent
compound
in
urine.
It
is
clear
that
imazathapyr
and
its
related
residues
do
not
accumulate
in
tissues
and
organs.
In
the
goat
metabolism
study,
parent
14Cimazethapyr
was
dosed
to
lactating
goats
at
0.25
ppm
and
1.25
ppm.
Results
showed
14C­
residues
of
<
0.01
ppm
in
milk
and
<
0.05
ppm
in
leg
muscle,
loin
muscle,
blood,
fat,
liver
and
kidney.
Laying
hens
dosed
at
0.5
ppm
and
2.5
ppm
with
14C­
imazethapyr
showed
14Cresidues
of
<
0.05
ppm
in
eggs
and
all
tissues
(
blood,
muscle,
skin/
fat,
liver
and
kidney).
Additional
animal
metabolism
studies
have
been
conducted
with
CL
288511
(
main
metabolite
in
treated
crops
fed
to
livestock)
in
both
laying
hens
and
lactating
goats.
These
studies
have
been
repeated
to
support
subsequent
use
extensions
on
crops
used
as
livestock
feed
items
which
would
theoretically
result
in
a
higher
dosing
of
imazethapyr
derived
residues
to
livestock
(
i.
e.,
corn,
alfalfa).
In
these
studies,
lactating
goats
dosed
at
42
ppm
of
14C­
CL
288511
showed
14C­
residues
of
<
0.01
ppm
in
milk,
leg
muscle,
loin
muscle
and
omental
fat.
14C­
Residues
in
blood
were
mostly
<
0.01
ppm
but
reached
0.01
ppm
on
two
of
the
treatment
days.
14CResidue
levels
in
the
liver
and
kidney
were
0.02
and
0.09
ppm,
respectively.
Laying
hens
dosed
at
10.2
ppm
of
14Cimazethapyr
showed
14C­
residues
of
<
0.01
ppm
in
eggs
and
all
tissues
(
blood,
muscle,
skin/
fat,
liver
and
kidney).
14Cimazethapyr
or
14C­
CL
288511
ingested
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
13:
52
Dec
05,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
06DEN1.
SGM
06DEN1
72682
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
235
/
Friday,
December
6,
2002
/
Notices
by
either
laying
hens
or
lactating
goats
was
excreted
within
48
hours
of
dosing.
These
studies
indicate
that
parent
imazethapyr
and
CL
288511­
related
residues
do
not
accumulate
in
milk
or
edible
tissues
of
the
ruminant.
7.
Metabolite
toxicology.
Metabolism
studies
in
soybean,
peanut,
corn,
alfalfa
and
canola
indicate
that
the
only
significant
metabolites
are
the
ahydroxyethyl
derivative
of
imazethapyr,
CL
288511
and
its
glucose
conjugate
CL
182704.
The
a­
hydroxyethyl
metabolite
has
also
been
identified
in
minor
quantities
in
the
previously
submitted
rat
metabolism
studies
and
in
goat
and
hen
metabolism
studies.
No
additional
toxicologically
significant
metabolites
were
detected
in
any
of
the
plant
or
animal
metabolism
studies.
8.
Endocrine
disruption.
Collective
organ
weight
data
and
histopathological
findings
from
the
2
 
generation
rat
reproductive
study,
as
well
as
from
the
subchronic
and
chronic
toxicity
studies
in
three
different
animal
species
demonstrate
no
apparent
estrogenic
effects
or
treatment­
related
effects
of
imazethapyr
on
the
endocrine
system.

C.
Aggregate
Exposure
1.
Dietary
exposure.
The
potential
dietary
exposure
to
imazethapyr
has
been
calculated
from
the
proposed
tolerance
for
use
on
rice
and
previously
established
tolerances
for
peanuts,
legume
vegetables,
soybeans,
alfalfa,
endive,
lettuce,
and
corn.
This
very
conservative
chronic
dietary
exposure
estimate
used
the
proposed
tolerance
of
0.5
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
for
rice,
and
tolerance
values
of
0.1
ppm
for
peanuts,
0.1
ppm
for
legume
vegetables,
0.1
ppm
for
soybeans,
3.0
ppm
for
alfalfa,
0.1
ppm
for
endive
(
escarole),
0.1
ppm
for
lettuce,
and
0.1
ppm
for
corn.
In
addition,
these
estimates
assume
that
100%
of
these
crops
contain
imazethapyr
residues.
In
support
of
this
tolerance
petition,
a
proposed
tolerance
of
3.0
ppm
for
nongrass
animal
feeds
would
not
be
expected
to
contribute
significantly
to
this
dietary
risk
assessment.
2.
Food.
Potential
exposure
to
residues
of
imazethapyr
in
food
will
be
restricted
to
intake
of
rice,
peanuts,
legume
vegetables,
soybeans,
alfalfa
(
sprouts),
endive,
lettuce,
and
corn.
Using
the
assumptions
discussed
above,
the
Theoretical
Maximum
Residue
Concentration
(
TMRC)
values
of
imazethapyr
were
calculated
for
the
U.
S.
general
population
and
subgroups.
Based
on
the
tolerances
given
above,
the
TMRC
values
for
each
group
are:
 
0.000419
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.
 
0.001104
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
for
all
infants
(>
1
year).
 
0.001298
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
for
nonnursing
infants.
 
0.000870
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
for
children
1
to
6
years
of
age.
 
0.000610
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
for
children
7
to
12
years
of
age.
The
TMRC
values
indicate
that
nonnursing
infants
are
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup.
3.
Drinking
water.
As
a
screeninglevel
assessment
for
aggregate
exposure,
the
U.
S.
EPA
evaluates
a
drinking
water
level
of
comparison
(
DWLOC),
which
is
the
maximum
concentration
of
a
chemical
in
drinking
water
that
would
be
acceptable
in
light
of
total
aggregate
exposure
to
that
chemical.
In
1990,
the
EPA
set
the
reference
dose
(
RfD)
for
imazethapyr
at
0.25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
based
on
the
NOAEL
from
the
1
 
year
dietary
toxicity
study
in
dogs
of
25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
and
a
100­
fold
uncertainty
factor.
Based
on
the
cRfD
of
0.25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
and
the
EPA's
default
factors
for
body
weight
and
drinking
water
consumption,
the
DWLOCs
have
been
calculated
to
assess
the
potential
dietary
exposure
from
residues
of
imazethapyr
in
water.
For
the
adult
population
the
chronic
DWLOC
was
8735
ppb
and
for
children
the
DWLOC
was
estimated
to
be
2491
parts
per
billion
(
ppb).
Chronic
drinking
water
exposure
analyses
were
calculated
for
imazethapyr
using
EPA
screening
concentration
in
ground
water
(
SCIGROW
and
genetic
expected
environmental
concentration
(
GENEEC)
for
surface
water.
The
SCI­
GROW
value
is
16.54
ppb
and
the
calculated
peak
GENEEC
value
is
5.96
ppb
by
aerial
application.
For
the
U.
S.
adult
population,
the
estimated
exposures
of
imazethapyr
residues
in
ground
water
and
surface
water
are
approximately
0.19%
and
0.07%,
respectively,
of
the
DWLOC.
The
estimated
exposures
of
children
to
imazethapyr
residues
in
groundwater
and
surface
water
are
approximately
0.66%,
and
0.24%,
respectively,
of
the
DWLOC.
Therefore,
the
exposures
to
drinking
water
from
imazethapyr
use
are
negligible.
4.
Non­
dietary
exposure.
Imazethapyr
products
are
not
currently
registered
or
requested
to
be
registered
for
residential
use;
therefore
the
estimate
of
residential
exposure
is
not
relevant
to
this
tolerance
petition.

D.
Cumulative
Effects
Imazethapyr
is
a
member
of
the
imidazolinone
class
of
herbicides.
Other
compounds
of
this
class
are
registered
for
use
in
the
U.
S.
However,
the
herbicidal
activity
of
the
imidazolinones
is
due
to
the
inhibition
of
acetohydroxyacid
synthase
(
AHAS),
an
enzyme
only
found
in
plants.
AHAS
is
part
of
the
biosynthetic
pathway
leading
to
the
formation
of
branched
chain
amino
acids.
Animals
lack
AHAS
and
this
biosynthetic
pathway.
This
lack
of
AHAS
contributes
to
the
low
toxicity
of
the
imidazolinone
compounds
in
animals.
We
are
aware
of
no
information
to
indicate
or
suggest
that
imazethapyr
has
any
toxic
effects
on
mammals
that
would
be
cumulative
with
those
of
any
other
chemical.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
tolerance
petition
no
assumption
has
been
made
with
regard
to
cumulative
exposure
with
other
compounds
having
a
common
mode
of
action.

E.
Safety
Determination
1.
U.
S.
population.
The
RfD
represents
the
level
at
or
below
which
daily
aggregate
exposure
over
a
lifetime
will
not
pose
appreciable
risks
to
human
health.
In
1990,
the
EPA
set
the
RfD
for
imazethapyr
at
0.25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
based
on
the
NOAEL
from
the
1
 
year
dietary
toxicity
study
in
dogs
of
25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
and
a
100­
fold
uncertainty
factor.
The
chronic
dietary
exposure
of
0.000419
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
for
the
general
U.
S.
population
will
utilize
only
0.2%
of
the
RfD
of
0.25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day.
EPA
generally
has
no
concern
for
exposures
below
100%
of
the
RfD.
Due
to
the
low
toxicity
of
imazethapyr,
an
acute
exposure
dietary
risk
assessment
is
not
warranted.
The
complete
and
reliable
toxicity
database,
the
low
toxicity
of
the
active
ingredient,
and
the
results
of
the
chronic
dietary
exposure
risk
assessment
support
the
conclusion
that
there
is
a
``
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm''
from
the
proposed
use
of
imazethapyr
on
imidazolinone
tolerant
rice,
canola
and
nongrass
animal
feeds.
2.
Infants
and
children.
The
conservative
dietary
exposure
estimates
of
all
registered
uses
including
the
proposed
tolerance
for
rice
show
exposures
of
0.001104,
0.000440,
0.000870,
and
0.000610
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day
which
will
utilize
0.4,
0.2,
0.3,
and
0.2%
of
the
RfD
for
all
infants
(<
1
year),
nursing
infants,
children
1­
6
years,
and
children
7­
12
years,
respectively.
The
chronic
dietary
exposures
for
nonnursing
infants,
the
most
highly
exposed
subgroup,
will
utilize
only
0.5%
of
the
RfD.
Results
from
the
2­
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats
and
the
developmental
toxicity
studies
in
rabbits
and
rats
indicate
no
increased
sensitivity
to
developing
offspring
when
compared
to
parental
toxicity.
These
results
also
indicate
that
imazethapyr
is
neither
a
developmental
toxicant
nor
a
teratogen
in
either
the
rat
or
rabbit.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
13:
52
Dec
05,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
06DEN1.
SGM
06DEN1
72683
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
235
/
Friday,
December
6,
2002
/
Notices
Therefore,
an
additional
safety
factor
is
not
warranted,
and
the
RfD
of
0.25
mg/
kg
b.
w./
day,
which
utilizes
a
100­
fold
safety
factor
is
appropriate
to
ensure
a
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm
to
infants
and
children.

F.
International
Tolerances
There
are
no
Codex
maximum
residue
levels
established
or
proposed
for
residues
of
imazethapyr
on
nongrass
animal
feeds.

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30947
Filed
12
 
5
 
02;
8:
45
a.
m.]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL
 
7419
 
2]

Alaric,
Inc.
Superfund
Site;
Notice
of
Proposed
Settlement
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
administrative
order
on
consent.

SUMMARY:
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
proposing
to
enter
into
an
administrative
order
on
consent,
pursuant
to
section
122(
h)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA),
as
amended,
regarding
the
Alaric,
Inc.
Superfund
Site,
located
in
Tampa,
Hillsborough
County,
Florida,
with
the
following
parties:
Lee
W.
Oglesby,
Sr.
and
Carolyn
M.
Oglesby,
as
individuals;
the
Lee
W.
Oglesby,
Sr.
Living
Trust,
dated
September
22,
1998,
as
amended;
Lee
W.
Oglesby,
Sr.,
as
trustee
and
beneficiary
of
the
Lee
W.
Oglesby,
Sr.
Living
Trust,
dated
September
22,
1998,
as
amended;
and
successor
trustees
of
the
Lee
W.
Oglesby,
Sr.
Living
Trust,
dated
September
22,
1998,
as
amended.
The
settlement
is
designed
to
resolve
fully
each
settling
party's
liability
at
the
Site
through
a
covenant
not
to
sue
under
sections
106
and
107(
a)
of
CERCLA,
42
U.
S.
C.
9606
and
9607(
a),
and
provide
contribution
protection.
EPA
will
consider
public
comments
on
the
proposed
settlement
within
thirty
(
30)
days
of
publication
of
this
notice.
EPA
may
withdraw
from
or
modify
the
proposed
settlement
should
such
comments
disclose
facts
or
considerations
which
indicate
the
proposed
settlement
is
inappropriate,
improper,
or
inadequate.
Copies
of
the
proposed
settlement
are
available
from:
Ms.
Paula
V.
Batchelor,
U.
S.
EPA,
Region
4
(
WMD
 
CPSB),
Sam
Nunn
Atlanta
Federal
Center,
Waste
Management
Division,
CERCLA
Program
Services
Branch,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303,
(
404)
562
 
8887.
Written
comments
may
be
submitted
to
Ms.
Batchelor
within
thirty
(
30)
calendar
days
of
the
date
of
this
publication.

Dated:
November
20,
2002.
Anita
L.
Davis,
Acting
Chief,
CERCLA
Program
Services
Branch,
Waste
Management
Division.
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30942
Filed
12
 
5
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[
Report
No.
AUC
 
02
 
48
 
A
(
Auction
No.
48);
DA
02
 
1441]

Auction
of
Licenses
for
the
Lower
and
Upper
Paging
Bands
Scheduled
for
May
13,
2003;
Comment
Sought
on
Reserve
Prices
or
Minimum
Opening
Bids
and
Other
Auction
Procedures
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
This
document
announces
the
auction
of
8,874
licenses
in
the
lower
paging
bands
(
35
 
36
MHz,
43
 
44
MHz,
152
 
159
MHz,
454
 
460
MHz)
and
1,328
licenses
in
the
upper
paging
bands
(
929
 
931
MHz)
scheduled
to
commence
on
May
13,
2003.
This
document
also
seeks
comment
on
reserve
prices
or
minimum
opening
bids
and
other
auction
procedures.
DATES:
Comments
are
due
on
or
before
December
13,
2002,
and
reply
comments
are
due
on
or
before
December
18,
2002.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
and
reply
comments
must
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
to
auction48@
fcc.
gov.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
legal
questions:
Rosemary
Cabral
at
(
202)
418
 
0660.
For
general
auction
questions:
Roy
Knowles
at
(
717)
338
 
2888
or
Barbara
Sibert
at
(
717)
338
 
2888.
For
service
rule
questions:
Bettye
Woodward
at
(
202)
418
 
1345.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
is
a
summary
of
the
Auction
No.
48
Comment
Public
Notice
released
on
November
7,
2002.
The
complete
text
of
the
Auction
No.
48
Comment
Public
Notice
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
during
regular
business
hours
at
the
FCC
Reference
Information
Center,
Portals
II,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Room
CY
 
A257,
Washington,
DC,
20554.
The
Auction
No.
48
Comment
Public
Notice
may
also
be
purchased
from
the
Commission's
duplicating
contractor,
Qualex
International,
Portals
II,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Room
CY
 
B402,
Washington,
DC,
20554,
telephone
202
 
863
 
2893,
facsimile
202
 
863
 
2898,
or
via
e­
mail
qualexint@
aol.
com.
The
complete
list
of
licenses
available
for
this
auction
will
be
provided
in
electronic
format
only,
available
as
``
Attachment
A''
to
the
Auction
No.
48
Comment
Public
Notice
at
http://
wireless.
fcc.
gov/
auctions/
48/.
1.
By
the
Auction
No.
48
Comment
Public
Notice,
the
Wireless
Telecommunications
Bureau
(``
Bureau'')
announces
the
auction
of
8,874
licenses
in
the
lower
paging
bands
(
35
 
36
MHz,
43
 
44
MHz,
152
 
159
MHz,
454
 
460
MHz)
and
1,328
licenses
in
the
upper
paging
bands
(
929
 
931
MHz)
scheduled
to
commence
on
May
13,
2003
(``
Auction
No.
48'').
This
auction
will
include
licenses
that
remained
unsold
from
a
previous
auction
or
were
defaulted
on
by
a
winning
bidder
in
a
previous
auction.
Due
to
the
large
volume
of
licenses
in
Auction
No.
48,
the
complete
list
of
licenses
available
for
this
auction
will
be
provided
in
electronic
format
only,
available
as
``
Attachment
A''
to
the
Auction
No.
48
Comment
Public
Notice
at
http://
wireless.
fcc.
gov/
auctions/
48/.
2.
In
the
Paging
Reconsideration
Order,
64
FR
33762
(
June
24,
1999),
the
Commission
concluded
that
the
lower
bands
licenses
should
be
awarded
in
each
of
the
175
geographic
areas
known
as
Economic
Areas
(
EAs),
and
the
upper
band
licenses
should
be
awarded
in
each
of
the
51
geographic
areas
known
as
Major
Economic
Areas
(
MEAs).
These
EAs
and
MEAs
both
encompass
the
United
States,
Guam
and
Northern
Mariana
Islands,
Puerto
Rico
and
the
United
States
Virgin
Islands,
and
American
Samoa.
3.
The
following
tables
contain
the
Block/
Frequency
Cross­
Reference
List
for
the
paging
bands:

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
18:
57
Dec
05,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
06DEN1.
SGM
06DEN1