99-12247. Sulfosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerance  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 27186-27192]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-12247]
    
    
    
    [[Page 27186]]
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 180
    
    [OPP-300853; FRL-6078-4]
    RIN 2070-AB78
    
    
    Sulfosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerance
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of 
    sulfosulfuron: 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2-ethanesulfonyl-
    imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and its metabolites converted 
    to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine and calculated as 
    sulfosulfuron in or on wheat grain at 0.02 parts per million (ppm), 
    wheat straw at 0.1 ppm, wheat hay at 0.3 ppm, wheat forage at 4.0 ppm, 
    milk at 0.006 ppm, fat and meat of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and 
    sheep at 0.005 ppm, and meat by-products of cattle, goat, swine, horse, 
    and sheep at 0.05 ppm. Monsanto Company requested this tolerance under 
    the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food 
    Quality Protection Act of 1996.
    
    DATES: This regulation is effective May 19, 1999. Objections and 
    requests for hearings must be received by EPA on or before July 19, 
    1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the 
    docket control number, [OPP-300853], must 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 identified by the docket 
    control number, [OPP-300853], must also be submitted to: Public 
    Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and 
    Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
    Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, 
    bring a copy of objections and hearing requests to Rm. 119, Crystal 
    Mall 2 (CM #2), 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
        A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing 
    Clerk may be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail (e-
    mail) to: opp-docket@epa.gov. 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 5.1/6.1 file 
    format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing 
    requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket control 
    number [OPP-300853]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should 
    be submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and 
    hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal 
    Depository Libraries.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Jim Tompkins, 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 Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5697, 
    Tompkins.jim@epamail.epa.gov.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 23, 1998 
    (63 FR 71126) (FRL-6047-7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 
    of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as 
    amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-
    170) announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP) 7F4840 for 
    tolerance by Monsanto Company. This notice included a summary of the 
    petition prepared by the Monsanto Company, the registrant. There were 
    no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
        The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by 
    establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide sulfosulfuron in 
    or on wheat grain at 0.02 part per million (ppm), wheat straw at 0.1 
    ppm, wheat hay at 0.3 ppm, wheat forage at 4.0 ppm, milk at 0.006 ppm, 
    fat and meat of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 0.005 ppm, and 
    meat by-products of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 0.05 ppm.
    
    I. Background and Statutory Findings
    
        Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
    tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
    food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
    408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable 
    certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the 
    pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures 
    and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This 
    includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, 
    but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) 
    requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and 
    children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 
    and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will 
    result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide 
    chemical residue....''
        EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
    aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the 
    regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of 
    the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide 
    Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
    
    II. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
    
        Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 
    available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
    this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of 
    Sulfosulfuron and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, 
    consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a tolerance for residues of 1-
    (4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2-ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-
    a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and its metabolites converted to 2-
    (ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine and calculated as sulfosulfuron 
    on wheat grain at 0.02 parts per million (ppm), wheat straw at 0.1 ppm, 
    wheat hay at 0.3 ppm, wheat forage at 4.0 ppm, milk at 0.006 ppm, fat 
    and meat of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 0.005 ppm, and 
    meat by-products of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 0.05 ppm. 
    EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with 
    establishing the tolerance follows.
    
    A. Toxicological Profile
    
        EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
    validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
    the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
    available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
    of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
    children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by sulfosulfuron are 
    discussed in this unit.
        1. Several acute toxicity studies place technical sulfosulfuron in 
    Toxicity Categories III or IV. Technical sulfosulfuron is not a dermal 
    sensitizer.
    
    [[Page 27187]]
    
        2. In a rat subchronic oral toxicity study, sulfosulfuron was 
    administered in the diet for 13 weeks at a dose levels of 0, 20, 200, 
    2,000, 6,000, or 20,000 ppm (equivalent to average daily intake of 0, 
    1.2, 12.1, 123.2, 370.3 or 1,277.5 miligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) 
    for males and 0, 1.5, 14.6, 144.3, 447.5 or 1,489.1 mg/kg/day for 
    females). The systemic toxicity lowest observed adverse effect level 
    (LOAEL) is 20,000 ppm (1,277.5 mg/kg/day), based on decreased body 
    weight/weight gain in males, possible decreased weight gain in pregnant 
    females during gestation days 14-21, and possible renal lesions related 
    to formulation of calculi. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) 
    is 6,000 ppm (370.3 mg/kg/day).
        3. In a dog subchronic oral toxicity study, sulfosulfuron was 
    administered by gelatin capsule at dose levels of 0, 30, 100, 300, or 
    1,000 mg/kg/day for 90 days. The systemic toxicity LOAEL is 300 mg/kg/
    day, based on lesions in the urinary bladder in females occurring 
    subsequent to urinary crystal formation and on abnormal urinary 
    crystals in males and females. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity is 100 
    mg/kg/day.
        4. In a 28-day rat dermal study, sulfosulfuron was applied dermally 
    at dose levels of 0,100, 300 or 1,000 mg/kg/day for 5 days/week for 4 
    weeks. The NOAEL is  1,000 mg/kg/day the highest dose tested 
    for males and females.
        5. In a 1-year dog chronic feeding study, sulfosulfuron was 
    administered by gelatin capsule at dose levels of 0, 5, 20, 100 or 500 
    mg/kg/day, 5 days/week, for 1 year. The LOAEL is 500 mg/kg/day based on 
    the presence of abnormal urinary crystals and bladder pathology 
    secondary to formation of urinary tract calculi in males. The NOAEL is 
    100 mg/kg/day.
        6. In a rat chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study, sulfosulfuron 
    was administered in the diet at dose levels of 0, 50, 500, 5,000 and 
    20,000 ppm (females only) for 22 months. Surviving males at 20,000 ppm 
    were sacrificed on day 259 due to excessive mortality. The average 
    daily intake of test material was 0, 2.4, 24.4 or 244.2 mg/kg/day(males 
    up to 5,000 ppm); 1,178.3 mg/kg/day, males at 20,000 ppm until day 259) 
    and 3.1, 30.4, 314.1 or 1,296.5 mg/kg/day for females. The LOAEL is 
    5,000 ppm (244.2 mg/kg/day), based on increased incidence of urinary 
    tract gross/microscopic lesions, mineralization in several tissues 
    (males), abnormal urine crystals and possibly decreased albumin (males, 
    termination). The NOAEL is 500 ppm (24.4 mg/kg/day) Transitional cell 
    papilloma and carcinoma of the urinary bladder occurred at 1,296.5 mg/
    kg/day (5,000 ppm) in females. These tumors were determined to be 
    treatment related.
        7. In a mouse carcinogenicity study, sulfosulfuron was administered 
    in the diet at dose levels of 0, 30, 700, 3,000, or 7,000 ppm (0, 4.0, 
    93.4, 393.6 or 943.5 mg/kg/day to males or 0, 6.5 153.0 634.9 or 
    1,388.2 mg/kg/day to females) for 18 months. The LOAEL is 3,000 ppm 
    (393.6 mg/kg/day), based on gross and microscopic effects related to 
    urinary calculus formation in the urinary bladder of males. The NOAEL 
    is 700 ppm (93.4 mg/kg/day) Benign mesenchymal tumors of the urinary 
    bladder occurred in males at 943.5 mg/kg/day (7,000 ppm). These tumors 
    also occurred in one male at 393.6 mg/kg/day (3,000 ppm), one control 
    female and one female at 1,388.2 mg/kg/day (7,000 ppm). Incidences of 
    renal tubular adenoma were observed in one male and one female at 943.5 
    and 1,388.2 mg/kg/day or 7,000 ppm. The mesenchymal tumors and adenoma 
    in females were determined to be treatment related.
        8. In a 2-generation rat reproduction study, sulfosulfuron was 
    administered in the diet at dose levels of 0, 50, 500, 5,000 or 20,000 
    ppm during premating (equivalent to average daily intake for P adults 
    of 0, 3.1, 31.6, 312.1 or 1,312.8 mg/kg/day, males and 0, 3.6, 36.2. 
    363.2 or 1,454.1 mg/kg/day, females; for F1a adults, 0, 3.1, 31.1, 
    315.8, 1,378.8 mg/kg/day, males and 0, 3.7, 37.7, 377.8 or 1,598.0 mg/
    kg/day, females). The reproductive toxicity NOAEL is  20,000 
    ppm (1,312.8 mg/kg/day) and the LOAEL is > 20,000 ppm. The parental 
    systemic toxicity LOAEL is 20,000 ppm based on decreased parental body 
    weight and/or weight gain during premating, gestation and lactation, 
    mortality (males) and increased incidence of urinary tract pathology 
    related calculus formation. The parental systemic NOAEL is 5,000 ppm 
    (312.1 mg/kg/day). The offspring toxicity LOAEL is 20,000 ppm (1,312.8 
    mg/kg/day) based on decreased body weight gain in postweaning 
    adolescent rats, and the offspring NOAEL is 5,000 ppm (312.1 mg/kg/
    day).
        9. In a rat developmental study, sulfosulfuron was administered by 
    gavage at dose levels of 0, 100, 300, and 1000 mg/kg/day to females 
    from day 6 through 15 of gestation. The NOAELs for maternal and 
    developmental toxicity were greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest 
    dose tested.
        10. In a rabbit developmental study, sulfosulfuron was administered 
    by gavage at dose levels of 0, 50, 250, or 1,000 mg/kg/day from day 7 
    through 19 of gestation. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity is greater 
    than 1,000 mg/kg/day the highest dose tested. No LOAEL for 
    developmental toxicity was observed in this study.
        11. In an acute rat oral neurotoxicity screening study, 
    sulfosulfuron was administered by gavage at dose levels of 0, 125, 500, 
    or 2,000 mg/kg/day. No treatment-related effects on clinical signs, 
    body weight, food consumption, functional observational battery 
    parameters, motor activity, gross pathology or neuropathology were 
    observed. The NOAEL is  2,000 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL > 2,000 
    mg/kg/day.
        12. In a rat subchronic neurotoxicity study, sulfosulfuron was 
    administered in the diet at dose levels of 0, 200, 2,000, 20,000 ppm 
    (corresponding to average daily doses of 0, 12, 122, or 1,211 mg/kg/day 
    in males and 0, 14, 141, or 1,467 mg/kg/day in females). The NOAEL is 
    20,000 ppm (1,211 mg/kg/day), based on marginal reductions in body 
    weight/weight gain of males. The LOAEL is > 20,000 ppm (> 1,211 mg/kg/
    day).
        13. Mutagenicity data included a gene mutation bacterial reverse 
    gene mutation with Salmonella (negative for inducing reverse gene 
    mutation); an in vitro mammalian forward gene mutation with Chinese 
    hamster ovary cells ( negative for inducing forward gene mutations at 
    the HGPRT locus in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) with and without S9 
    activation);  in vitro  chromosome aberration study on human 
    lymphocytes (did not induce structural chromosome damage); and an in 
    vivo structural chromosome aberration micronucleus test (negative).
        14. Based on the results of the rat metabolism study, more than 90% 
    of the administered radioactivity was excreted by 72-hours post-dosing. 
    Between 77% to 87% was excreted in the urine in all low dose groups. 
    Feces was the major route of elimination at the high dose. In all dose 
    groups minimal radioactivity was retained in the tissue. Metabolism of 
    sulfosulfuron in all groups was minimal and most was excreted 
    unmetabolized.
    
    B. Toxicological Endpoints
    
        1. Acute toxicity. A dose and endpoint were not selected for the 
    acute dietary risk assessment because there were no effects 
    attributable to a single dose (exposure) observed in oral toxicity 
    studies including developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit 
    (up to 1,000 mg/kg/day) and an acute neurotoxicity study in rat (up to 
    2,000 mg/kg). The acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity of 
    sulfosulfuron is very low.
        2. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity.  No short- or 
    intermediate-term dermal or inhalation endpoints were
    
    [[Page 27188]]
    
    identified. No dermal or systemic toxicity was seen following dermal 
    applications in the 28-day dermal toxicity study with rats up to 1,000 
    mg/kg/day.
        Based on the low acute inhalation toxicity (Toxicity Category IV, 
    no mortality at 3.0 mg/liter (l), the formulation of the product as 
    wettable granules and the low application rates from the proposed use 
    patterns, there is minimal concern for potential inhalation exposure 
    and risk.
        3.  Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the RfD for sulfosulfuron 
    at 0.24 mg/kg/day. This Reference Dose (RfD) is based on the rat 
    chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study NOAEL of 24.0 mg/kg/day and an 
    uncertainty factor of 100.
        4. Carcinogenicity. In accordance with the Agency's Proposed 
    Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (April 10, 1996), the HED 
    Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) classified sulfosulfuron as a 
    likely human carcinogen. The weight-of-evidence for this classification 
    are as follows: (i) occurrence of rare transitional cell papilloma and 
    carcinoma of the urinary bladder in female rats; (ii) occurrence of 
    rare benign mesenchymal tumors of the urinary bladder in male as well 
    as one renal adenoma in both male and female mice; and (iii) the 
    relevancy of the observed tumors to human exposure. The Committee 
    recommended that a linear low-dose approach (Q1*) for human 
    risk characterization and extrapolation of risk should be based on the 
    incidence of benign mesenchymal bladder tumors in male mice. The unit 
    risk, Q1* (mg/kg/day), of sulfosulfuron based upon male 
    mouse urinary bladder mesenchymal tumor rates is 1.03  x  
    10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 in human equivalents.
    
    C. Exposures and Risks
    
        1. From food and feed uses. No tolerances have been established for 
    sulfosulfuron. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess 
    exposures from sulfosulfuron as follows:
        i.  Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary risk assessments are 
    performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has 
    indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result 
    of a 1-day or single exposure. An acute risk from the proposed use is 
    not expected because no effect attributed to a single dose (exposure) 
    were observed in oral toxicology studies including developmental 
    toxicity in the rat and the rabbit and an acute neurotoxicity study in 
    the rat. The Agency concludes with reasonable certainly that 
    sulfosulfusulfuron does not elicit an acute toxicological response.
        ii. Chronic exposure and risk. A chronic dietary exposure analysis 
    was performed using the RfD of 0.24 mg/kg/day based on a chronic 
    toxicity NOAEL of 24.0 mg/kg/day and an uncertainly factor of 100, 
    assuming tolerance level residues and 100 % crop treated information to 
    estimate the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) for the 
    general population and 28 subgroups. The TMRC for the all population 
    subgroups represent <1% of="" the="" rfd.="" this="" is="" a="" highly="" conservative="" risk="" estimate="" since="" no="" refinements="" for="" percent="" crop="" treated="" or="" anticipated="" residues="" were="" made.="" iii.="" carcinogenicity="" exposure="" and="" risk.="" a="" cancer="" exposure="" analysis="" was="" performed="" (deem)="" software,="" usda="" 1989-91="" nationwide="" continuing="" surveys="" for="" food="" intake="" by="" individuals="" (csfii)="" using="" tolerance="" level="" residues="" and="" 100%="" crop="" treated="" information="" to="" estimate="" the="" lifetime="" cancer="" risk="" for="" the="" general="" population.="" the="" lifetime="" risk="" was="" 8.45="" x="">-8 for a 70-year exposure. The lifetime risk was 1.05  x  
    10-7 for infants, 2.55  x  10-7 for childern (1-
    6) and 1.47  x  10-7 for childern (7-12). The Agency 
    considers risks in the range of 1  x  10-6 as negligible 
    risk. The cancer dietary risk associated with sulfosulfuron is below 
    the Agency`s level of concern.
        2.  From drinking water.  Tier I estimated environmental 
    concentrations (EEC) were calculated for both surface water ((Generic 
    expected environmental concentration) GENEEC model) and ground water 
    ((Screening Concentration in GROund water) SCI-GROW). Tier I models 
    represent the most conservative estimates of potential residues in 
    drinking water. Drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) for acute 
    and chronic dietary risk from drinking water were calculated for both 
    surface and ground water. Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) 
    for surface and ground water were 1.73 parts per billion (ppb) and 
    0.295 ppb, respectively.
        A DWLOC is a theoretical upper limit on a pesticide's concentration 
    in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide 
    in food, drinking water, and through residential uses. A DWLOC will 
    vary depending on the toxic endpoint, with drinking water consumption, 
    and body weights. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. OPP 
    uses DWLOCs internally in the risk assessment process as a surrogate 
    measure of potential exposure associated with pesticide exposure 
    through drinking water. In the absence of monitoring data for 
    pesticides, it is used as a point of comparison against conservative 
    model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOC values 
    are not regulatory standards for drinking water. They do have an 
    indirect regulatory impact through aggregate exposure and risk 
    assessments.
        i. Acute exposure and risk. An acute risk from the proposed use is 
    not expected because no effect attributed to a single dose (exposure) 
    were observed in oral toxicology studies including developmental 
    toxicity in the rat and the rabbit and an acute neurotoxicity study in 
    the rat.
        ii.  Chronic exposure and risk. The DWLOC s calculated for adults 
    and children were 8,400 ppb and 2,400 ppb, respectively. These are 
    higher than the EEC s of 1.73 ppb for surface water and 0.295 ppb for 
    ground water.
        iii. For cancer exposure to sulfosulfuron, the adult DWLOC is 27 
    ppb, which is above the EECs of 1.73 ppb for surface water and 0.0295 
    ppb for ground water.
        3. From non-dietary exposure. Based on the proposed use of 
    sulfosulfuron on turf at playgrounds, parks, and residential areas by 
    professional applicators, potential for residential exposure exists, 
    from post-application scenarios.
        i. Acute exposure and risk. An acute risk from the proposed use is 
    not expected because no effects attributed to a single dose (exposure) 
    were observed in oral toxicology studies including developmental 
    toxicity in the rat and the rabbit and an acute neurotoxicity study in 
    the rat.
        ii. Chronic exposure and risk. A chronic exposure is not expected 
    for use of sulfosulfuron on agricultural, and non-agricultural areas, 
    because exposure does not continuously (daily) occur more than 180 
    days.
        iii. Short- and intermediate-term exposure and risk. No short-term 
    or intermediate term dermal or inhalation endpoints were identified. 
    The Agency concludes that exposures form residential uses of 
    sulfosulfuron are not expected to pose undue risk.
        iv. Cancer exposure and risk. Post-application exposures resulting 
    from the proposed application of sulfosulfuron to recreational areas, 
    parks, and residential areas (lawns) are not expected to pose an undue 
    cancer risk.
        A typical cancer risk for a residential adult was calculated for a 
    Tc = 1,000 cm2/hr (high activity for 1 hr.) and for a Tc = 
    500 cm2/hr (low activity for 1 hr.). An average is usually 
    used for cancer assessments. This assessment is based on conservative 
    assumptions (due to the assessment using 50 years of exposure, and 
    utilizing an estimated 20% (default) of dislodgeable foliar residues 
    (DFR) from the turf; which is
    
    [[Page 27189]]
    
    derived from the maximum application rate). An average of 14 days of 
    DFRs was used for this cancer assessment; this would be considered a 
    10% decrease each day (from dilution by rain, and mowing of the grass) 
    of the 20% residue for at least 14 days, and then taking the mean value 
    of this 14 day exposure. The Life time Average Daily Dose (LADD) = 6.0 
    x  10-5 mg/kg/day for a Tc = 1,000 cm2/hr (high 
    activity for 1 hr.) and for a Tc = 500 cm2/hr (low activity 
    for 1 hr.) is equal to 3.0  x  10-5 mg/kg/day. The cancer 
    risks are 6.0  x  10-8 (for Tc =1,000 cm2/hr, 
    high activity) and 3.0  x  10-8 (for Tc = 500 
    cm2/hr (low activity for 1 hr.)). The highest residential 
    calculated level of cancer risk on day zero for a Tc =1,000 
    cm2/hr (high activity for 1 hr.) is equal to 1.2  x  
    10-7, and for a Tc = 500 cm2/hr (low activity for 
    1 hr.) is equal to 6.0  x  108. This risk is considered 
    minimal.
        The cancer risk assessment for dermal post-application exposure for 
    toddlers is based on conservative assumptions (due to the assessment 
    using 12 years of exposure at maximum rate, for 14 days a year without 
    a 10 % dissipation each day after day zero, and a high transfer 
    coefficient (Tc); default for toddlers = 8,700 cm2/hr (high 
    activity for 2 hrs, Tier I.). It also utilizes dislodgeable foliar 
    residues (DFR) derived from the maximum application rate and an 
    estimated 20 % (upper percentile, default) of this residue remaining on 
    the turf). The calculated level of cancer risk is 1.0  x  
    106. This is considered as a worst case scenario for 
    toddlers, because the toddler default Tc = 8,700 cm22/hr 
    (high activity for 2 hrs, Tier I.), and an average of exposure over 
    time is usually used for cancer assessments (which would be considered 
    much less due to a 10% decrease each day, from dilution by rain and 
    mowing of the grass, of the 20% residue for at least 14 days, and then 
    taking the mean value of this 14 day exposure). This risk is considered 
    minimal.
        Although it is likely that toddlers also would be exposed to 
    sulfosulfuron from incidental ingestion of grass, soil, or hand-to-
    mouth transfer, no risk assessment was performed for these scenarios 
    because no relevant oral toxicological endpoints have been identified. 
    There was no acute dietary endpoint identified for sulfosulfuron.
        4. Cumulative exposure to substances with common mechanism of 
    toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering 
    whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency 
    consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of 
    a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a 
    common mechanism of toxicity.''
        EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine 
    whether sulfosulfuron has a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
    substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk 
    assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a 
    cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, 
    sulfosulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by 
    other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, 
    EPA has not assumed that sulfosulfuron has a common mechanism of 
    toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts 
    to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to 
    evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule 
    for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).
    
    D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for U.S. Population
    
        1. Acute risk.  An acute risk from the proposed use is not expected 
    because no effects attributed to a single dose (exposure) were observed 
    in oral toxicology studies including developmental toxicity in the rat 
    and the rabbit and an acute neurotoxicity study in the rat.
        2. Chronic risk. Using the theoretical maximum residue contribution 
    exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that 
    aggregate exposure to sulfosulfuron from food will utilize <1% of="" the="" rfd="" for="" the="" u.s.="" population.="" the="" major="" identifiable="" subgroup="" with="" the="" highest="" aggregate="" exposure="" is="" discussed="" below.="" epa="" generally="" has="" no="" concern="" for="" exposures="" below="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd="" because="" the="" rfd="" represents="" the="" level="" at="" or="" below="" which="" daily="" aggregate="" dietary="" exposure="" over="" a="" lifetime="" will="" not="" pose="" appreciable="" risks="" to="" human="" health.="" despite="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" sulfosulfuron="" in="" drinking="" water="" and="" from="" non-="" dietary,="" non-occupational="" exposure,="" epa="" does="" not="" expect="" the="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" exceed="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" epa="" concludes="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" that="" no="" harm="" will="" result="" from="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" sulfosulfuron="" residues.="" 3.="" short-="" and="" intermediate-term="" risk.="" short-="" and="" intermediate-term="" aggregate="" exposure="" takes="" into="" account="" chronic="" dietary="" food="" and="" water="" (considered="" to="" be="" a="" background="" exposure="" level)="" plus="" indoor="" and="" outdoor="" residential="" exposure.="" short-="" term="" and="" intermediate-term="" dermal="" and="" inhalation="" is="" not="" a="" concern="" due="" to="" the="" lack="" of="" significant="" toxicological="" effects="" observed="" with="" sulfosulfuron="" under="" these="" exposure="" scenarios.="" 4.="" aggregate="" cancer="" risk="" for="" u.s.="" population.="" the="" cancer="" aggregate="" risk="" which="" includes="" food,="" water,="" and="" the="" lifetime="" average="" daily="" dose="" from="" post="" application="" exposure="" for="" the="" general="" population="" is="" 2.05="" x="">-7 which is lower than the Agency`s negligible risk of 1 
    x  10-6.
        Aggregrate cancer risk for infants and childern. The aggregrate 
    cancer risk for infants and childern which includes food, water, and 
    lifetime average daily dose from post-application exposure is 1.1  x  
    10-6 which is considered negibile risk.
        5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
    concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
    from aggregate exposure to sulfosulfuron residues.
    
    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for Infants and Children
    
        1. Safety factor for infants and children-- i. In general. In 
    assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and 
    children to residues of Sulfosulfuron, EPA considered data from 
    developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2-generation 
    reproduction study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are 
    designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism 
    resulting from maternal pesticide exposure gestation. Reproduction 
    studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the 
    pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on 
    systemic toxicity.
        FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional 
    tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of 
    threshold effects to account for pre-and post-natal toxicity and the 
    completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a different 
    margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of 
    safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly 
    through use of a margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using 
    uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no 
    appreciable risk to humans. EPA believes that reliable data support 
    using the standard uncertainty factor (usually 100 for combined inter- 
    and intra-species variability) and not the additional tenfold MOE/
    uncertainty factor when EPA has a complete data base under existing 
    guidelines and when the severity of the effect in infants or children 
    or the potency or unusual toxic properties of a compound do not
    
    [[Page 27190]]
    
    raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the standard MOE/safety 
    factor.
        ii. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity. The developmental and 
    reproductive toxicity data did not indicate increased susceptibility to 
    in utero and/or postnatal exposure.
        iii. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity database for 
    Sulfosulfuron and exposure data is complete or is estimated based on 
    data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures.
        Based on these data, there is no indication that the developing 
    fetus or neonate is more sensitive than adult animals. Acceptable acute 
    and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats have been submitted to the 
    Agency. There were no data gaps for the assessment of the neurotoxic 
    potential of sulfosulfuron. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in 
    other studies (including a rat 90-day feeding toxicity study, rat 2-
    year chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study, dog oral (capsule) 90-day 
    study and a dog 1 year oral (capsule) toxicity study, conducted on 
    sulfosulfuron. The Agency believes that reliable data support the use 
    of the standard 100-fold uncertainly factor, and that a tenfold (10x) 
    uncertainty factor to protect the safety of infants and children should 
    not be retained.
        2. Acute risk. There are no acute toxicological endpoints for 
    sulfosulfuron. The Agency concludes that establishment of the proposed 
    tolerances would not pose an unacceptable aggregate risk.
        3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
    unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to Sulfosulfuron from 
    food will utilize < 1%="" of="" the="" rfd="" for="" infants="" and="" children.="" epa="" generally="" has="" no="" concern="" for="" exposures="" below="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd="" because="" the="" rfd="" represents="" the="" level="" at="" or="" below="" which="" daily="" aggregate="" dietary="" exposure="" over="" a="" lifetime="" will="" not="" pose="" appreciable="" risks="" to="" human="" health.="" despite="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" sulfosulfuron="" in="" drinking="" water="" and="" from="" non-dietary,="" non-occupational="" exposure,="" epa="" does="" not="" expect="" the="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" exceed="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" 4.="" short-="" or="" intermediate-term="" risk.="" short-term="" and="" intermediate-="" term="" dermal="" and="" inhalation="" risk="" is="" not="" a="" concern="" due="" to="" lack="" of="" significant="" toxicological="" effects="" observed="" with="" sulfosulfuron="" under="" these="" exposure="" scenarios.="" 5.="" aggregrate="" cancer="" risk="" for="" infants="" and="" childern.="" the="" aggregrate="" cancer="" risk="" for="" infants="" and="" childern="" which="" includes="" food,="" water,="" and="" lifetime="" average="" daily="" dose="" from="" post-application="" exposure="" is="" 1.1="" x="">-6 which is considered negibile risk.
        6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
    concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
    to infants and children from aggregate exposure to Sulfosulfuron 
    residues.
    
    III. Other Considerations
    
    A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals
    
        The guideline requirement for an animal metabolism study is 
    satisfied. Sulfosulfuron is rapidly excreted, primarily unmetabolized. 
    Excretion at low dose occurred primarily in the urine, whereas at high 
    dose, a large percentage of the administered dose was excreted in the 
    feces. Sulfosulfuron was not retained in tissues to any significant 
    extent.
        The nature of the residue in plants is understood. The sulfonyl 
    urea bond is cleaved in soil prior to uptake by wheat and Pd-
    metabolites are taken up less readily than Im-metabolites. Metabolite 
    formation appears to occur by demethylation and cleavage of sulfonyl 
    urea bond.start
    
    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
    
         An interim adequate enforcement methodology (example - gas 
    chromatography) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The 
    method is undergoing modification to improve the method. The improved 
    method, when available, may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, 
    IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection 
    Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and 
    telephone number: Rm. 101FF, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 
    Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5229. The interim method is available from the 
    Analytical Chemistry Lab, BEAD (7503C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
    Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, 
    (703) 305-2905.
    
    C. Magnitude of Residues
    
        Residues of 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2-ethanesulfonyl-
    imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and its metabolites that are 
    converted to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazol[1,2-a]pyridine and calculated 
    as sulfosulfuron are not expected to exceed on wheat grain 0.02 ppm, 
    wheat straw 0.1 ppm, wheat hay 0.3 ppm, wheat forage 4.0 ppm, milk 
    0.006 ppm, fat and meat of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep 0.005 
    ppm, and meat by-products of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 
    0.05 ppm.
    
    D. International Residue Limits
    
        No Codex or Mexican MRLs are established for sulfosulfuron. 
    Canadian MRLs exist for sulfosulfuron on wheat grain at 0.02 mg/kg; 
    milk at 0.006 mg/kg, meat and fat of cattle, goat, swine, horse , sheep 
    and poultry at 0.005 mg/kg, eggs at 0.0005 mg/kg; and meat by products 
    of cattle, goat, swine, horse, sheep and poultry at 0.05 mg/kg. The 
    Canadian MRLs are the same as the United States tolerances. No Canadian 
    MRLs exist for wheat straw, wheat hay, and wheat forage. These 
    tolerances are necessary to support use patterns in the United States.
    
    E. Rotational Crop Restrictions
    
        Based on the results of the confined accumulation in rotational 
    crops study, the appropriate plantback intervals are: 30 days for leafy 
    and root crops. Limited rotational field trials are required to 
    determine the appropriate rotation intervals for all other crops 
    (except wheat).
    
    IV. Conclusion
    
        Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of 
    sulfosulfuron, 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2yl)-3-[(2-ethanesulfonyl-
    imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-yl)sulfonyl]urea and its metabolites converted 
    to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine and calculated as 
    sulfosulfuron, in wheat grain at 0.02 ppm, wheat straw at 0.1 ppm, 
    wheat hay at 0.3 ppm, wheat forage at 4.0 ppm, milk at 0.006 ppm, fat 
    and meat of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 0.005 ppm, and 
    meat by-products of cattle, goat, swine, horse, and sheep at 0.05 ppm.
    
    V. Objections and Hearing Requests
    
        The new FFDCA section 408(g) provides essentially the same process 
    for persons to ``object'' to a tolerance regulation as was provided in 
    the old section 408 and in section 409. However, the period for filing 
    objections is 60 days, rather than 30 days. EPA currently has 
    procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and 
    hearing requests. These regulations will require some modification to 
    reflect the new law. However, until those modifications can be made, 
    EPA will continue to use those procedural regulations with appropriate 
    adjustments to reflect the new law.
        Any person may, by July 19, 1999, file written objections to any 
    aspect of this 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 under the ``ADDRESSES'' section (40
    
    [[Page 27191]]
    
    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 
    regulation. 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). EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement 
    ``when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is 
    equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For 
    additional information regarding tolerance objection fee waivers, 
    contact James Tompkins, 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. 239, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, 
    (703) 305-5697, tompkins.jim@epa.gov. Requests for waiver of tolerance 
    objection fees should be sent to James Hollins, Information Resources 
    and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
    Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
        If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement 
    of the factual issues on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's 
    contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon 
    by the requestor (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 issues in the 
    manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action 
    requested (40 CFR 178.32). Information submitted in connection with an 
    objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any 
    part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not 
    be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
    part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be 
    submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked 
    confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    
    VI. Public Record and Electronic Submissions
    
        EPA has established a record for this regulation under docket 
    control number [OPP-300853] (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 8:30 a.m. 
    to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public 
    record is located in Rm. 119 of the Public Information and Records 
    Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), 
    Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM #2, 
    1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
        Objections and hearing requests may be sent by e-mail directly to 
    EPA at:
        opp-docket@epa.gov.
    
        E-mailed objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an 
    ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
    encryption.
        The official record for this regulation, as well as the public 
    version, as described in this unit 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 record which 
    will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The 
    official record is the paper record maintained at the Virginia address 
    in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
    
    VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
    
    A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders
    
        This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the 
    FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
    Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
    review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
    Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This final 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) (Pub. L. 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 require OMB review in accordance with Executive Order 
    13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
    and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
        In addition, since tolerances and exemptions that are established 
    on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 
    tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed 
    rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 
    U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. Nevertheless, the Agency previously 
    assessed whether establishing tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, 
    raising tolerance levels or expanding exemptions might adversely impact 
    small entities and concluded, as a generic matter, that there is no 
    adverse economic impact. The factual basis for the Agency's generic 
    certification for tolerance actions published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 
    24950), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
    Business Administration.
    
    B. Executive Order 12875
    
        Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the 
    Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may 
    not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates 
    a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal 
    government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
    costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA 
    must provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
    consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal 
    governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
    communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
    need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
    requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
    officials and other representatives of State, local, and tribal 
    governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
    of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
        Today's rule does not create an unfunded Federal mandate on State, 
    local, or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable 
    duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) 
    of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
    
    C. Executive Order 13084
    
        Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination 
    with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR
    
    [[Page 27192]]
    
    27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
    required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
    communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
    direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
    government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
    costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
    EPA must provide OMB, in a separately identified section of the 
    preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
    consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
    summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
    need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
    requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
    officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
    provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
    policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
    communities.''
        Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
    communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
    or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
    requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
    this rule.
    
    VIII. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    
        The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
    provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating 
    the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
    to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United 
    States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
    required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
    Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
    to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
    ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    
    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 6, 1999.
    
    Susan B. Hazen,
    
    Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
        Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 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), 346(a) and 371.
    
        2. Section 180.552 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 180.552  Sulfosulfuron; tolerances for residues.
    
        (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
    herbicide sulfosulfuron, 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-[(2-
    ethanesulfonyl-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-yl) sulfonyl]urea and its 
    metabolites converted to 2-(ethylsulfonyl)-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine and 
    calculated as sulfosulfuron in or on the raw agricultural commodities.
    
     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Parts
                               Commodity                               per
                                                                     million
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cattle, fat....................................................   0.005
    Cattle, meat...................................................   0.005
    Cattle, meat by-products.......................................   0.05
    Goat, fat......................................................   0.005
    Goat, meat.....................................................   0.005
    Goat, meat by-products.........................................   0.05
    Horse, fat.....................................................   0.005
    Horse, meat....................................................   0.005
    Horse, meat by-products........................................   0.05
    Milk...........................................................   0.006
    Sheep, fat.....................................................   0.005
    Sheep, meat....................................................   0.005
    Sheep, meat by-products........................................   0.05
    Swine, fat.....................................................   0.005
    Swine, meat....................................................   0.005
    Swine, meat by-products........................................   0.05
    Wheat, forage..................................................   4.0
    Wheat, grain...................................................   0.02
    Wheat, hay.....................................................   0.3
    Wheat, straw...................................................   0.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
        (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
        (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
        (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
    
    [FR Doc. 99-12247 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
5/19/1999
Published:
05/19/1999
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-12247
Dates:
This regulation is effective May 19, 1999. Objections and requests for hearings must be received by EPA on or before July 19, 1999.
Pages:
27186-27192 (7 pages)
Docket Numbers:
OPP-300853, FRL-6078-4
RINs:
2070-AB78
PDF File:
99-12247.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 180.552