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

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