25883
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
93
/
Wednesday,
May
14,
2003
/
Notices
Committee
on
``
Valuing
the
Protection
of
Ecological
Systems
and
Services.''
Meeting
Accommodations:
Individuals
requiring
special
accommodation
to
access
the
public
meetings
listed
above,
should
contact
the
DFO
at
least
five
business
days
prior
to
the
meeting
so
that
appropriate
arrangements
can
be
made.

Dated:
May
8,
2003.
Robert
Flaak,
Acting
Deputy
Director,
EPA
Science
Advisory
Board
Staff
Office.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
12028
Filed
5
 
13
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0118;
FRL
 
7301
 
3]

Fluroxypyr;
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
 
2003
 
0118,
must
be
received
on
or
before
June
13,
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:
Joanne
I.
Miller,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
6224;
e­
mail
address:
miller.
joanne@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
This
Action
Apply
to
Me?

You
may
be
potentially
affected
by
this
action
if
you
an
agricultural
producer,
food
manufacturer
or
pesticide
manufacturer.
Potentially
affected
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
 
Crop
production
(
NAICS
Code
111)
 
Animal
production
(
NAICS
Code
112)
 
Food
manufacturing
(
NAICS
Code
311)
 
Pesticide
manufacturing
(
NAICS
Code
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
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
If
you
have
any
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.
EPA
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0118.
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
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
on
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
on
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
42
May
13,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
14MYN1.
SGM
14MYN1
25884
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
93
/
Wednesday,
May
14,
2003
/
Notices
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
 
2003
 
0118.
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
 
2003
 
0118.
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
 
2003
 
0118.
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
 
2003
 
0118.
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
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:
April
30,
2003.
Debra
Edwards,
Director,
Registration
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

Summary
of
Petition
The
petitioner's
summary
of
the
pesticide
petition
is
printed
below
as
required
by
FFDCA
section
408(
d)(
3).
The
summary
of
the
petition
was
prepared
by
Dow
AgroSciences
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
42
May
13,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
14MYN1.
SGM
14MYN1
25885
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
93
/
Wednesday,
May
14,
2003
/
Notices
pesticide
chemical
residues
or
an
explanation
of
why
no
such
method
is
needed.

Dow
AgroSciences
PP
9F6050
EPA
has
received
a
pesticide
petition
(
9F6050)
from
Dow
AgroSciences,
9330
Zionsville
Road,
Indianapolis,
IN
46268
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
residues
of
fluroxypyr
in
or
on
the
raw
agricultural
commodities
as
follows:
tolerances
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
1­
methylheptyl
ester
(
MHE)
in
or
on
sweet
corn
are
being
proposed
in
support
of
this
registration
as
follows:
0.02
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
for
kernels
plus
cob
with
husk
removed,
and
1.0
ppm
for
forage.
Tolerances
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
in
or
on
field
corn
are
being
proposed
in
support
of
this
registration
as
follows:
0.02
ppm
for
grain;
1.0
ppm
for
forage;
and
0.5
ppm
for
stover.
Tolerances
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
in
or
on
sorghum
are
being
proposed
as
follows:
Sorghum
grain,
0.02
ppm;
sorghum
forage,
2.0
ppm;
sorghum
stover,
4.0
ppm.
Tolerances
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
in
or
on
grasses
are
proposed
as
follows:
grass
forage,
120
ppm;
grass
hay,
160
ppm;
and
grass
silage,
100
ppm.
Based
on
the
above
tolerances
and
an
animal
feeding
study,
increased
tolerances
are
also
proposed
for
fluroxypyr
MHE
and
fluroxypyr,
expressed
as
combined
residues
of
total
fluroxypyr,
in
or
on
the
following
animal
commodities:
milk
of
cattle,
goats,
hogs,
horses
and
sheep,
0.3
ppm;
and
kidney
of
cattle,
goats,
hogs,
horses
and
sheep,
1.5
ppm.
EPA
previously
received
a
pesticide
petition
(
9F6050)
for
fluroxypyr
and
the
Notice
of
Filing
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
January
15,
2003.
The
notice
of
filing
erroneously
omitted
tolerances
proposed
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
on
corn.
Thus,
this
notice
will
supercede
the
previously
published
notice
of
filing.

A.
Residue
Chemistry
1.
Plant
metabolism.
Fluroxypyr
is
a
systemic
herbicide
that
is
readily
translocated
and
rapidly
converts
to
the
acid
form
following
absorption.
Fluroxypyr
moves
readily
throughout
the
plant
via
the
phloem
(
nutrient
transporting)
system
and
to
a
lesser
extent
through
the
xylem
(
water
transporting).
Fluroxypyr
is
distributed
throughout
the
entire
plant,
including
the
meristems
and
other
developing
plant
parts.
2.
Analytical
method.
There
is
a
practical
method
gas
chromatography
(
GC)
with
mass
spectrometry
detection
(
MSD)
for
measuring
levels
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
in
or
on
food
with
a
limit
of
detection
that
allows
monitoring
of
food
with
residues
at
or
above
the
levels
set
for
the
proposed
tolerances.
Fluroxypyr
has
been
tested
through
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration's
(
FDA's)
Multi
residue
Methodology,
Protocols
C,
D,
and
E.
The
results
have
been
published
in
the
FDA
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual,
Volume
I.
3.
Magnitude
of
residues.
The
metabolism
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
in
plants
and
animals
(
goats
and
poultry)
is
adequately
understood
for
the
purposes
of
these
tolerances.
Magnitudes
of
residue
studies
were
conducted
for
field
corn,
sweet
corn,
sorghum
and
grasses.
A
process
products
study
was
not
conducted
in
field
corn
since
residues
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
were
not
detected
in
corn
grain
at
5X
the
application
rate.
In
addition,
processing
of
sorghum
was
not
conducted
since
residue
data
for
flour
are
not
required
at
this
time,
because
sorghum
flour
is
used
exclusively
in
the
United
States
as
a
component
for
drywall,
and
not
as
either
a
human
food
or
a
feedstuff.
No
residues
of
fluroxypyr
are
expected
in
root
or
leafy
vegetable
crops
grown
in
rotation
to
fluroxypyrtreated
field
corn,
sweet
corn,
sorghum,
and
grasses,
after
a
30
 
day
plant­
back
interval
at
the
maximum
allowable
label
rate
of
8
oz.
active
ingredient/
Acre
(
a.
i./
A).
Field
corn,
sweet
corn,
sorghum
and
grasses
grown
in
rotation
may
contain
low
levels
of
fluroxypyr
residues;
however,
the
tolerance
values
proposed
for
these
crops
will
adequately
assure
compliance
with
the
labeled
use
patterns.

B.
Toxicological
Profile
1.
Acute
toxicity.
Fluroxypyr
MHE
has
low
acute
toxicity.
The
rat
oral
LD50
is
>
5,000
milligrams/
kilogram
(
mg/
kg),
the
rabbit
dermal
LD50
is
>
2,000
mg/
kg,
and
the
rat
inhalation
LC50
is
>
1.0
milligrams/
per
liter
(
mg/
l)
1,000
mg/
cubic
meter.
In
addition,
fluroxypyr
MHE
is
not
a
skin
sensitizer
in
guinea
pigs,
has
no
dermal
irritation
in
rabbits,
and
shows
mild
ocular
irritation
in
rabbits.
The
end
use
formulation
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
has
a
similar
low
acute
toxicity
profile.
2.
Genotoxicty.
Short
term
assays
for
genotoxicity
consisting
of
a
bacterial
reverse
mutation
assay
(
Ames
test),
an
in
vitro
assay
for
cytogenetic
damage
using
the
Chinese
hamster
ovary
cells,
an
in
vitro
chromosomal
aberration
assay
using
rat
lymphocytes,
and
an
in
vivo
cytogenetic
assay
in
the
mouse
bone
marrow
(
micronucleus
test)
have
been
conducted
with
fluroxypyr
MHE.
These
studies
show
a
lack
of
genotoxicity.
In
addition,
short
term
assays
for
genotoxicity
consisting
of
an
Ames
metabolic
activation
test,
possible
induction
of
point
mutations
at
the
hypoxanthine
guanine
phophoribosyl
transferase
(
HGPRT)­
Locus
of
Chinese
hamster
ovary
cells,
in
vivo
and
in
vitro
chromosomal
aberrations
in
the
Chinese
hamster
ovary
cells,
unscheduled
DNA
synthesis
in
human
embryonic
cells,
and
an
assay
in
mouse
lymphoma
cells
have
been
conducted
with
fluroxypyr.
These
studies
also
show
a
lack
of
genotoxicity.
3.
Reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity.
Developmental
studies
in
rats
and
rabbits
were
conducted
with
both
fluroxypyr
MHE
and
fluroxypyr.
Studies
with
fluroxypyr
MHE
showed
maternal
and
fetal
no
observed
adverse
effect
levels
(
NOAELs)
of
300
mg/
kg/
day
(
rat)
and
500
mg/
kg/
day
(
rabbit).
Studies
with
fluroxypyr
showed
NOAELs
in
the
rat
of
250
mg/
kg/
day
for
maternal
effects
and
500
mg/
kg/
day
for
fetal
effects
and
a
NOAEL
in
the
rabbit
of
250
mg/
kg/
day
for
both
maternal
and
fetal
effects.
These
studies
show
that
fluroxypyr
and
fluroxypyr
MHE
are
not
teratogenic
nor
will
they
interfere
with
in
utero
development.
Two
multi­
generation
reproduction
studies
were
conducted
with
fluroxypyr
in
rats.
The
first
in
Wistar
rats
showed
no
effect
on
fertility
or
reproductive
performance
and
had
a
NOAEL
of
500
mg/
kg/
day
(
highest
dose
tested).
The
second
study
in
Sprague­
Dawley
rats
showed
a
parental
NOAEL
for
systemic
effects
of
100
mg/
kg/
day
in
male
rats
and
500
mg/
kg/
day
in
female
rats.
The
NOAEL
for
reproductive
effects
was
750
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
1,000
mg/
kg/
day
for
females
(
highest
dose
tested).
The
NOAEL
for
neonatal
effects
was
500
mg/
kg/
day.
4.
Subchronic
toxicity.
Fluroxypyr
MHE
showed
a
NOAEL
of
1,000
mg/
kg/
day
in
a
90
 
day
rat
dietary
study
and
a
21
 
day
rabbit
dermal
study.
Ninety
day
feeding
studies
with
fluroxypyr
showed
NOAELs
of
80
mg/
kg/
day
(
Wistar
rats),
700
mg/
kg/
day
(
Fischer
344
rats),
1,342
mg/
kg/
day
(
male
mice),
and
1,748
mg/
kg/
day
(
female
mice).
In
a
4
 
week
dietary,
range
finding
study
with
fluroxypyr
in
dogs
the
NOAEL
found
was
>
50
mg/
kg/
day.
5.
Chronic
toxicity.
Based
on
chronic
testing
with
fluroxypyr
in
the
mouse,
dog,
and
rat
(
two
studies),
a
reference
dose
(
RfD)
of
0.8
mg/
kg/
day
is
proposed
for
fluroxypyr
and
fluroxypyr
MHE.
The
RfD
has
incorporated
a
100­
fold
safety
factor
to
the
NOAEL
found
in
the
rat
chronic
test.
NOAELs
found
in
the
chronic
dietary
studies
are
as
follows:
150
mg/
kg/
day
(
dog),
300
mg/
kg/
day
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
42
May
13,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
14MYN1.
SGM
14MYN1
25886
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
93
/
Wednesday,
May
14,
2003
/
Notices
(
mouse),
80
mg/
kg/
day
(
Wistar
rats),
100
mg/
kg/
day
(
male
Fischer
344
rats),
and
500
mg/
kg/
day
(
female
Fischer
344
rats).
6.
Animal
metabolism.
Both
fluroxypyr
and
fluroxypyr
MHE
have
been
evaluated
in
rat
metabolism
studies.
In
summary,
these
studies
show
that
fluroxypyr
MHE
is
rapidly
hydrolyzed
and
the
fate
of
the
hydrolysis
products,
fluroxypyr
and
1­
methylheptanol,
are
independent
of
whether
they
were
given
as
the
ester
or
the
acid.
Fluroxypyr,
per
se,
was
extensively
absorbed
and
rapidly
excreted
principally
unchanged
in
the
urine;
1­
methylheptanol
also
was
rapidly
absorbed
and
rapidly
eliminated.
Repeated
administration
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
was
not
associated
with
accumulation
in
tissues.
Also,
the
metabolism
and
pharmacokinetics
of
1­
methylheptanol
are
comparable
to
that
of
the
methylheptyl
portion
of
fluroxypyr
MHE.
7.
Metabolite
toxicology.
Administration
of
fluroxypyr,
as
the
acid
or
methylheptyl
ester
in
a
variety
of
toxicological
studies,
has
produced
similar
effects.
The
principal
response
to
sufficiently
high
dosages,
whether
administered
over
the
short­
term
or,
in
some
cases,
over
a
lifetime,
was
nephrosis.
Fluroxypyr
is
an
organic
acid
that
is
actively
excreted
into
the
urine
by
the
kidney.
Thus,
the
target
organ
and
dose
response
relationship
for
fluroxypyr
toxicity
is
entirely
consistent
with
the
data
on
the
toxicokinetics
of
fluroxypyr.
Metabolism
studies
have
shown
that
fluroxypyr
MHE
is
rapidly
and
completely
hydrolyzed
to
fluroxypyr
acid
and
methylheptanol.
8.
Endocrine
disruption.
There
is
no
evidence
to
suggest
that
fluroxypyr
and
fluroxypyr
MHE
have
an
effect
on
any
endocrine
system.

C.
Aggregate
Exposure
1.
Dietary
exposure
 
i.
Food.
Tier
I
dietary
risk
assessments
were
conducted
for
acute,
short­
term,
and
chronic
exposures.
Very
conservative
assumptions
were
made
in
these
risk
assessments.
The
dietary
exposure
assessments
were
based
on
all
commodities
with
tolerances
for
fluroxypyr
established
at
40
CFR
180.535
together
with
proposed
tolerances
for
field
corn,
sweet
corn,
grain
sorghum,
and
forage
grass
and
hay,
including
revised
tolerances
for
milk
and
meat.
It
was
assumed
that
fluroxypyr
residues
were
present
at
tolerance
or
proposed
tolerance
levels
and
that
100%
of
the
crops
were
treated.
Potential
dietary
exposure
and
risk
was
estimated
using
DEEMTM
software
(
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model,
Version
7.075,
Novigen
Sciences,
Inc.,
Washington,
DC).
Developmental
toxicity
was
not
observed
in
the
absence
of
maternal
toxicity
and
there
was
no
indication
of
increased
susceptibility
in
young
animals
to
prenatal
or
postnatal
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
in
the
toxicology
studies.
Therefore,
an
additional
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
safety
factor
for
infants
and
children
was
not
included
in
this
assessment.
Acute
dietary
risk
was
assessed
using
an
acute
RfD
of
1.25
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
a
maternal
NOAEL
of
125
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
rat
developmental
toxicity
study
and
an
uncertainty
factor
of
100
(
10X
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
10X
for
intraspecies
variation).
EPA
previously
established
the
maternal
NOAEL
for
this
study
at
125
mg/
kg/
day
and
it
was
used
here
for
a
very
conservative
assessment
of
potential
developmental
toxicity.
Pregnant
females
are
estimated
to
have
acute
dietary
exposure
of
0.006582
mg/
kg/
day,
which
occupies
only
0.53%
of
the
acute
RfD.
Adverse
effects
are
not
expected
for
exposures
occupying
100%
or
less
of
the
RfD.
Therefore,
acute
dietary
exposure
and
risk
are
well
within
acceptable
levels.
Chronic
dietary
exposure
estimates
along
with
a
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
were
used
to
assess
short­
term
dietary
exposure
and
risk.
The
assessment
of
chronic
dietary
exposure
and
risk
is
discussed
below.
The
chronic
exposure
values
reported
for
the
total
U.
S.
population
and
for
children
1
 
6
years
old
was
used
to
estimate
dietary
exposure
for
adults
and
toddlers,
respectively.
A
90
 
day
dietary
study
in
rats
with
a
NOAEL
of
80
mg/
kg/
day
was
selected
for
establishing
a
short­
term
oral
toxicity
endpoint.
A
90
 
day
subchronic
study
was
selected
for
evaluating
risk
from
short­
term
oral
exposure
since
the
90
 
day
exposure
interval
is
more
appropriate
than
chronic
exposure
for
assessing
shortterm
risk.
Of
the
90
 
day
subchronic
studies
conducted
with
fluroxypyr,
the
one
selected
provided
the
lowest
NOAEL.
The
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
(
80
mg/
kg/
day)
was
divided
by
the
estimated
dietary
exposure
for
adults
and
toddlers
to
calculate
the
respective
short­
term
margins
of
exposure
(
MOEs).
A
conservative
Tier
I
estimate
of
chronic
dietary
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
estimated
exposure
at
0.003160
mg/
kg/
day
and
0.010321
mg/
kg/
day
for
the
total
U.
S.
population
and
for
children
1
 
6
years
old,
respectively.
A
short­
term
dietary
(
food)
MOE
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
(
80
mg/
kg/
day)
by
the
estimated
exposure
(
0.003160
mg/
kg/
day).
The
resulting
food
MOE
for
adults
and
toddlers
was
calculated
to
be
25,316
and
7,751,
respectively.
Since
the
MOE
is
substantially
greater
than
100,
risk
is
estimated
to
be
well
within
acceptable
levels.
Tolerances
for
fluroxypyr
exist
for
several
raw
agricultural
commodities
and
as
discussed
previously,
tolerances
for
additional
commodities
have
been
proposed.
Chronic
dietary
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
is
possible
due
to
the
potential
presence
of
fluroxypyr
residue
in
certain
foods.
Therefore,
a
chronic
dietary
risk
assessment
was
conducted.
The
assessment
used
a
chronic
RfD
of
0.8
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
80
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
combined
chronic
toxicity
and
carcinogenicity
study
in
rats
and
an
uncertainty
factor
of
100
(
10X
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
10X
for
intraspecies
variation).
A
Tier
I
chronic
dietary
exposure
and
risk
assessment
was
conducted.
It
was
assumed
that
fluroxypyr
residues
were
present
at
tolerance
or
proposed
tolerance
levels
and
that
100%
of
the
crops
were
treated.
DEEMTM
estimates
dietary
exposure
and
the
percent
of
the
chronic
RfD
that
is
occupied
by
the
input
residue
values
for
several
population
subgroups
in
the
United
States.
Chronic
dietary
exposure
for
the
general
U.
S.
population
was
estimated
to
be
0.003160
mg/
kg/
day,
which
occupies
0.4%
of
the
RfD.
Children
1
 
6
years
old
comprise
the
population
subgroup
predicted
to
have
the
highest
potential
level
of
dietary
exposure.
Children
1
 
6
years
old
are
estimated
to
have
a
chronic
dietary
exposure
of
0.010321
mg/
kg/
day,
which
occupies
1.3%
of
the
RfD.
Adverse
effects
are
not
expected
for
exposures
occupying
100%
or
less
of
the
RfD.
Therefore,
chronic
dietary
exposure
and
risk
for
both
the
general
U.
S.
population
and
children
1
 
6
years
old
are
well
within
acceptable
levels.
ii.
Drinking
water.
There
are
no
established
maximum
contaminant
levels
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
in
drinking
water
and
health
advisory
levels
for
fluroxypyr
in
drinking
water
have
not
been
established.
Guidance
from
EPA
has
indicated
that
Tier
I
screening
level
models,
such
as
GENEEC
and
SCI­
GROW,
may
be
used
to
estimate
upper­
bound
pesticide
residues
in
surface
water
and
ground
water
when
assessing
potential
exposure
through
drinking
water.
Estimated
concentrations
of
a
pesticide
in
surface
water
or
ground
water
are
then
compared
to
a
drinking
water
level
of
comparison
(
DWLOC)
as
a
surrogate
estimate
of
exposure
and
risk.
The
DWLOC
is
the
concentration
of
a
pesticide
in
drinking
water
that
would
be
acceptable
as
an
upper
limit
in
light
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
42
May
13,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
14MYN1.
SGM
14MYN1
25887
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
93
/
Wednesday,
May
14,
2003
/
Notices
of
total
aggregate
exposure
to
that
pesticide.
Potential
drinking
water
concentrations
of
fluroxypyr
were
estimated
in
ground
water
and
surface
water
using
the
screening
concentration
in
ground
water
(
SCI­
GROW)
and
the
generic
expected
environmental
concentration
(
GENEEC)
models,
respectively.
Both
SCI­
GROW
are
Tier
I
screening
level
models
that
use
conservative
assumptions.
The
estimated
concentration
of
fluroxypyr
in
ground
water
according
to
SCI­
GROW
is
0.16
mg/
L.
EPA
has
indicated
that
peak
concentrations
of
a
pesticide
in
surface
water
should
be
used
in
an
acute
assessment
for
comparison
with
DWLOC
values.
The
estimated
peak
concentration
of
fluroxypyr
in
surface
water
using
GENEEC
is
20.88
mg/
L.
The
upperbound
estimated
fluroxypyr
concentrations
in
ground
water
(
0.16
mg/
L)
and
surface
water
(
20.88
mg/
L)
are
substantially
below
the
acute
DWLOC
of
37,303
mg/
L
for
pregnant
females.
Therefore,
even
with
the
numerous
conservative
assumptions
included
in
this
assessment,
aggregated
acute
fluroxypyr
exposure
for
pregnant
females
resulting
from
dietary
exposure
and
upper­
bound
drinking
water
exposure
is
well
within
acceptable
limits
of
exposure
and
risk.
As
indicated
above,
the
estimated
concentration
of
fluroxypyr
in
ground
water
according
to
SCI­
GROW
is
0.16
mg/
L.
EPA
has
indicated
that
the
56
 
day
value
from
GENEEC
should
be
divided
by
3
for
comparison
to
shortterm
intermediate­
term
and
chronic
DWLOC
values.
The
estimated
56
 
day
concentration
of
fluroxypyr
in
surface
water
using
GENEEC
is
7.08
mg/
L.
Therefore,
the
surface
water
concentration
used
in
this
assessment
is
2.36
mg/
L
(
7.08
mg/
L
/
3).
Potential
residential
exposure
resulting
from
fluroxypyr
use
on
turf
was
included
along
with
potential
dietary
exposure
when
calculating
the
short­
term
DWLOC
for
adults
and
toddlers.
The
short­
term
DWLOC
for
toddlers
and
the
general
population
of
adults
was
calculated
to
be
7,843
mg/
L
and
27,450
mg/
L,
respectively.
The
DWLOCs
are
substantially
greater
than
high­
end
estimated
exposure
from
surface
water
or
ground
water,
indicating
risk
from
potential
drinking
water
exposure
is
well
within
acceptable
levels.
As
indicated
above
with
short­
term
exposure,
Tier
I
screening
level
estimates
of
potential
fluroxypyr
concentrations
in
ground
water
and
surface
water
are
0.16
mg/
L
and
2.36
mg/
L,
respectively.
Chronic
DWLOCs
for
children
1
 
6
years
old
and
for
the
general
population
of
adults
are
7,896
mg/
L
and
27,889
mg/
L,
respectively.
Since
the
chronic
DWLOCs
are
substantially
greater
than
potential
exposure
through
ground
water
or
surface
water,
risk
from
potential
chronic
exposure
through
drinking
water
is
well
within
acceptable
levels.
2.
Non­
dietary
exposure.
The
proposed
use
of
fluroxypyr
on
residential
turf
presents
the
potential
for
short­
term
residential
exposure.
Homeowners
may
have
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
during
application
to
turf
and
also
may
have
dermal
exposure
due
to
postapplication
activity
on
the
treated
turf.
Toddlers
may
have
dermal
and
oral
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
due
to
postapplication
activity
on
treated
turf.
Transferable
residue
of
fluroxypyr
from
turf
was
found
to
range
from
0.03
to
0.74%
(
used
as
a
high
end
stimate)
of
the
fluroxypyr
applied
and
to
dissipate
with
a
half­
life
ranging
from
1.4
to
2.5
days.
Exposure
was
estimated
based
on
equations
and
default
values
given
in
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment.
Risk
from
short­
term
dermal
exposure
was
assessed
using
a
NOAEL
of
1,000
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
21
 
day
rabbit
dermal
study.
Short­
term
oral
and
inhalation
exposure
was
assessed
using
a
NOAEL
of
80
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
90
 
day
rat
feeding
study.
A
high­
end
estimate
of
exposure
for
adults
was
developed
by
combining
dermal
exposure
from
application
of
fluroxypyr
to
turf
with
post­
application
dermal
exposure
also
on
the
day
of
treatment
(
day
0).
Homeowner
exposure
during
the
application
of
fluroxypyr
to
turf
includes
both
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure.
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
data
from
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Data
base
(
PHED
V1.1)
was
used
in
estimating
applicator
exposure.
The
PHED
surrogate
data
used
to
estimate
exposure
assumes
residential
applicator
attire
to
include
short
pants,
shortsleeve
shirt,
and
no
gloves.
The
applicator
exposure
estimate
was
based
on
a
broadcast
application
using
a
garden
hose
end
sprayer.
Margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
values
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
calculated
using
the
toxicity
endpoints
previously
described.
Based
on
these
Tier
I
screening­
level
estimates,
the
general
population
of
adults
was
estimated
to
have
potential
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
resulting
in
MOE
values
of
8,635
and
2,666,667,
respectively.
These
MOEs
are
substantially
greater
than
100,
indicating
that
risk
from
these
potential
exposures
is
well
within
acceptable
levels.
Toddlers
may
have
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
due
to
post­
application
activity
on
treated
turf.
When
a
pesticide
in
liquid
formulation
is
applied
to
turfgrass
toddlers
may
experience
post­
application
exposure
through
dermal
exposure
and
also,
through
oral
exposure
due
to
hand­
tomouth
transfer
of
pesticide
residue
and
ingestion
of
treated
turfgrass
from
treated
areas.
Based
on
Tier
I
screeninglevel
estimates,
the
MOE
values
for
dermal
exposure
and
oral
exposures
are
34,722
and
26,667,
respectively.
Even
with
conservative
Tier
I
estimates
the
MOEs
are
well
above
100,
indicating
that
risk
from
these
potential
exposures
is
well
within
acceptable
levels.

D.
Cumulative
Effects
The
potential
for
cumulative
effects
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
and
fluroxypyr
and
other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
is
also
considered.
There
is
no
reliable
information
to
indicate
that
toxic
effects
produced
by
fluroxypyr
MHE
and
fluroxypyr
would
be
cumulative
with
those
of
any
other
pesticide
chemical.
Thus,
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
only
the
potential
risks
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
and
fluroxypyr
in
an
aggregate
exposure
assessment.

E.
Safety
Determination
1.
U.
S.
population.
Acute
dietary
exposure
for
pregnant
females
to
residues
of
fluroxypyr
from
current
and
proposed
uses
was
estimated
to
occupy
only
0.53%
of
the
acute
RfD,
which
is
well
below
levels
expected
to
pose
any
appreciable
risk
to
human
health.
Additionally,
the
acute
DWLOC
was
calculated
to
be
over
1,700
 
fold
greater
than
potential
fluroxypyr
residue
in
drinking
water
predicted
by
conservative
screening
level
models.
Thus,
aggregated
acute
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
resulting
from
current
and
proposed
uses
is
well
within
acceptable
levels
of
risk.
Use
of
fluroxypyr
on
turf
results
in
potential
short­
term
residential
exposure
for
adults.
Potential
short­
term
dietary
and
residential
exposures
were
combined
into
an
aggregate
MOE.
Potential
exposure
through
drinking
water
was
not
included
in
the
aggregate
MOE,
but
was
evaluated
in
aggregate
through
use
of
a
DWLOC
calculated
for
short­
term
exposure.
The
short­
term
aggregate
MOE
for
the
general
population
of
adults
was
calculated
to
be
6,423.
Additionally,
the
short­
term
DWLOC
for
the
general
population
of
adults
was
over
10,000­
fold
greater
than
potential
fluroxypyr
residues
in
drinking
water
predicted
by
conservative
screening
level
models.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
42
May
13,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
14MYN1.
SGM
14MYN1
25888
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
93
/
Wednesday,
May
14,
2003
/
Notices
Therefore,
aggregate
short­
term
exposure
and
risk
for
adults
is
expected
to
be
well
within
acceptable
levels.
Using
conservative
exposure
assumptions
previously
described,
chronic
dietary
exposure
to
residues
of
fluroxypyr
from
current
and
proposed
uses
was
estimated
to
occupy
only
0.4%
of
the
RfD
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.
The
chronic
DWLOC
for
adults
was
calculated
to
be
over
10,000
fold
greater
than
potential
fluroxypyr
residue
in
drinking
water
predicted
by
conservative
screening­
level
models.
Thus,
based
on
the
completeness
and
reliability
of
the
toxicity
data
and
the
conservative
exposure
assessment
it
is
concluded
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
to
the
general
U.
S.
population,
pregnant
females,
or
developing
young
from
acute,
short­
term,
or
chronic
aggregate
exposures
to
fluroxypyr
residues
from
current
and
proposed
uses.
2.
Infants
and
children.
FFDCA
Section
408
provides
that
EPA
may
apply
an
additional
safety
factor
for
infants
and
children
in
the
case
of
threshold
effects
to
account
for
prenatal
and
postnatal
toxicity
and
the
completeness
of
the
data
base.
Based
on
the
current
toxicological
data
requirements,
the
data
base
for
fluroxypyr
MHE
relative
to
prenatal
and
postnatal
effects
for
children
is
complete.
There
were
no
indications
of
neurotoxicity
and
developmental
toxicity
was
not
observed
in
the
absence
of
maternal
toxicity.
It
is
concluded
that
there
is
no
indication
of
increased
sensitivity
of
infants
and
children
relative
to
adults
and
that
an
additional
FQPA
safety
factor
is
not
required.
The
acute
and
short­
term
exposures
were
assessed
for
pregnant
females
to
evaluate
the
risk
for
developmental
toxicity
and
it
was
concluded
that,
there
was
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm
from
aggregate
exposures
resulting
from
current
and
proposed
uses
of
fluroxypyr.
Toddlers
may
experience
short­
term
dermal
and
oral
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
as
a
result
of
postapplication
activities
on
treated
residential
turf.
Additionally,
there
is
the
potential
for
exposure
to
fluroxypyr
through
residue
in
food
and
drinking
water.
Tier
I
assessments
were
conducted
to
develop
very
conservative
estimates
of
potential
short­
term
exposure
through
residential,
dietary
and
drinking
water
pathways.
Potential
dietary
and
residential
exposures
were
combined
into
an
aggregate
MOE
value.
The
aggregate
MOE
was
5,120,
well
above
100,
indicating
risk
is
well
within
acceptable
levels.
Additionally,
the
short­
term
DWLOC
for
toddlers
was
greater
than
potential
fluroxypyr
residue
in
drinking
water
predicted
by
conservative
screening
level
models.
Based
on
a
conservative
Tier
I
assessment,
chronic
dietary
exposure
to
residues
of
fluroxypyr
from
current
and
proposed
uses
was
estimated
to
occupy
only
1.3%
of
the
RfD
for
children
1
 
6
years
old,
the
population
subgroup
predicted
to
be
most
highly
exposed.
Additionally,
the
DWLOC
was
calculated
to
be
over
3,000
 
fold
greater
than
potential
fluroxypyr
residue
in
drinking
water
predicted
by
conservative
screening
level
models.
Thus,
based
on
the
completeness
and
reliability
of
the
toxicity
data
and
the
conservative
exposure
assessment
it
is
concluded,
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
to
infants
and
children
from
acute,
short
term,
and
chronic
aggregate
exposures
to
fluroxypyr
residues
from
current
and
proposed
uses.

F.
International
Tolerances
There
are
no
Codex
maximum
residue
levels
established
for
residues
of
fluroxypyr
MHE
and
fluroxypyr
on
any
food
or
feed
crop.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
11759
Filed
5
 
13
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
OFFICE
OF
SCIENCE
AND
TECHNOLOGY
POLICY
Task
Force
on
High
End
Computing;
Notice
of
Request
for
Information
AGENCY:
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
Policy.
ACTION:
Request
for
information.

SUMMARY:
A
task
force
on
high
end
computing,
through
the
National
Coordination
Office
for
Information
Technology
Research
and
Development
under
the
National
Science
and
Technology
Council,
invites
the
public
to
submit
white
papers
relative
to
the
task
force's
charge.
The
task
force
was
established
in
March
2003
to
implement
planning
activities
in
high
end
computing,
as
set
forth
in
the
President's
2004
budget.
Additional
information
on
the
task
force's
charge
is
provided
below.
Details
on
the
invitation
to
submit
white
papers
on
high
end
computing,
can
be
found
at:
http://
www.
itrd.
gov/
hecrtf­
outreach/.
DATES:
Information
must
be
received
by
May
21,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Responses
to
this
request
for
information
should
be
addressed
to
High
End
Computing
Revitalization
Task
Force,
National
Coordination
Office
for
Information
Technology
Research
and
Development,
4201
Wilson
Blvd,
Suite
II
 
405,
Arlington,
VA
22230,
PH:
(
703)
292­
ITRD
(
4873),
FAX:
(
703)
292
 
9097,
hecrtfoutreach
nitrd.
gov.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Dave
Nelson
at
(
703)
292
 
4873.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
High
Computing
Revitalization
Task
Force
(
HECRTF)
was
established
in
March
2003
to
perform
the
tasks
described
in
the
following
text
that
appears
on
page
177
in
the
Research
and
Development
chapter
of
the
FY
2004
Budget
of
the
U.
S.
Government
Analytical
Perspectives:
``
Due
to
its
impact
on
a
wide
range
of
federal
agency
missions
ranging
from
national
security
and
defense
to
basic
science,
high
end
computing
 
or
supercomputing
 
capability
is
becoming
increasingly
critical.
Through
the
course
of
2003,
agencies
involved
in
developing
or
using
high
end
computing
will
be
engaged
in
planning
activities
to
guide
future
investments
in
this
area,
coordinated
through
the
NSTC.
The
activities
will
include
the
development
of
interagency
R&
D
roadmap
for
highend
computing
core
technologies,
a
federal
high­
end
computing
capacity
and
accessibility
improvement
plan,
and
a
discussion
of
issues
(
along
with
recommendations
where
applicable)
relating
to
federal
procurement
of
highend
computing
systems.
The
knowledge
gained
for
this
process
will
be
used
to
guide
future
investments
in
this
area.
Research
and
software
to
support
high
end
computing
will
provide
a
foundation
for
future
federal
R&
D
by
improving
the
effectiveness
of
core
technologies
on
which
next­
generation
high­
end
computing
systems
will
rely.''

Stanley
S.
Sokul,
Counsel,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
Policy.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
12177
Filed
5
 
13
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
3170
 
01
 
P
FEDERAL
ELECTION
COMMISSION
Sunshine
Act
Meeting
Notice
DATE
AND
TIME:
Tuesday,
May
20,
2003
at
10
a.
m.
PLACE:
999
E
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
STATUS:
This
meeting
will
be
closed
to
the
public.
ITEMS
TO
BE
DISCUSSED:
Compliance
matters
pursuant
to
2
U.
S.
C.
437g.
Audits
conducted
pursuant
to
2
U.
S.
C.
437g,
438(
b),
and
Title
26,
U.
S.
C.
Matters
concerning
participation
in
civil
actions
or
proceedings
or
arbitration.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
42
May
13,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
14MYN1.
SGM
14MYN1
