Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24785

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(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested. 40 CFR 178.32.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

7F3516 and 6F3417/R2123] (including

any objections and hearing requests

submitted electronically as described

below). 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.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [PP 7F3516 and 6F3417/

R2123], may be submitted to the

Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk 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 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 objections and hearing

requests submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this

document.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

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: April 24, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

§ 180.407 [Amended]

2. Section 180.407 Thiodicarb;

tolerances for residues is amended in

paragraph (b) introductory text by

changing ‘‘August 15, 1995’’ to read

‘‘August 15, 1996’’ and in paragraph (c)

introductory text by changing ‘‘August

15, 1995’’ to read ‘‘August 15, 1996’’.

[FR Doc. 95–11384 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 1F2507/R2135; FRL–4954–2]

RIN 2070–AB78

Diflubenzuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes

tolerances for residues of the insecticide

diflubenzuron in or on the raw

agricultural commodities orange,

grapefruit, and tangerine. ThompsonHayward Chemical Co. requested

pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) this regulation to

establish maximum permissible levels

for residues of diflubenzuron in or on

the commodities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections,

identified by the document control

number, [PP 1F2507/R2135], may be

submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. Fees accompanying objections

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

St., SW., 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: oppdocket@epamail.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 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 1F2507/R2135].

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email. 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: Dennis H. Edwards, Jr.,

Registration Division (7505C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 207, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-6386; email: edwards.dennis@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a public notice, published in the

Federal Register of June 22, 1981 (46 FR

32313), which announced that

Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co., P.O.

Box 2383, Kansas City, KS 66110, had

submitted petitions to EPA proposing

tolerances under section 408 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, for residues of

the insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-

chlorophenyl)amino] carbonyl]-2,6-

difluorobenzamide) in or on the raw

agricultural commodities orange,

grapefruit, and tangerine at 0.50 part per

million (ppm) and meat, milk, and eggs
24786 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

at 0.05 ppm. Thompson-Hayward

Chemical Co. (P.O. Box 2383, Kansas

City, KS 66110) assigned all data rights

and obligations connected to

diflubenzuron (DFB) to Duphar B. V. of

Amsterdam, Holland. Since then,

Duphar B.V. has merged with Solvay

and is now known as Solvay Duphar.

The petitions were subsequently

amended, withdrawing the proposed

tolerances for animal tissue, milk, and

eggs since they were already

established. The petitions were

amended a second time to include citrus

molasses at 0.05 ppm and processed

citrus products at 0.05 ppm. (50 FR

32313, August 14, 1985). It was

determined that separate tolerances

were not needed for processed citrus

products since residues in these

products were lower than in the raw

agricultural product. However, the

petition was amended to propose

establishment of tolerances for

diflubenzuron in citrus oil at 75 ppm

and in dried citrus pulp at 1 ppm (52

FR 2969, Jan. 29, 1987).

Notice of the tolerances currently

requested by the petitions were

republished on October 1, 1993 (58 FR

54357). There were no comments

received in response to any of the

notices of filing.

The data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicity data considered

in support of the tolerances include an

acute oral toxicity study in rats with a

median lethal dose (LD50) greater than

5,000 milligrams/kilogram body weight

(mg/kg), a 13-week subchronic feeding

study in rats with a no-observed-effectlevel (NOEL) of about 2 mg/kg/day

(calculated by regression analysis), a 13-

week subchronic feeding study in dogs

with a NOEL of 40 ppm in the feed (1.6

mg/kg/day), a 2-year chronic feeding

study in rats with a NOEL of 40 ppm in

the feed (1.4 mg/kg/day), and a 1-year

chronic oral (gavage) study in dogs with

a NOEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day. In all the

subchronic and chronic studies listed

above, methemoglobinemia and/or

sulfhemoglobinemia were observed at

the next higher dose level.

In a 2-year carcinogenicity study in

rats at dose levels up to 10,000 ppm in

the feed (500 mg/kg/day) and in a 91-

week carcinogenicity study in mice at

dose levels up to 10,000 ppm in the feed

(1,500 mg/kg/day), increased incidences

of tumors were not observed.

In developmental toxicity studies in

rats and rabbits, the NOEL for maternal

toxicity and for developmental toxicity

were greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day, the

highest dose tested (HDT). In a twogeneration reproduction study in rats,

the NOEL for reproductive performance

in adult rats was 50,000 ppm in the feed

(2,500 mg/kg/day). Pup weights at this

dose level were slightly reduced from

birth to 21 days in F1 offspring.

A battery of genotoxicity studies using

diflubenzuron as the test material were

negative. These studies included a

Salmonella/mammalian microsome

plate incorporation assay with and

without metabolic activation, an in vitro

chromosome damage assay using

cultures of Chinese hamster ovary cells

with and without metabolic activation,

and an unscheduled DNA synthesis

assay using cultures of primary rat

hepatocytes. A metabolism study, using

radiolabeled diflubenzuron, is also

available.

The reference dose (RfD) for

diflbenzuron is 0.02 mg/kg/day and is

based on the NOEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day in

the 1-year chronic oral study in dogs.

An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was

used to calculate the RfD. Granting the

tolerance on orange, grapefruit, and

tangerine will increase the theoretical

maximum residue contribution (TMRC)

for diflubenzuron from 0.000719 mg/kg/

day to 0.001900 mg/kg/day. The

percentage of the RfD used is increased

from 4.0 percent to approximately 10

percent. The highest DRES Population

Sub-Group ‘‘Non-Nursing Infants’’

shows an increase from 0.003538 mg/

kg/day to 0.006053 mg/kg/day,

approximately 31 percent of the RfD.

Para-chloroaniline (PCA) and 4-

clorophenylurea (CPU) are metabolites

of diflubenzuron that have been

observed in studies in lactating goats,

lactating cows, pigs, poultry, rats, and

mushrooms. A citrus metabolism study

at the proposed label rate, however, has

shown that PCA and CPU were not

detected in whole citrus fruit or in

citrus oil at levels above 1 ppb and 2

ppb, respectively. Further, PCA and

CPU have not been detected in soybean

or cotton seed. This suggests that

diflubenzuron applied to citrus plants,

soybeans, or cotton is not metabolized

to PCA or CPU.

PCA has been tested for

carcinogenicity by the National

Toxicology Program (NTP) study

[Technical Report Series No. 351, NIH

Publication No. 89-2806, July 1989].

This test included two year oral studies

in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. PCA

was administered by gavage to rats at

0,2,6, or 18 mg/kg/day and to mice at

doses of 0,3,10, or 30 mg/kg/day. A

treatment-related increased incidence of

uncommon sarcomas (fibrosarcomas,

hemangiosarcomas and osteosarcomas)

of the spleen was observed in the male

rats, and an increased incidence of

combined hepatocellular adenomas/

carcinomas was observed in male mice

in these studies. The increase in

combined tumors in male mice was

primarily due to a dose-related increase

in hepatocellular carcinomas.

Although diflubenzuron per se is

negative in cancer bioassays, a

quantitative cancer risk assessment was

performed in connection with this

tolerance because of the finding of small

amounts of PCA and CPU in animals

administered large amounts of DFB.

Possible human exposure to PCA and

CPU may result from ingestion of PCA

and CPU formed in animals consuming

feeds containing diflubenzuron residues

and also from metabolic conversion of

diflubenzuron to PCA and CPU in the

human body. In doing this risk

assessment, it was assumed that CPU

has the same carcinogenic potential and

potency as PCA. Although there is

strong evidence supporting the

carcinogenicity of PCA in rats and mice,

the assumption that CPU also may be

carcinogenic is not based on direct

testing in animals, but rather on a

comparison of the chemical structures

of CPU and PCA.

None of the test data examined by the

Agency indicated PCA and/or related

metabolites posed a significant

carcinogenic risk to humans. EPA

estimated a carcinogenic risk of 2.7 X

10-7 from PCA and related metabolites

in animal products, and 1.0 X 10-7 from

PCA and related products converted in

the human body from diflubenzuron

and 9.4 X 10-7 from PCA and related

metabolites in mushrooms for a total

cancer risk estimate for PCA and related

metabolites of 1.3 X 10-6. This estimate

was increased significantly by EPA’s

assumption that CPU is a carcinogen.

EPA concludes that any potential

human cancer risk from this use on

citrus and other established uses of

diflubenzuron is negligible.

Solvay Duphar also petitioned for

tolerances under FFDCA section 409 for

diflubenzuron on citrus pulp and citrus

oil. Tolerances are needed to prevent

processed foods from being deemed

adulterated when the processed food

when ready to eat contains a pesticide

residue at a level greater than permitted

by the corresponding section 408

tolerance. 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2). EPA has

determined, however, that the citrus

pulp and oil tolerances are not

necessary. In 1981 and 1986, EPA had

concluded that a citrus pulp tolerance

was needed due to one processing study

that showed levels of diflubenzuron in

citrus pulp 1.9 times the level in

oranges (i.e., a concentration factor of

1.9X). Other processing studies showed

that processing citrus to pulp resulted in

a reduction of diflubenzuron residues or

a lower concentration factor than 1.9X.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24787

Recently, EPA has begun averaging

results from processing studies in

determining concentration factors and,

hence, whether section 409 tolerances

are needed. When the results from all

processing studies for citrus pulp are

averaged, the concentration factor is

lowered to 1.1X. Given the variability in

analytical methods and this low

concentration factor, EPA believes that

it is unlikely that any citrus pulp

derived from citrus containing legal

levels of diflubenzuron could be reliably

determined to have levels of

diflubenzuron above the citrus

tolerance. Because it is unlikely that

citrus pulp will have levels of

diflubenzuron above the section 408

tolerance, no section 409 tolerance is

needed.

EPA has determined that no section

409 tolerance is necessary for citrus oil

because citrus oil is not a ‘‘ready to eat’’

processed food and ‘‘ready to eat’’ foods

containing citrus oil are unlikely to have

diflubenzuron residues greater than the

citrus tolerance. As noted above, under

FFDCA section 402(a)(2), processed

foods containing pesticide residues are

not deemed adulterated if the level of

pesticide residues in the processed food

‘‘when ready to eat is not greater than

the tolerance prescribed for the raw

agricultural commodity.’’ Traditionally,

EPA has treated all processed food as

‘‘ready to eat.’’ In a petition filed by the

National Food Processors Association

and others, it has been argued that

EPA’s past practice is not consistent

with the statute. Although EPA will

address this issue more fully in its

formal response to that petition, EPA

agrees that its approach to the term

‘‘ready to eat’’ has not always been in

accord with the plain meaning of that

term. EPA believes that the common

sense meaning of the term ‘‘ready to

eat’’ food is food ready for consumption

without further preparation. Citrus oil is

not consumed ‘‘as is’’ but is used as a

flavoring in other foods. As such, citrus

oil is not ‘‘ready to eat.’’ Further, the use

of citrus oil in the preparation of ‘‘ready

to eat’’ foods involves such a significant

dilution of the citrus oil that EPA

believes that it is unlikely that these

foods would contain levels of

diflubenzuron greater than the citrus

tolerance. Thus, no section 409

tolerance is needed for citrus oil.

The established tolerance of 0.05 ppm

for residues of diflubenzuron on/in eggs,

milk, fat, meat, and meat byproducts of

goats, hogs, horses, sheep, and poultry

is adequate to cover secondary residues

resulting from the proposed use as

delineated in 40 CFR 180.6(a)(2).

The metabolism of diflubenzuron for

this use on orange, grapefruit, and

tangerine is adequately understood. The

residue of concern is diflubenzuron per

se. An adequate analytical method, gas

chromatography with electron capture

detector, is available for enforcement

purposes in the Pesticide Analytical

Manual, Vol. II.

The pesticide is considered useful for

the purpose for which the tolerances are

sought. Based on the information and

data considered, the Agency concludes

that the establishment of the tolerances

for orange, grapefruit, and tangerine will

protect the public health. Therefore, the

tolerances are 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

with the Hearing Clerk, at the address

given above. 40 CFR 178.20. 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 each such

issue, 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 show the

following: There is a 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.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

1F2507/R2135] (including objections

and hearing requests submitted

electronically as described below). 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.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [PP 1F2507/R2135],

may be submitted to the Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk 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 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 objections and hearing

requests 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, Oct. 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 the Executive

Order, EPA has determined that this

rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5U.S.C. 601-612), the

Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances
24788 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12866.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-

534, 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). (Sec. 408(d)(2), 68 Stat. 512

(21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(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 5, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. Section 180.377 is amended in

paragraph (a) in the table therein by

adding and alphabetically inserting

entries for the commodities orange,

grapefruit, and tangerine, to read as

follows:

§ 180.377 Diflubenzuron; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Grapefruit .................................. 0.5

* * * * *

Orange ...................................... 0.5

* * * * *

Tangerine .................................. 0.5

* * * * *

* * * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–11495 Filed 5–5–95; 2:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4F4336/R2133; FRL–4953–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Pesticide Tolerances for Prosulfuron

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes timelimited tolerances, to expire on

December 31, 1995, for residues of the

herbicide prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-

methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-

trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea,

in or on the raw agricultural

commodities corn (fodder, forage, grain

and fresh [including sweet kernels plus

cobs with husks removed]) at 0.01 part

per million (ppm), milk at 0.01 part per

million (ppm), and fat, kidney, liver,

meat, and meat byproducts of cattle,

goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.05

part per million (ppm). Ciba-Geigy Corp.

requested this regulation pursuant to the

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA). The regulation establishes

maximum permissible levels for

residues of the herbicide in or on the

commodities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective May 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES:Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 4F4336/

R2133] maybe submitted to the Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 36277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of

objections and hearing request 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 requests for

hearings filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies and

requests for hearings must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Copies of objections and

requests for hearings will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

copies of objections and requests for

hearings in electronic form must be

identified by the docket number [PP

4F4336/R2133]. No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

copies of objections and requests for

hearings 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: Robert J. Taylor, Product Manager

(PM) 25, Registration Division

(H7505C), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: Rm. 245, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-

305-6800; e-mail:

taylor.robert@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice, published in the

Federal Register of November 2, 1994

(59 FR 54907), which announced that

the Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box 18300,

Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, had

submitted a pesticide petition, PP

4F4336, to EPA proposing to amend 40

CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance

under section 408 of the Federal Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a,

for the residues the herbicide

prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyltriazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-

phenylsulfonyl]-urea, in or on corn,

forage at 0.02 ppm; corn, fodder at 0.02

ppm; corn, grain at 0.02 ppm; corn,

fresh (including sweet kernels plus cobs

with husks removed) at 0.02 ppm; milk

at 0.02 ppm; meat byproducts, kidney

and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses,

and sheep at 0.10 ppm; poultry, fat,

kidney, liver, meat and meat byproducts

at 0.10 ppm; and eggs at 0.10 ppm.

The petitioner subsequently amended

the petition by lowering the tolerances

and withdrawing poultry from the list of

proposed tolerances. A notice was not

filed since there is less risk to man and

the environment.

There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the notice of

filing.

The data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicology data listed