Cyhexatin; Proposed Tolerance Actions
[Federal Register: July 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 143)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43368-43372]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy05-37]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2005-0160; FRL-7723-5]
Cyhexatin; Proposed Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revoke, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(e)(1), all existing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide/acaricide cyhexatin because
they do not meet requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). EPA canceled
food use registrations for cyhexatin in 1989. Currently, EPA determined
that acute dietary risks from use of cyhexatin on commodities for which
import tolerances exist exceed the Agency's level of concern. However,
EPA also determined that if the only cyhexatin tolerance is for orange
juice, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population
subgroup will result from exposure to cyhexatin treated oranges.
Because manufacturers support a cyhexatin tolerance on orange juice for
purposes of importation and the Agency has made a determination of
safety for such a tolerance, EPA is also proposing that, concurrent
with the revocation of the citrus fruit group tolerance, an individual
time-limited tolerance be established for orange juice. The regulatory
actions proposed in this document contribute toward the Agency's
tolerance reassessment requirements under FFDCA section 408(q), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA
is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in
existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory actions proposed in this
document pertain to the proposed revocation of 41 tolerances which
would be counted as tolerance reassessments toward the August 2006
review deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number OPP-2005-0160, by one of the following methods:
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? Agency Website: http://www.regulations.gov/. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail: Comments may be sent by e-mail to
opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0160.
? Mail: 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-2005-0160.
? Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0160. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number OPP-2005-
0160. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
[[Page 43369]]
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102) (FRL-7181-7).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail
address: nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
? Crop production (NAICS 111)
? Animal production (NAICS 112)
? Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
? Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 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. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. 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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.regulations.gov/), you may
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes 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.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket ID number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
The last U.S. product registration for cyhexatin was canceled in
1989. On January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3057) (FRL-5743-8), EPA published a
proposal in the Federal Register to revoke tolerances for canceled
active ingredients, including cyhexatin. In a Federal Register final
rule of October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57062) (FRL-6035-8), EPA responded to
comments received during a 60-day public comment period on proposed
tolerance revocations. The California Citrus Quality Council and the
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee expressed concern about
proposed tolerance revocations pertaining to residues of cyhexatin on
citrus and hops, respectively. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. (now
known as CEREXAGRI, Inc.) and OXON ITALIA expressed an interest in
maintaining specific cyhexatin import tolerances. Elf Atochem stated
that it had pending applications for registration and was developing
certain data. OXON ITALIA stated that it was committed to providing
data required to maintain tolerances of cyhexatin on imported citrus
crops. Therefore, EPA did not revoke the cyhexatin tolerances at that time.
Recently, EPA completed its Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility
Decision (TRED) for cyhexatin. In the Federal Register of July 13, 2005
(70 FR 40341) (FRL-7720-3), EPA published a decision notice for the
cyhexatin TRED. The TRED and documents in support of the TRED are
available in Edocket ID number OPP-2004-0295 at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket, and will also be made available via the reregistration status
website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
Because there are no active U.S. registrations, human exposure to this
pesticide is strictly through the consumption of treated imported
foods. Residential and occupational exposures as well as dietary
exposure through drinking water are not expected because there is no
domestic use of cyhexatin.
[[Page 43370]]
There are currently 41 tolerances for cyhexatin. Currently, EPA
determined that acute dietary risks from use of cyhexatin on
commodities for which import tolerances exist exceed the Agency's level
of concern. Therefore, manufacturers had indicated that they would
support only the import tolerances for apple (fresh, juice, sauce, and
dried) and citrus (orange juice). However, the estimated acute dietary
risks from use of cyhexatin on these commodities exceed the Agency's
level of concern. The assessment concluded that for apples and oranges,
the acute dietary exposure estimate for children 1-2 years of age is at
223% of the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) at the 99.9th
percentile; for all infants < 1 year of age at 187% of the aPAD, and
for children 3-5 years of age at 151% of the aPAD. Apple juice and
apple sauces were the risk drivers.
Because of this acute dietary concern, manufacturers have withdrawn
support for cyhexatin tolerances, except for orange juice. EPA has
evaluated the dietary risks from the importation of orange juice
concentrate to be processed into orange juice and has determined that
there is reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup
will result from exposure to cyhexatin treated oranges. The acute
dietary exposure estimates for orange juice only are below the Agency's
level of concern for all population subgroups. The most highly exposed
sub-population was children 1-2 years of age, at 35% of the aPAD.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke all existing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide/acaricide cyhexatin under FFDCA section
408(e)(1) because existing tolerances do not meet requirements of FFDCA
section 408(b)(2).
Specifically, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.144 for combined residues of cyhexatin and its organotin
metabolites (calculated as cyhexatin) in or on the following food
commodities: almond; almond, hulls; apple; cattle, fat; cattle, kidney;
cattle, liver; cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver;
cattle, meat; citrus, dried pulp; fruit, citrus; goat, fat; goat,
kidney; goat, liver; goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver;
goat, meat; hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, liver; hog, meat byproducts,
except kidney and liver; hog, meat; hop; hop, dried cone; horse, fat;
horse, kidney; horse, liver; horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and
liver; horse, meat; milk, fat (=N in whole milk); nectarine; nut,
macadamia; peach; pear; plum, prune, dried; plum, prune, fresh; sheep,
fat; sheep, kidney; sheep, liver; sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney
and liver; sheep, meat; strawberry; and walnut.
However, concurrent with the proposed revocation of the crop group
tolerance on fruit, citrus in 40 CFR 180.144 at 2 parts per million
(ppm), a tolerance on orange juice should be established at 0.1 ppm.
Available processing data indicate that cyhexatin residues of concern
in orange juice concentrate were less than the limit of quantitation;
i.e., less than 0.1 ppm. Nevertheless, additional generic data is
needed for EPA to confirm processing, analytical method, and
toxicological data. Under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerance provide the necessary
information. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish an individual
time-limited tolerance in 40 CFR 180.144 for combined residues of
cyhexatin and its organotin metabolites (calculated as cyhexatin) in
orange, juice at 0.1 ppm with an expiration/revocation date of June 13,
2009; i.e., the time-limited tolerance will be established for a period
of 4 years from the TRED completion date of June 13, 2005 in order to
allow sufficient time for the Agency to issue a data call-in request,
the manufacturers to submit the needed data, and for the Agency to
review it. After reviewing the available data, EPA will decide whether
there is sufficient data to support the orange juice tolerance as a
permanent one. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue or allow the time-
limited tolerance to expire.
Because, with the exception of orange juice, EPA cannot make a
determination of safety concerning the specific cyhexatin tolerances
proposed herein for revocation, the Agency has determined that for good
cause and in the public interest, it will provide a shorter period of
30 days for public comment under FFDCA section 408(e)(2), instead of
the typical 60 days for proposed rulemaking. Cyhexatin is used on a
number of children's foods, including apples, that can currently be
imported. EPA's risk assessment has concluded that there is a concern
for infants and children resulting from acute dietary exposure to these
imported commodities treated with cyhexatin. The Agency expects that a
decrease in the public comment period for this proposed rule would
hasten the cyhexatin tolerance revocation process and thus reduce
exposure to cyhexatin for infants and children more quickly.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a).
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the
pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA,
but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-
use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances
in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported
into the United States.
EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure
[[Page 43371]]
to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses.
Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
C. When do These Actions Become Effective?
EPA is proposing that revocation of specific cyhexatin tolerances
and establishment of the time-limited tolerance on orange juice become
effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that: (1) The residue is present as the result of an
application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed the level that
was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to
show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the
dates when the pesticide was applied to such food.
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances
that were in existence on August 2, 1996. As of July 18, 2005, EPA has
reassessed over 7,330 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a
total of 41 tolerances which would be counted in a final rule as
tolerance reassessments toward the August 2006 review deadline under
FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. For counting
purposes, the Agency will count the citrus fruit group tolerance as one
revocation (where an individual tolerance for orange juice would be
established in its place).
III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations?
The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory
and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods.
EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment
program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in
reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on
Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, an international organization formed to promote the
coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to
harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible,
provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under
FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the
tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility
Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions
for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3).
This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic
copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/. On the
Home Page select ``Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,'' then select
``Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then look up the entry for this
document under ``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can
also go directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(e) and also revoke specific tolerances
established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment
of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary
circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations as required by Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of
tolerances or revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance
establishments and revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR
24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available
information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the
Agency
[[Page 43372]]
hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its available
data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes that there is
a reasonable international supply of food not treated with canceled
pesticides. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule,
the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the
present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any
comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the
EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to
issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States.
This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons,
the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any
``tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951,
November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 18, 2005.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
? Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
? 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
? 2. Section 180.144 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.144 Cyhexatin; tolerances for residues.
(a)General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/
Commodity Parts per million Revocation Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orange, juice................... 0.1............... 06/13/2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-14738 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}