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