[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8733]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 13, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30000/48E; FRL-4770-2]
Granular Carbofuran; Proposed Decision to Deny FMC Corp's Request
for Reinstatement of the Corn and Sorghum Uses; Proposed Decision to
Grant an Extension of the Phase-Out Period for Use on Rice; Call for
Reduced Risk Alternatives to Control Rice Water Weevil
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMC Corporation and grower groups have requested reinstatement
of the corn and sorghum uses, and extension of the phase-out period for
the rice use of granular carbofuran. These three uses of granular
carbofuran are currently being phased out according to the terms of an
Agreement in Principle between FMC Corp. and EPA that concluded the
Special Review of granular carbofuran. This notice announces EPA's
proposed decision to deny FMC's request for reinstatement of the use of
granular carbofuran on corn and sorghum, and to grant FMC's request for
an extension to the phase-out period for rice. EPA's proposed decision
to extend the rice use is subject to 40 CFR 154.35 because the
extension of use might increase avian risk, which was the basis of the
Special Review of granular carbofuran. EPA is proposing an extension of
the use of granular carbofuran on rice because there are currently no
efficacious alternatives available.
In conjunction with the proposed extension of the phase-out period
of granular carbofuran on rice, EPA is encouraging the registration of
reduced risk alternatives to control rice water weevil. Specifically,
EPA is asking pesticide manufacturers who are currently developing data
in support of the rice registration or who are giving consideration to
pursuing a rice registration in the near future, to inform the Agency
of their plans. EPA will provide incentives for manufacturers if they
have adequate data to support their claims of reduced risk. EPA is also
calling for data on integrated pest management (IPM) strategies and
non-chemical control methods for rice water weevil.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted by July 12, 1994.
ADDRESSES: By mail submit comments identified by the document control
number [OPP-30000/48E] to: OPP Docket, 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 identified by document
control number (OPP-30000/48E) to: OPP Docket, Rm 1132, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Margaret Rice, Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508W), Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Special Review Branch, Rm.
WF32N4, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia,
(703) 308-8039.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Special Review of granular carbofuran was initiated in October
1985 (50 FR 41938), based solely on acute risk to avian species. In
January, 1989, EPA's Preliminary Determination (54 FR 3744, January 25,
1989) proposed to cancel all uses based on the finding that the risks
of granular carbofuran outweighed the benefits of continued use. EPA
presented its proposed decision for public comment, to the Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP), and to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The SAP
generally supported EPA's avian risk assessment methodology and the
Agency's proposal to cancel all uses where efficacious alternatives
were available. USDA provided information related to the use of
granular carbofuran that EPA subsequently incorporated into its final
benefits assessment. The ``Granular Carbofuran Conclusion of Special
Review Technical Support Document,'' available in the OPP Docket,
contains EPA's detailed response to the SAP, USDA, and public comments
received in response to EPA's Preliminary Determination.
While the Agency was preparing to finalize the proposed
cancellation, FMC Corporation, the sole registrant of granular
carbofuran, entered into negotiations with EPA. The result of the
negotiations was an Agreement in Principle signed on May 13, 1991,
which provided for phasing out 99 percent of the use of granular
carbofuran over a 4-year period.
The conclusion of the granular carbofuran Special Review (56 FR
64621, December 11, 1991) was based on amendments to the granular
carbofuran registrations, including geographic restrictions, label
changes, and phase-out of major uses, submitted to the Agency by FMC
that implemented the terms and conditions of the Agreement in
Principle. EPA determined that these amendments brought the risks and
benefits of granular carbofuran into balance such that the Special
Review could be concluded.
The Agreement in Principle provided for the complete phase-out of
granular carbofuran use by September 1, 1994, with the exception of
five crops where minor amounts are used. Thus, pursuant to the
Agreement in Principle, corn and sorghum were deleted from the granular
carbofuran labels effective September 1, 1993. FMC has amended its
label to delete the rice use effective September 1, 1994. The Agreement
provides that beginning September 1, 1994, granular carbofuran will be
labeled for use only on the following sites: bananas (in Hawaii only),
cucurbits (pumpkins, cucumbers, watermelons, cantaloupes, and squash),
dry-harvested cranberries, pine progeny tests, and spinach grown for
seed.
No more than a total of 4.5 million pounds of active ingredient
(ai) in granular formulation was to have been sold in the United States
between September 1, 1991 and August 31, 1994, with an additional limit
of no more than 400,000 pounds ai to be sold between September 1, 1993
and August 31, 1994.
Remaining stocks of granular carbofuran in the hands of growers and
distributors labeled for use on corn and sorghum may be sold and used
until September 1, 1994, i.e., 1 year after the deletions of those uses
from the registrations. Similarly, granular carbofuran labeled for use
on rice, in the possession of growers and distributors, may be used
until September 1, 1995.
FMC submitted label amendments embodying the terms and conditions
of the Agreement in Principle. EPA published a notice (56 FR 33286)
pursuant to section 6 (f) of FIFRA announcing the schedule for deletion
of granular carbofuran uses on July 19, 1991.
The Agreement in Principle stipulated that EPA would provide FMC
with the opportunity for a meeting with the Director of the Office of
Pesticide Programs regarding the risks and benefits of the corn,
sorghum and rice uses of granular carbofuran prior to the effective
dates of deletion of those uses from the label. FMC met with EPA on
October 6 and 12, 1993, to present information in support of
reinstating the corn and sorghum uses and extending the phase-out
period of the rice use. All materials submitted by FMC as well as
minutes of the October 6th and 12th meetings can be found in the OPP
Docket. EPA has reviewed the material presented by FMC and other
interested parties related to these three uses as input to this
proposed decision.
Granting any of FMC's requests would necessitate modification to
the terms and conditions of the granular carbofuran registrations that
were agreed upon by EPA and FMC, and that provided the basis for
conclusion of the Special Review. Although EPA's proposed decision to
deny FMC's request for modification that would allow additional use of
granular carbofuran on corn and sorghum does not represent a change to
the terms and condition of the registration, EPA is, nonetheless,
offering a final opportunity for growers and others affected by the
decision to come forward with relevant information.
II. Arguments Put Forth by FMC in Support of Continued Use of
Granular Carbofuran on Corn, Sorghum, and Rice
Materials submitted by FMC in support of their request to continue
the use of granular carbofuran on corn, sorghum, and rice are available
for public viewing in the OPP Public Docket. These materials include
minutes of the October 6 and 12 meetings with EPA. In its submissions,
FMC contends that, in terms of benefits:
1. Taking into account changes to the 1990 Farm Bill would
significantly increase benefits estimates.
2. Annual economic impacts due to the loss of granular carbofuran
for corn and sorghum are considerably higher than EPA estimated in the
Final Benefits Analyses.
3. The use of granular carbofuran provides indirect benefits of $50
to $100 million per year in hunting and recreational revenue, resulting
from waterfowl habitat preservation in rice growing areas.
In terms of risks, FMC contends that:
1. EPA's previous avian risk assessment was inadequate to determine
the impact of granular carbofuran on bird populations. FMC submitted a
protocol for a study intended to assess the probability of adverse
effects from the use of granular carbofuran on populations of local and
migratory bird species.
2. No additional kill incidents have occurred since 1991 from
granular carbofuran used at planting on corn, sorghum, or rice.
Relatively few bird kill incidents have occurred considering the more
than 20 years of granular carbofuran use.
3. Cluster analysis would show granular carbofuran relatively low
in risk compared to alternatives, if all risk endpoints were
considered.
III. Other Public Comments Received After the Conclusion of the
Special Review
In addition to the material submitted by FMC, EPA has received and
considered information from others affected by the phase-out of
granular carbofuran. These comments are summarized below.
In a letter to EPA dated March 10, 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) supported EPA's decision to phase-out most uses of
granular carbofuran, because the phase-out was likely to prevent the
deaths of untold numbers of migratory birds in the United States each
year. However, FWS also indicated that they believed that there are no
conditions under which granular carbofuran can be used without
presenting unreasonable risk. The FWS supported full cancellation of
all pesticide products containing carbofuran. The FWS letter stated
that the continued registration of carbofuran poses conflict with
several Federal wildlife statutes including the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered
Species Act. An attachment to the letter listed additional bird kill
incidents, many not previously reported to EPA.
EPA received numerous letters from Senators and Congressmen from
corn, sorghum, and rice producing states supporting continued use. EPA
received one letter from the National Corn Growers Association in
support of continued use on corn.
The National Grain Sorghum Producers submitted a letter with
extension bulletins attached, and subsequently met with EPA on
September 20, 1993 to outline the importance of several chemicals,
including carbofuran, to grain sorghum production.
The U.S. Rice Environmental Committee met with the Agency on June
18, 1992. They subsequently submitted a package to EPA that included:
An analysis of potential chemical and non-chemical alternatives for
control of rice water weevil; letters from State agencies, regional and
National wildlife organizations attesting to improvement in application
procedures and product stewardship to mitigate avian risk and the
importance of rice fields as wildlife habitat; and letters from
individuals and grower cooperatives attesting to the economic benefits
of granular carbofuran use.
Letters from the California Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Department of Fish and Game specifically support the U.S.
Rice Environmental Committee's position to retain the use of granular
carbofuran on rice. Letters from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and
Parks, the Missouri Department of Conservation, and the FWS Wildlife
and Habitat Management Office in St. Charles, Arkansas emphasized the
importance of rice lands as habitat for migratory waterfowl, but did
not state a position on the continued use of granular carbofuran.
It should be noted that during the comment period for the
Preliminary Determination, many local, State, and National wildlife
organizations wrote in support of EPA's proposal to ban all uses of
granular carbofuran. These include the National Wildlife Federation,
Defenders of Wildlife, the Rachel Carson Council, the International
Crane Foundation, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. The National
Audubon Society, favored immediate suspension for all uses except rice.
They expressed concern about the possible effect of cancellation on
wildlife habitat in California.
EPA received letters from the following State wildlife and resource
agencies in support of the Preliminary Determination to cancel granular
carbofuran: the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the
Minnesota State Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Wildlife
Federation, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Game, the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the
Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Missouri Department of
Conservation, and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
IV. EPA Response
EPA's detailed response to issues raised by FMC and other
commentors is contained in a memo titled, ``Analysis and Recommendation
RE: FMC's Proposal to Reinstate the Use of Granular Carbofuran on Corn,
Sorghum, and Rice.'' The memo is available in the OPP Docket. With
respect to benefits, major points are summarized as follows:
1. Changes in agricultural policy, specifically to crop support
programs, have been significant since EPA and others initially
evaluated the benefits of granular carbofuran use. However, the higher
benefits estimates generated by FMC are primarily attributable to their
claim of large yield loss estimates for corn and sorghum. EPA finds
insufficient evidence in FMC's submission to support FMC's high yield
loss estimates.
2. FMC's economic analyses for corn and sorghum did not consider
all available alternatives or all available efficacy data. In both
cases, limited regional impacts were presented as national. For the
sorghum analysis, FMC used the least effective alternative to calculate
potential losses. All of these factors contributed to the higher
estimates used by FMC.
3. EPA did not consider indirect benefits from hunting revenue,
because these benefits are not unique to carbofuran. FMC's estimate of
$50 to $100 million is exaggerated due to their use of several
implausible assumptions regarding the use of economic multipliers and
the relationship between granular carbofuran treated rice fields and
total waterfowl habitat.
With respect to risk, major points are summarized as follows:
1. EPA's risk assessment did not emphasize impacts on bird
populations. EPA's concern with granular carbofuran is based on its
high acute toxicity to birds, field studies, and incident reports
documenting widespread and repeated mortality to many species of birds,
including eagles, hawks and other predators. Incidents of both primary
and secondary poisonings have been observed and documented in many
different geographic areas, associated with many different use sites,
and under varying environmental conditions. Legal precedent exists for
pesticide regulatory decisions based on recurrent kills as an
unreasonable adverse effect (Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 847 F.2d 277, 5th
Cir. 1989).
2. FMC has not provided documentation of systematic monitoring of
specific use sites to substantiate claims of reduced avian risk and
elimination of kill incidents. Only letters of a testimonial nature
have been provided. Six additional wildlife kill incidents have been
reported to EPA since the conclusion of the Special Review in 1991.
Species killed include a bald eagle, Canada geese, and red-tailed
hawks.
3. EPA's assessment did address the comparative risk of
alternatives in the 1991 Technical Support Document for the conclusion
of the Special Review.
V. EPA's Proposed Decision on Corn and Sorghum
EPA finds no basis for reinstating either the corn or sorghum uses
in the information provided by FMC and other commentors. EPA disagrees
with the assumptions supporting FMC's claims of yield losses higher
than those estimated by the Agency. FMC did not consider all available
alternatives nor did they include all available efficacy data in their
analysis. In its Final Benefits Analysis for Sorghum, EPA found that
there are efficacious alternatives available for all corn and sorghum
uses, except for a very limited area of Nebraska during high chinchbug
infestation years. These findings are based on efficacy tests conducted
by universities and state agricultural agencies. Material presented by
sorghum growers contained no actual data to substantiate claims of high
anticipated yield losses.
No new data or information has been put forth that would
substantively change the risk/benefit decision that formed the basis
for the Agreement in Principle. Therefore, EPA proposes to deny FMC's
request to reinstate the corn and sorghum uses of granular carbofuran.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 154.35, EPA is not required to solicit comment
on this decision to deny FMC's request for reinstatement of the corn
and sorghum uses, since this decision would not modify the previous
Agreement in Principle between FMC and EPA that concluded the Special
Review. Because individuals affected by this decision have come forward
and indicated that they were unaware that granular carbofuran would no
longer be available for use on corn and sorghum in 1994, EPA will
consider additional, new, and relevant data submitted to the Agency
during the comment period for this notice. EPA is providing this
additional comment period even though public comment on the decision to
cancel all uses of granular carbofuran has been solicited previously in
the Special Review Preliminary Determination (54 FR 3744). EPA
responded to comments received at that time in the ``Granular
Carbofuran Conclusion of the Special Review Technical Support
Document'' available in the OPP Docket. EPA requests that any
additional comments be focused on new and substantive data. See unit
IX, of this notice, for a discussion of the specific data that are most
useful to EPA.
VI. EPA Proposed Decision on Rice
EPA is proposing an extension to the current phase-out schedule for
granular carbofuran use on rice because there are still no registered
alternative chemical controls for rice water weevil, and there are
currently no applications in the registration pipeline for this use.
The absence of alternatives was a consideration in the decision that
concluded the Special Review and continues to be of concern to the
Agency.
EPA is also concerned that non-chemical control options,
specifically draining fields and eliminating vegetation on field edges
(clean farming), may not provide effective control of rice water weevil
and may compromise wildlife habitat initiatives that conservation
groups have implemented with rice growers. EPA is soliciting additional
data on these practices and on other pest control strategies that could
reduce use of granular carbofuran while at the same time maintaining or
enhancing wildlife habitat in rice growing areas.
EPA is proposing a maximum 2 year extension to the current phase-
out schedule for the use of granular carbofuran on rice. The Agency
notes that the current phase-out schedule has already allowed
substantial time for the development and implementation of alternative
control methods, since the issuance of the Preliminary Determination in
1989.
EPA further proposes that any extension of the use of granular
carbofuran on rice be subject to the following conditions:
1. Production and sales by FMC will be limited to 250,000 pounds of
active ingredient (ai) sold in granular formulations per year for the
1995 and 1996 use seasons for use on rice and the five minor uses
stipulated in the Agreement in Principle. FMC must direct 2,500 pounds
of the total 250,000 pounds ai to the areas where the five minor use
crops are grown during the 1995 and 1996 use seasons. For the purpose
of the proposed extension, the 1995 ``use season'' begins September 1,
1994 and ends August 31, 1995. Similarly, the 1996 use season begins
September 1, 1995 and ends August 31, 1996.
2. Existing stocks in the possession of dealers and growers may be
used on rice until September 1, 1997.
3. Production and sales by FMC will be limited to 2,500 pounds ai
per year for use only on the five sites stipulated in the Agreement in
Principle for 1997 and subsequent years.
4. No production and sales by FMC will be allowed for use on rice
during the 1996 growing season, however, if a FIFRA section 3
registration for an alternative to control rice water weevil appears
imminent at the end of the 1995 growing season. On or before September
1, 1995, EPA will assess the prospect for registration of alternatives
to control rice water weevil and advise FMC and other interested
parties if production and sales of granular carbofuran for use on rice
will be allowed for the 1996 growing season. EPA's assessment of the
registration prospect for alternatives will include: The product's
efficacy in controlling rice water weevil; the completeness of the data
base; and, the Agency's finding that the product presents less risk to
the environment and human health than granular carbofuran.
5. For each use season, during any period of extension, FMC must
submit to EPA by October 15, a report containing FMC's granular
carbofuran production and sales totals for domestic use for the
immediately preceding use season. FMC will provide EPA with batch
numbers and keys for granular carbofuran product produced for the 1995
and 1996 domestic use seasons to facilitate identification of product
by year.
6. FMC may be required to implement label changes or other measures
to reduce avian risk during the period of extension. These may include
but are not limited to: endangered species bulletins; user education
and stewardship programs; and, scouting to determine infestation levels
prior to application.
The FWS may issue a new Biological Opinion during the 90-day
comment period for this Notice. The Opinion is the result of an ongoing
consultation between EPA and FWS regarding the potential of carbofuran
to adversely affect endangered species. The Opinion or other comments
from the FWS could influence EPA's decision on extending the use of
granular carbofuran on rice.
7. All terms and conditions of the May 1991 Agreement in Principle
will apply in the case of the extension, except the specific phase-out
schedule and production limits for the rice use.
EPA views the proposed extension of the phase-out of granular
carbofuran on rice as a transitional measure. The U.S. Rice
Environmental Committee has provided documentation of on-going research
on both chemical and non-chemical controls for rice water weevil. In
addition, the Committee has promoted cooperative efforts between rice
growers and environmental organizations to enhance wildlife habitat in
rice growing areas. The Agency will make every effort to encourage the
registration and use of environmentally sound alternative control
measures for rice water weevil. However, growers and others affected by
the phase-out of granular carbofuran on rice are advised that EPA has
already allowed substantial time for the development and adoption of
alternative pest control methods. For this reason, extensions beyond
those proposed in this notice are most unlikely. EPA has not changed
the basic conclusions outlined in the granular carbofuran Special
Review Final Determination, specifically, that the use of granular
carbofuran on rice poses unreasonable risk to avian species.
VII. Incentives for Development and Registration of Reduced Risk
Alternatives to Control Rice Water Weevil
EPA is committed to reducing risk from pesticide use by eliminating
or limiting the use of the most dangerous pesticides, promoting the
registration of reduced risk chemical alternatives, and promoting the
development and implementation of integrated pest management
strategies.
In the case of rice water weevil, EPA notes that many chemicals
have been tested and shown promise in controlling this pest. However,
no manufacturers have yet pursued registrations for this use. In order
to promote registrations of reduced risk alternatives for control of
rice water weevil, EPA is soliciting letters indicating interest or
intent to register products for this use, from manufacturers of new
active ingredients, as well as active ingredients already registered on
other sites. The Agency encourages registrants who can demonstrate that
their products present less risk to the environment and human health
than does the use of granular carbofuran to control rice water weevil
to come forward now.
The letters, indicating interest or intent, should provide
rationale for claims of reduced risk that are organized and presented
according to the ``Guidelines for Content of Reduced-Risk Rationales''
found in Pesticide Regulation (PR) Notice 93-9. The ``Guidelines''
contained in PR Notice 93-9, in this instance, are being used for
formatting purposes only. It should be noted that PR Notice 93-9
applies only to applicants seeking to register new active ingredients,
and should not be confused with the call for safer alternatives for the
control of rice water weevil that applies to both new active
ingredients and new uses of active ingredients registered on other
sites.
The letters of interest should also indicate when an application
could be submitted. If registrants cannot provide a precise schedule,
they should give an approximation of when they believe their section 3
application and tolerance requests will be submitted. EPA will treat
information supplied by registrants as confidential, if the registrant
so requests. Unit X of this notice, outlines procedures for submitting
confidential business information.
Respondents need not submit actual registration applications at
this time. EPA intends to evaluate the letters/rationales received in
response to this notice to determine which ones may qualify for special
consideration as reduced risk pesticides. If the rationale provided
demonstrates the opportunity for risk reduction, EPA will notify the
registrant that the Agency will consider this factor in determining
review priority for their registration application for the rice use.
However, when registration packages are submitted, they must include
all relevant data necessary for EPA to complete a risk assessment and
make a regulatory decision.
EPA is willing to consider other incentives that may apply in
specific cases, for example, waiving tolerance fees for small
businesses seeking registrations for biological pesticides. The Agency
encourages registrants to suggest other reasonable incentives that may
apply to their case that would stimulate their interest in coming
forward sooner rather than later with registrations for the rice use.
EPA recognizes the cost of developing additional data for an
aquatic food use such as rice may be a potential barrier to registering
reduced risk alternatives. The Agency encourages pesticide user groups,
including grower organizations, to consider the option of providing
assistance in developing the data required to support registration of
alternatives to control rice water weevil. Assistance provided by user
groups could range from participation in efficacy, crop residue, and
phytotoxicity studies, to direct funding of environmental or human
safety studies.
EPA is also interested in data on the effectiveness of biological,
cultural and integrated pest control strategies for rice water weevil.
Material related to alternatives and incentives should be sent to the
contact designated at the beginning of this notice.
VIII. Coordination with USDA
EPA is working with USDA to improve existing procedures to ensure
that all affected end users are notified of EPA's proposed pesticide
actions and are provided with the opportunity to contribute information
relevant to those actions in a timely manner. EPA is also working with
USDA to provide information to researchers on pesticides which have
triggered environmental or human health concerns, so that this
information can be used in identifying needs for research and
development of alternatives.
IX. Public Comments
In the course of the Special Review of granular carbofuran, and in
Special Reviews in general, EPA has relied on certain categories of
data. Data used for Special Review decisions are derived from studies
using controlled, scientific methods.
For the benefits assessments these data include: comparative
product performance (efficacy) data, particularly data on yield loss
and market grade losses; quantitative usage data; data related to the
distribution and life cycle of crop pests; and historic data on pest
damage and levels of infestation. Comparative product performance data
is generated from side-by-side trials of carbofuran and its
alternatives. Performance tests compare the ability of products to
control a specific pest and some also evaluate the effects on yield.
Data considered in the granular carbofuran Special Review avian
risk assessment include: laboratory toxicity data; toxicity and
relative risk of alternative pest control measures; field studies;
monitoring programs; and poisoning incidents associated with direct and
secondary exposure to carbofuran. Field studies and monitoring both
require systematic observation by technicians trained to recognize
abnormal bird behavior and other evidence of exposure. In order to be
scientifically valid, field studies should be conducted according to
established protocols for survey methods, searching techniques and
timing, and documentation of environmental conditions and application
practices. The incident data used by EPA in the granular carbofuran
Special Review generally involve laboratory analysis of bird carcasses
to determine cause of death.
Commentors are advised that data related to the categories listed
above will be most useful to the Agency in reviewing the proposed
regulatory decision on granular carbofuran. Letters of a testimonial
nature without supporting, scientifically derived data are of limited
utility.
The following information would also be useful to the Agency:
1. Letters of intent or interest in registering new or existing
chemicals for control of rice water weevil, as described in unit VII of
this notice.
2. Data on additional measures that could be adopted to reduce
avian risk.
3. Information from growers or organizations with knowledge of
effective, non-chemical or IPM strategies for control of rice water
weevil.
4. Data on the long-term impacts of population growth and
geographic distribution of rice water weevil.
5. Data on the effectiveness of clean farming in controlling rice
water weevil, and the schedule of vegetation removal in relation to
bird use of rice fields.
6. State agricultural and wildlife agencies are encouraged to
comment on methods to further reduce the use of granular carbofuran in
rice growing areas through prescriptive use or other measures, and on
how to monitor enforcement of label restrictions more effectively.
X. Public Record
EPA has established a public record (OPP-30000/48) for the granular
carbofuran Special Review and related actions. The public record
includes:
1. This Notice.
2. Materials submitted by the FMC Corporation and others in support
of their request to modify the terms and conditions of the granular
carbofuran registrations.
3. EPA's ``Analysis and Recommendation RE: FMC's Proposal to
Reinstate the Use of Granular Carbofuran on Corn, Sorghum, and Rice.''
4. EPA's Federal Register notice announcing receipt of FMC's
request to amend their granular carbofuran registrations. July 19, 1991
(56 FR 33286).
5. EPA's Federal Register notice concluding the Special Review of
granular carbofuran. December 11, 1991 (56 FR 64621).
6. Other correspondence and documents related to the Special Review
of granular carbofuran.
7. A current index of materials in the public docket.
Written comments received in response to this notice will be placed
in the public docket. If substantive comments are received during the
90-day comment period, EPA will issue a second notice responding to the
comments.
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'' (CBI). 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 CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed by EPA without prior notice to the
submitter.
The docket and index will be available for inspection and copying
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal
holidays, at the address given earlier in this notice.
Dated: March 28, 1994.
Douglas D. Campt,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-8733 Filed 4-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F