Thought I'd pass this along as I find it disturbing.  Both diquat and
paraquat (another pesticide), contain the chemical MTPP, which was the same
chemical which caused PD (Parkinson's disease) symptoms in those young people
who brewed their own heroin-like drug.  MANY references which I have read
mention these two pesticides specifically, when they discuss the MTPP link
with Parkinson's disease.  That the manufacturer of this pesticide, Diquat,
now wants to increase the tolerance levels should also be disturbing to
others either with PD, or close to those who have it.  I would suggest that
members of the PD email list just send a quick note to the EPA as described
below, protesting the proposed increase in acceptable Diquat levels.
 Personally I oppose increasing or creating ANY new pesticides, because of
the possible health effects, but this pesticide in particular should be of
great concern to all of us.

Believe it or not, I received about 15 similar messages to this one from the
EPA, ON THE SAME DAY, related to tolerance levels and approvals of other
pesticides as well.  The sheer volume of pesticides that get either approvals
for initial usage or approvals for increases in previous tolerance levels is
staggering, especially when it is summed up over the course of a year.  Sure,
human and animal bodies can shed these and other chemicals efficiently, up to
given saturation levels, but with the thousands of them out there in the
environment now, the tolerance levels which they propose cannot possibly be
safe.  The synergism of all of these thousands of pesticides and other
chemicals would work to reduce one's ability to expel toxins and thus
decrease the levels at which saturation and adverse effects begin occurring.


So, anyway, please send just a quick note expressing your concern.  We need
not only to pester our representatives regarding the Udall Bill and PD
research, but we need to pressure them and other government agencies,
regarding those things which may in fact be contributing to the disease
itself.  What good is "curing" it if it is going to keep on attacking new
(and often younger and younger) victims in the meantime?  Those who already
have it obviously need the "cures", but what about protecting others from
ever getting it in the first place by eliminating possible causes?  If we can
accomplish this, then perhaps the numbers who will eventually need the
drastic and expensive cures will be minimal, rather than on the increase, as
it seems to be.

Wendy Tebay

>


---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   [log in to unmask] (everybody)
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to:       [log in to unmask]
To:     [log in to unmask] (Multiple recipients of list)
Date: 96-06-14 08:31:18 EDT

[Federal Register: June 14, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 116)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30165-30167]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4E4365 and 4E4376/R2244; FRL-5372-5]
RIN 2070-AB78


Diquat; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document establishes a tolerance for the plant growth
regulator diquat [6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium]
derived from application of the dibromide salt and calculated as the
cation in or on the imported raw agricultural commodities bananas and
coffee at 0.05 part per million (ppm). Zeneca, Inc., petitioned EPA to
to establish a maximum permissible level for the residues of the plant
growth regulator.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective June 14, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 4E4365 and 4E4376/R2244], may be submitted
to: Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and
hearing requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and
forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of
objections and hearing requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
    A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [log in to unmask] Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
4E4365 and 4E4376/R2244]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)
should be

[[Page 30166]]

submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joanne I. Miller, Product
Manager (PM-23), Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm.
237, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 3056224;
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 27, 1996
(61 FR 13474), EPA issued a proposed rule (FRL-5348-1) that gave notice
that Zeneca, Inc., P.O. Box 15458, Wilmington, DE 19850, has submitted
pesticide petition (PP 4E4365 and 4E4376) to EPA. This petition
requested that the Administrator, pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), establish a tolerance for
residues of the plant growth regulator diquat [6,7-dihydrodipyrido
(1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium derived from application of the dibromide
salt and calculated as the cation in or on the raw agricultural
commodity bananas at 0.02 ppm and coffee at 0.05 ppm. The petition for
bananas was subsequently amended to raise the tolerance level to 0.05
ppm. There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the proposed rule.
    The data submitted with the proposed rule and other relevant
material have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based
on the data and information considered. the Agency concludes that the
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
    Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
    EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 4E4365 and 4E4376/R2244] (including any comments and data
submitted electronically). A public version of this record, including
printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include
any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
    Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
    [log in to unmask]


    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
    This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 31, 1996.

Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

[[Page 30167]]

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
    2. In Sec. 180.226, by adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 180.226   Diquat; tolerances for residues.

*         *         *         *         *
    (c)(1) Tolerances are established for the plant growth regulator
diquat [6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium] derived from
application of the dibromide salt and calculated as the cation in or on
the following raw agricultural commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bananas....................................................         0.05
Coffee.....................................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) There are no U.S. registrations as of December 6, 1995.

[FR Doc. 96-15193 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F