Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0128-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Forchlorfenuron; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food
Posted Date: 2003-05-16T04:00Z

26607
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
95
/
Friday,
May
16,
2003
/
Notices
EIS
No.
030215,
FINAL
EIS,
FHW,
SC,
Dave
Lyle
Boulevard
Extension,
New
Location
from
the
S.
C.
Route
161/
Dave
Lyle
Boulevard
Intersection
in
York
County
To
S.
C.
Route
75,
in
the
vicinity
of
the
U.
S.
Route
521/
S.
C.,
York
County
Metropolitan
Road
Corridor
Project,
Funding,
York
and
Lancaster
Counties,
SC,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Patrick
Tyndall
(
803)
765
 
5460.
EIS
No.
030216,
DRAFT
EIS,
FHW,
OH,
OH
 
161/
37
Improvement,
from
OH
 
161
(
New
Albany
Bypass)
to
west
of
OH
 
161/
37
Interchange
with
OH
 
16,
Funding,
Franklin
and
Licking
Counties,
OH,
Comment
Period
Ends:
July
18,
2003,
Contact:
Larry
Anderson
(
614)
469
 
6896.
EIS
No.
030217,
DRAFT
EIS,
NSA,
NM,
Chemistry
and
Metallurgy
Research
Building
Replacement
Project,
Consolidation
and
Relocation,
Los
Alamos
National
Laboratory,
Los
Alamos
County,
NM,
Comment
Period
Ends:
June
30,
2003,
Contact:
Elizabeth
Withers
(
505)
667
 
8690.
EIS
No.
030218,
FINAL
EIS,
FRC,
WY,
MT,
ND,
Grasslands
Pipeline
Project,
Interstate
Natural
Gas
Pipeline
System
Construction
and
Operation,
Docket
No.
CP02
 
037
 
000,
WY,
ND
and
MT,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Rich
McGuire
(
202)
502
 
6177.
This
document
is
available
on
the
Internet
at:
http://
www.
ferc.
gov.
EIS
No.
030219,
FINAL
EIS,
BLM,
NV,
Ivanpah
Energy
Center
Project,
500
Megawatt
(
MW)
Gas­
Fired
Electric
Power
Generating
Station
Construction
and
Operation,
Approval,
Right­
of­
Way
Grant,
BLM
Temporary
Use
Permit,
FHWA
Permit
to
Cross
Federal
Aid
Highway,
U.
S.
Army
COE
Section
10
and
404
Permits
and
NPDES
Permit
Issuance,
Clark
County,
NV,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Jerrold
E.
Crockford
(
505)
599
 
6333.
EIS
No.
030220,
FINAL
EIS,
AFS,
WI,
Cayuga
Project
Area,
Various
Resource
Management
Projects,
Chequamegon­
Nicolet
National
Forest,
Great
Divide
Ranger
District,
Ashland
County,
WI,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Debra
Sigmund
(
715)
634
 
4821.
This
document
is
available
on
the
Internet
at:
http://
www.
fs.
fed.
us/
r9/
cnnf/
natres/
index.
html.
EIS
No.
030221,
FINAL
EIS,
NOA,
Amendment
13
to
the
Fishery
Management
Plan
for
Summer
Flounder,
Scup,
and
Black
Sea
Bass,
Implementation,
in
the
Western
Atlantic
Ocean,
from
Cape
Harteras,
NC,
northward
to
the
US­
Canadian
Border,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Steven
Kokkinakis
(
202)
482
 
3639.
EIS
No.
030222,
FINAL
SUPPLEMENT,
COE,
CA,
Bel
Marin
Keys
Unit
V
Expansion
of
the
Hamilton
Wetland
Restoration
Project,
New
and
Updated
Information,
Application
for
Approval
of
Permits,
Novato
Creek,
Marin
County,
CA,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Eric
Jolliffe
(
415)
977
 
8543.

This
document
is
available
on
the
Internet
at:
http://
www.
coastalconservancy.
ca.
gov/
belmarin.

EIS
No.
030223,
FINAL
EIS,
AFS,
MT,
Post
Fire
Vegetation
and
Fuels
Management
Project,
Fuel
Reduction,
Bark
Beetle
Sanitation
and
Maintenance,
and/
or
Restoration
of
Vegetative
Communities,
Beaverhead
Deerlodge
National
Forest,
Wisdom
and
Pintler
Ranger
Districts,
Beaverhead
and
Deerlodge
Counties,
MT,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
16,
2003,
Contact:
Amy
Nerbun
(
406)
683
 
3948.
EIS
No.
030224,
DRAFT
EIS,
DOE,
NY,
West
Valley
Demonstration
Project,
Waste
Management,
Onsite
Management
and
Offsite
Transportation
of
Radioactive
Waste,
West
Valley,
Cattaraugus
County,
NY,
Comment
Period
Ends:
June
30,
2003,
Contact:
Daniel
W.
Sullivan
(
800)
633
 
5280.

Amended
Notices
EIS
No.
030198,
DRAFT
EIS,
AFS,
NV,
Jarbidge
Canyon
Project,
To
Implement
a
Road
Management
Plan
and
Construct
a
Water
Projects
along
the
Charleston­
Jarbidge
Road,
and
Reconstruct
the
South
Canyon
Road,
Humbolt­
Toiyabe
National
Forest,
Jarbidge
Ranger
District,
ELko
County,
NV,
Comment
Period
Ends:
June
23,
2003,
Contact:
Jim
Winfrey
(
775)
778
 
0229.

Revision
of
FR
Notice
Published
on
5/
9/
2003:
Correction
to
Contact
Person
Telephone
Number.

EIS
No.
030204,
FINAL
EIS,
STB,
TX,
Bayport
Loop
New
Rail
Line,
Construction
and
Operation,
Finance
Docket
No.
34079,
Houston,
Harris
County,
TX,
Wait
Period
Ends:
June
9,
2003,
Contact:
Dana
White
(
888)
229
 
7857.

Revision
of
FR
Notice
Published
on
5/
9/
2003:
Correction
of
EIS
Status
from
Draft
EIS
to
Final
EIS.
Correction
of
CEQ
Comment
Period
Ending
6/
23/
2003
to
Wait
Period
Ending
6/
9/
2003.
Dated:
May
13,
2003.
Joseph
C.
Montgomery,
Director,
NEPA
Compliance
Division,
Office
of
Federal
Activities.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
12351
Filed
5
 
15
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0128;
FRL
 
7303
 
2]

Forchlorfenuron;
Notice
of
Filing
a
Pesticide
Petition
to
Establish
a
Tolerance
for
a
Certain
Pesticide
Chemical
in
or
on
Food
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
This
notice
announces
the
initial
filing
of
a
pesticide
petition
proposing
the
establishment
of
regulations
for
residues
of
a
certain
pesticide
chemical
in
or
on
various
food
commodities.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0128,
must
be
received
on
or
before
June
16,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Dennis
McNeilly,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
308
 
6742;
e­
mail
address:
mcneilly.
dennis@
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
01:
28
May
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
16MYN1.
SGM
16MYN1
26608
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
95
/
Friday,
May
16,
2003
/
Notices
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
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
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0128.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
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.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

C.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
in
this
unit,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
email
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
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.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0128.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
e­
mail
to
opp­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0128.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
01:
28
May
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
16MYN1.
SGM
16MYN1
26609
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
95
/
Friday,
May
16,
2003
/
Notices
2.
By
mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
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
 
2003
 
0128.
3.
By
hand
delivery
or
courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0128.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
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
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
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
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
copies
of
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
the
estimate
that
you
provide.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
deadline
in
this
notice.
7.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
be
sure
to
identify
the
docket
ID
number
assigned
to
this
action
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
You
may
also
provide
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation.

II.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking?

EPA
has
received
a
pesticide
petition
as
follows
proposing
the
establishment
and/
or
amendment
of
regulations
for
residues
of
a
certain
pesticide
chemical
in
or
on
various
food
commodities
under
section
408
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
21
U.
S.
C.
346a.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
petition
contains
data
or
information
regarding
the
elements
set
forth
in
FFDCA
section
408(
d)(
2);
however,
EPA
has
not
fully
evaluated
the
sufficiency
of
the
submitted
data
at
this
time
or
whether
the
data
support
granting
of
the
petition.
Additional
data
may
be
needed
before
EPA
rules
on
the
petition.

List
of
Subjects
Environmental
protection,
Agricultural
commodities,
Feed
additives,
Food
additives,
Pesticides
and
pests,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
May
7,
2003.
Debra
Edwards,
Director,
Registration
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

Summary
of
Petition
The
petitioner's
summary
of
the
pesticide
petition
is
printed
below
as
required
by
FFDCA
section
408(
d)(
3).
The
summary
of
the
petition
was
prepared
by
the
petitioner
and
represents
the
view
of
the
petitioner.
The
petition
summary
announces
the
availability
of
a
description
of
the
analytical
methods
available
to
EPA
for
the
detection
and
measurement
of
the
pesticide
chemical
residues
or
an
explanation
of
why
no
such
method
is
needed.

KIM­
C1,
LLC
PP
3F6550
EPA
has
received
a
pesticide
petition
(
3F6550)
from
KIM­
C1,
LLC,
c/
o
Siemer
&
Associates,
Inc.,
4672
W.
Jennifer,
Ste.
103,
Fresno,
CA
93722
proposing,
pursuant
to
section
408(
d)
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
21
U.
S.
C.
346a(
d),
to
amend
40
CFR
part
180
by
establishing
a
tolerance
for
residues
of
Forchlorfenuron
(
CPPU)
in
or
on
the
raw
agricultural
commodities
grapes
and
kiwifruit
and
the
processed
commodity
raisins
at
0.03
parts
per
million
(
ppm).
EPA
has
determined
that
the
petition
contains
data
or
information
regarding
the
elements
set
forth
in
section
408(
d)(
2)
of
the
FFDCA;
however,
EPA
has
not
fully
evaluated
the
sufficiency
of
the
submitted
data
at
this
time
or
whether
the
data
supports
granting
of
the
petition.
Additional
data
may
be
needed
before
EPA
rules
on
the
petition.

A.
Residue
Chemistry
1.
Plant
metabolism.
14C
radiolabel
studies
were
conducted
on
apples,
grapes,
and
kiwifruit.
Results
of
these
three
studies
showed
that
the
metabolism
of
CPPU
in
apples,
grapes,
and
kiwifruit
is
similar,
if
not
identical.
Metabolism
of
CPPU
in
these
crops
involved
hydroxylation
of
the
phenylring
to
form
3­
hydroxy­
CPPU
or
4­
hydroxy­
CPPU
followed
by
conjugation
with
glucose
to
form
b­
glycosides.
These
studies
were
conducted
using
CPPU
at
15
ppm
and
75
ppm.
Most
of
the
residue
remained
on
the
treated
surface
and
was
primarily
associated
with
pulp
tissue.
Very
little
radioactivity
was
found
in
the
juice.
2.
Analytical
method.
Two
analytical
methods,
both
based
on
high
performance
liquid
chromatography
(
HPLC)
procedures
have
been
developed.
The
first
used
a
visible
ultraviolet
(
UV)
detector
while
the
second
used
a
Mass
Spec
detector.
Since
the
Mass
Spec
detector
is
capable
of
both
qualitative
as
well
as
quantitative
measurement
it
is
the
preferred
method.
The
level
of
quantification
(
LOQ)
in
whole
grape
fruit
was
0.01
ppm;
the
level
of
detection
(
LOD)
was
0.003
ppm.
In
grape
juice,
the
LOQ
was
0.002
ppm
and
the
LOD
was
0.007
ppm
(
0.7
parts
per
billion
(
ppb)).
In
raisins,
the
LOQ
was
0.01
ppm
and
the
LOD
was
0.003
ppm.
3.
Magnitude
of
residues.
The
magnitude
of
the
residues
in
or
on
grapes,
excluding
outliers
three
standard
deviations
beyond
the
mean,
are
0.03
ppm.
One
outlier
was
at
0.04
ppm.
Grape
juice
residues
are
below
0.01
ppm.
Raisin
residues
are
at
or
below
0.02
ppm
while
kiwifruit
will
be
at
or
below
0.1
ppm.

B.
Toxicological
Profile
A
full
battery
of
toxicology
testing
including
studies
of
acute,
subchronic,
chronic,
oncogenicity,
developmental,
reproductive
and
genotoxicity
effect
is
available
for
CPPU.
The
acute
toxicity
of
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
01:
28
May
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
16MYN1.
SGM
16MYN1
26610
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
95
/
Friday,
May
16,
2003
/
Notices
CPPU
is
low
by
all
routes.
The
lowest
subchronic
study
no
observed
effect
level
(
NOEL)
value
is
16.8
milligrams/
kilogram/
day
(
mg/
kg/
day)
obtained
from
the
dog
90
 
day
toxicity
study.
Chronic
studies
indicate
that
CPPU
is
not
carcinogenic.
The
lowest
chronic
dietary
NOEL
is
7
mg/
kg/
day
from
male
rats
fed
CPPU
for
104
weeks.
CPPU
showed
no
evidence
of
developmental
toxicity
in
rats
and
rabbits.
In
a
rat
reproduction
study,
reproductive
effects
were
only
observed
at
maternally
toxic
doses.
Finally,
genetic
toxicity
studies
indicate
that
CPPU
is
not
genotoxic.
For
the
purposes
of
dietary
risk
analysis,
0.07
mg/
kg/
day
is
proposed
for
the
chronic
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(
cPAD).
The
cPAD
is
based
on
a
chronic
endpoint
of
7
mg/
kg/
day
which
is
the
NOEL
for
males
from
the
rat
chronic/
oncogenicity
feeding
study
and
an
uncertainty
factor
of
100.
No
acute
toxicity
endpoint
could
be
identified
and
therefore
an
acute
dietary
risk
assessment
is
considered
unnecessary.
1.
Acute
toxicity.
The
acute
toxicity
of
CPPU
is
low
by
all
routes.
The
battery
of
acute
toxicity
studies
place
CPPU
into
Toxicity
Category
III.
CPPU
has
low
acute
toxicity
when
administered
orally,
dermally
or
via
inhalation
to
rats.
It
is
not
a
skin
irritant
and
is
only
a
mild
eye
irritant.
CPPU
is
not
a
skin
sensitizer.
2.
Genotoxicity.
The
genotoxic
potential
of
CPPU
was
studied
in
vitro
in
bacteria
and
mammalian
cells
and
in
vivo
in
the
unscheduled
DNA
synthesis
test.
The
test
systems
assayed
did
not
show
any
evidence
of
genotoxicity
except
in
the
bacterial
mutagenicity
assay,
strain
TA1535,
without
metabolic
activation.
The
weight
of
the
evidence
indicates
that
CPPU
does
not
possess
significant
genotoxicity
concerns.
3.
Reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity.
Developmental
effects
of
CPPU
were
studied
in
rats
and
rabbits
and
multigenerational
effects
on
reproduction
were
studied
in
rats.
i.
Rat
developmental.
In
the
developmental
toxicity
study
conducted
with
rats,
CPPU
was
administered
by
gavage
at
levels
of
0,
100,
200
and
400
mg/
kg/
day.
The
maternal
and
developmental
no
observed
adverse
effect
levels
(
NOAELs)
are
200
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
reduced
body
weights,
body
weight
gain
and
food
consumption
and
an
increased
incidence
of
alopecia
in
dams.
There
were
no
developmental
effects.
ii.
Rabbit
developmental.
In
the
rabbit
developmental
study,
gavage
doses
of
0,
25,
50
and
100
mg/
kg/
day
were
administered.
Maternal
toxicity
(
decreased
body
weight
and
body
weight
gains)
was
observed
at
50
mg/
kg/
day
and
above.
The
maternal
NOAEL
is
25
mg/
kg/
day
and
the
developmental
NOAEL
is
100
mg/
kg/
day.
There
were
no
developmental
effects.
iii.
Reproduction.
In
the
rat
reproduction
study,
CPPU
was
administered
in
the
diet
at
levels
of
0,
150,
2,000,
and
7,500
ppm
for
two
generations.
There
were
no
adverse
effects
of
CPPU
on
reproductive
success.
Parental
toxicity
consisted
of
clinical
signs,
inhibition
of
body
weight
gain,
reduced
food
consumption,
and
macroscopic
and
microscopic
effects
in
the
kidney.
Reproductive
toxicity
at
the
highest
dose
consisted
of
slightly
reduced
live
litter
sizes
in
the
F2
litters.
In
the
pups,
body
weights
and
survival
(
late
lactation
period)
were
reduced
and
at
the
high
dose,
pup
mortality
and
emaciation
was
increased.
The
parental,
pup,
and
reproductive
NOAELs
are
150
ppm,
150
ppm,
and
2,000
ppm,
respectively.
4.
Subchronic
toxicity.
Subchronic
toxicity
studies
have
been
conducted
with
CPPU
in
the
rat,
mouse,
and
dog.
i.
Rats.
CPPU
technical
was
tested
in
rats
in
a
3
 
month
study
at
dietary
levels
of
0,
200,
1,000
and
5,000
ppm.
Observations
were
decreased
body
weight,
body
weight
gain
and
food
efficiency.
The
NOAEL
in
males
is
5,000
ppm
(
400
mg/
kg/
day)
and
in
females
is
1,000
ppm
(
84
mg/
kg/
day).
ii.
Mice.
A
13
 
week
feeding
study
in
mice
was
conducted
at
dose
levels
of
0,
900,
1,800,
3,500
and
7,000
ppm.
Effects
included
decreased
body
weight
and
food
consumption,
increased
relative
liver
weight
and
lymphocytic
cell
infiltration
in
the
kidneys.
The
NOAEL
is
3,500
ppm
(
609
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
788
mg/
kg/
day
in
females).
iii.
Dogs.
A
13
 
week
dietary
toxicity
study
was
conducted
in
beagle
dogs
at
dose
levels
of
0,
50,
500
and
5,000
ppm.
Effects
included
decreased
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency.
The
NOAEL
for
both
sexes
was
500
ppm
(
16.8
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
19.1
mg/
kg/
day
in
females).
5.
Chronic
toxicity.
CPPU
has
been
tested
in
chronic
studies
in
dogs,
rats,
and
mice.
i.
Rats.
In
a
104
 
week
chronic/
oncogenicity
study
in
rats,
CPPU
was
administered
at
dose
levels
of
0,
150,
2,000
and
7,500
ppm
in
the
diet.
Findings
were
decreased
body
weight,
body
weight
gain
and
food
consumption,
and
organ
weight
and
histopathological
effects
in
the
kidney.
No
oncogenicity
was
found.
The
NOAEL
for
this
study
is
150
ppm
(
7
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
9
mg/
kg/
day
in
females).
ii.
Mice.
CPPU
was
administered
in
the
diet
to
mice
for
78
 
weeks
at
dose
levels
of
0,
10
and
1,000
mg/
kg/
day.
Observations
were
decreased
body
weight
and
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption,
increased
kidney
weights
and
incidence
of
chronic
kidney
histopathological
lesions.
The
NOAEL
for
both
sexes
is
10
mg/
kg/
day.
iii.
Dogs.
In
a
12
 
month
study,
CPPU
was
administered
in
the
diet
to
dogs
at
dose
levels
of
0,
150,
3,000
and
7,500
ppm.
Observations
included
reduced
body
weight,
body
weight
gain
and
food
consumption
and
various
hematology
changes.
The
NOAEL
for
both
sexes
was
3,000
ppm
(
87
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
91
mg/
kg/
day
in
females).
iv.
Carcinogenicity.
CPPU
did
not
produce
carcinogenicity
in
chronic
studies
with
rats
or
mice.
The
oncogenicity
classification
of
CPPU
will
be
``
E''
(
no
evidence
of
carcinogenicity
for
humans).
6.
Animal
metabolism.
A
rat
metabolism
study
indicates
that
CPPU
is
almost
completely
absorbed
and
most
of
the
14C­
CPPU­
derived
radioactivity
is
rapidly
eliminated
primarily
via
the
urine.
The
majority
of
the
metabolism
of
CPPU
was
via
hydroxylation
of
the
phenyl
ring.
The
sulfate
conjugate
of
hyrdoxyl
CPPU
was
the
major
metabolite
excreted
in
the
urine,
accounting
for
as
much
as
approximately
96%
of
the
urinary
radioactivity.
Tissue
residues
accounted
for
less
than
1%
of
the
administered
dose
at
168
hours
post­
dosing.
7.
Metabolite
toxicology.
Metabolites
occur
at
levels
below
0.1
ppm
and
therefore
are
below
levels
required
to
be
assayed
in
animal
testing.
8.
Endocrine
disruption
 
Potential
endocrine
effects.
No
special
studies
to
investigate
the
potential
for
endocrine
effects
of
CPPU
have
been
performed.
However,
as
summarized
above,
a
large
and
detailed
toxicology
data
base
exists
for
the
compound
including
studies
in
all
required
categories.
These
studies
include
acute,
sub­
chronic,
chronic,
developmental,
and
reproductive
toxicology
studies
including
detailed
histology
and
histopathology
of
numerous
tissues,
including
endocrine
organs,
following
repeated
or
long­
term
exposures.
These
studies
are
considered
capable
of
revealing
endocrine
effects.
The
results
of
all
of
these
studies
show
no
evidence
of
any
endocrine­
mediated
effects
and
no
pathology
of
the
endocrine
organs.
Consequently,
it
is
concluded
that
CPPU
does
not
possess
estrogenic
or
endocrine
disrupting
properties.

C.
Aggregate
Exposure
1.
Dietary
exposure.
This
dietary
risk
assessment
was
conducted
by
Infoscientific.
com
for
KIM­
C1,
LLC.
The
dietary
exposure
assessment
was
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
01:
58
May
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
16MYN1.
SGM
16MYN1
26611
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
95
/
Friday,
May
16,
2003
/
Notices
conducted
for
foods
containing
forchlorfenuron:
Chemical
Abstracts
Service
(
CAS):
68157
 
60
 
8
(
CPPU)
by
using
the
CARES
(
Cumulative
and
Aggregate
Risk
Evaluation
System)
model.
The
data
input
included
the
following
categories
of
data
for
performing
the
dietary
exposure
assessment:
Subpopulations
of
interest,
(
infants
1
to
2
years
of
age
and
adults
20
to
49
years
of
age);
List
of
foods
which
were:
blueberry,
grape,
grape
juice,
grape
raisin,
grape
wine/
sherry,
and
kiwifruit;
food
residues
which
were:
0.001
(
blueberry
baby
food),
0.0007
for
grape
juice,
0.0007
for
grape
juice
in
baby
food,
0.03
for
raisins,
0.007
for
grape
as
wine/
sherry,
and
0.01
for
kiwifruit;
and
toxicological
benchmarks
which
were
0.07
mg/
kg/
day
for
the
oral
no
observed
effect
level
(
NOEL)
on
a
chronic
(
365
 
day)
basis
and
25
mg/
kg/
day
for
the
oral
NOEL
based
on
an
acute
(
1
 
day)
basis.
The
FCID
(
Food
Consumption
Information
Database)
data
set
was
used
to
obtain
food
consumption
data
in
grams
per
kilogram
of
body
weight.
i.
Food.
The
chronic
dietary
exposure
calculations
for
infants
(
1
to
2
years
old)
indicate
that
over
a
period
of
one
year:
 
99.9%
of
infants
would
ingest
less
than
0.0000515
mg/
kg/
day
(
0.071%
of
Oral
NOEL)
 
99.0%
of
infants
would
ingest
less
than
0.0000469
mg/
kg/
day
(
0.067%
of
Oral
NOEL)
 
95.0%
of
infants
would
ingest
less
than
0.0000429
mg/
kg/
day
(
0.061%
of
Oral
NOEL)
Similar
dietary
exposure
calculations
for
adults
(
20
to
49
years
old)
indicate
that:
 
99.9%
of
adults
would
ingest
less
than
0.0000076
mg/
kg/
day
(
0.011%
of
Oral
NOEL)
 
99.0%
of
adults
would
ingest
less
than
0.0000067
mg/
kg/
day
(
0.010%
of
Oral
NOEL)
 
95%
of
adults
would
ingest
less
than
0.0000060
mg/
kg/
day
(
0.009%
of
Oral
NOEL)
Blueberries
have
not
been
included
in
the
petition
for
registration
even
though
they
were
included
in
the
dietary
risk
assessment
which
is
shown
above.
Even
with
the
blueberries
included
in
the
risk
assessment
the
total
percent
of
the
oral
NOEL
on
a
chronic
basis
represents
only
0.0229%
of
the
oral
NOEL.
On
this
basis,
there
cannot
be
any
anticipated
harmful
effects
to
public
health.
Acute
(
1
 
day)
Exposure
does
not
represent
any
hazard
since
no
acute
exposure
was
identified
in
this
risk
assessment.
ii.
Drinking
water.
The
very
low
use
rate
of
CPPU,
i.
e.
10
grams
active
ingredient
or
less
per
acre
if
used
constantly
for
20
years
would
apply
less
than
0.5
pounds
of
CPPU
per
acre
during
that
20
year
period.
Computer
modeling,
using
the
conservative
pesticide
root
zone
model
(
PRZM)
means
of
analysis
has
shown
that
no
CPPU
would
reach
ground
water,
even
in
sandy
loam
soils.
The
results
of
this
risk
analysis
supported
an
unambiguous
conclusion
of
``
essentially
zero
risk
to
ground
water''
even
under
reasonable
worst­
case
assumptions.
Concentrations
are
not
predicted
to
exceed
15
to
20
ppb
of
CPPU
in
the
soil
in
the
upper
soil
horizons,
even
following
yearly
applications
for
as
long
as
30
years.
No
secondary
exposure
is
anticipated
as
a
result
of
contamination
of
drinking
water.
2.
Non­
dietary
exposure.
No
nondietary
exposure
is
expected
since
CPPU
is
not
anticipated
to
be
found
in
the
drinking
water.
This
material
does
not
translocate
in
plants
and
thus
secondary
exposure
through
plants
growing
in
soil
receiving
CPPU
is
not
anticipated.
The
extremely
low
application
rates
will
not
result
in
significant
buildup
in
the
environment.
Data
indicate
that
any
parent
material
of
CPPU
left
in
the
soil
will
be
strongly
bound
to
soil
particles
and
will
not
move.

D.
Cumulative
Effects
There
are
no
cumulative
effects
expected
since
CPPU
is
not
taken
up
by
plants
from
the
soil.
It
slowly
degrades
to
mineral
end
points.
Its
low
use
rates
and
infrequent
applications
are
not
conducive
to
build
in
the
environment.

E.
Safety
Determination
1.
U.
S.
population.
As
pointed
out
above
in
dietary
exposure­
food
the
percentage
of
the
reference
dose
consumed
by
treating
the
subject
crops
represents
less
than
1%
of
the
estimated
safe
level
for
the
most
sensitive
segment
of
the
population,
non­
nursing
infants.
2.
Infants
and
children.
No
developmental,
reproductive
or
fetotoxic
effects
have
been
associated
with
CPPU.
The
calculation
of
safety
margins
with
respect
to
these
segments
of
the
population
were
taken
into
consideration
in
the
CARES
(
Cumulative
and
Aggregate
Risk
Evaluation
System)
model
estimates
with
respect
to
the
risk
associated
with
the
percentage
of
the
reference
dose
being
consumed.

F.
International
Tolerances
There
is
no
CODEX
maximum
residue
level
established
for
CPPU.
However,
CPPU
is
registered
for
use
on
grapes
and
other
crops
in
Japan,
Chile,
Mexico,
and
South
Africa.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
12360
Filed
5
 
15
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0168;
FRL
 
7306
 
6]

(
Z,
E)­
3,13­
octadecadienyl
and
(
Z,
Z)­
3,13­
octadecadienyl;
Receipt
of
Application
for
Emergency
Exemption,
Solicitation
of
Public
Comment
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
EPA
has
received
a
specific
exemption
request
from
the
Oregon
Department
of
Agriculture
and
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Agriculture
to
use
the
pesticides
(
Z,
E)­
3,13­
octadecadienyl
and
(
Z,
Z)­
3,13­
octadecadienyl
to
treat
up
to
32,000
acres
of
hybrid
poplar
grown
for
pulp
and
saw
timber
to
control
poplar
clearwig
moth
(
WPCM).
The
Applicant
proposes
the
use
of
two
new
pheromones
which
have
not
been
registered
by
EPA.
EPA
is
soliciting
public
comment
before
making
the
decision
whether
or
not
to
grant
the
exemption.

DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0168,
must
be
received
on
or
before
May
21,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Barbara
Madden,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
6463;
fax
number:
(
703)
308
 
5433;
e­
mail
address:
Madden.
Barbara@
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
a
federal
or
state
government
agency
(
NAICS
9241)
involved
in
administration
of
environmental
quality
programs
(
i.
e.,
Departments
of
Agriculture,
Environment,
etc).
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
01:
28
May
16,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
16MYN1.
SGM
16MYN1