Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0134-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Diallyl Sulfides; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance
Posted Date: 2003-07-09T04:00Z

40803
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations

2.
Section
180.505
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.505
Emamectin;
tolerances
for
residues.
(
a)
General.
Tolerances
are
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
emamectin,
(
a
mixture
of
a
minimum
of
90%
4 ­
epi­
methylamino­
4 ­
deoxyavermectin
B1a
and
maximum
of
10%
4 ­
epi­
methylamino­
4 ­
deoxyavermectin
B1b)
and
its
metabolites
8,9­
isomer
of
the
B1a
and
B1b
component
of
the
parent
(
8,9­
ZMA),
or
4 ­
deoxy­
4 ­
epi­
amino­
avermectin
B1a
and
4 ­
deoxy­
4 ­
epi­
amino­
avermectin
B1b;
4 ­
deoxy­
4 ­
epi­
amino
avermectin
B1a
(
AB1a);
4 ­
deoxy­
4 ­
epi­(
N­
formyl­
Nmethyl
amino­
avermectin
(
MFB1a);
and
4 ­
deoxy­
4 ­
epi­(
N­
formyl)
aminoavermectin
B1a
(
FAB1a),
in
or
on
the
following
commodities:

Commodity
Parts
per
million
Cotton,
gin
byproduct
...............
0.050
Cotton,
undelinted
seed
...........
0.025
Tomato,
paste
...........................
0.150
Turnip,
greens
..........................
0.050
Vegetable,
Brassica,
leafy,
group
5
..................................
0.050
Vegetable,
fruiting,
group
8
......
0.020
Vegetable,
leafy,
except
Brassica
group
4
.........................
0.100
(
b)
Section
18
emergency
exemptions.
[
Reserved]
(
c)
Tolerances
with
regional
registrations.
[
Reserved]
(
d)
Indirect
and
inadvertant
residues.
Tolerances
are
established
for
indirect
or
inadvertent
combined
residues
of
emamectin
(
MAB1a
+
MAB1b
isomers)
and
the
associated
8,9­
Z
isomers
(
8,9­
ZB1a
+
8,9­
ZB1b)
in
or
on
the
following
commodities
when
present
therein
as
a
result
of
the
application
of
emamectin
to
crops
listed
in
the
table
to
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section:

Commodity
Parts
per
million
Cattle,
fat
..................................
0.003
Cattle,
liver
................................
0.020
Cattle,
meat
..............................
0.002
Cattle,
meat
byproducts
(
except
liver)
......................................
0.005
Cattle,
milk
................................
0.003
Goats,
fat
..................................
0.003
Goats,
liver
...............................
0.020
Goats,
meat
..............................
0.002
Goats,
meat
byproducts
(
except
liver)
..............................
0.005
Goats,
milk
................................
0.003
Hogs,
fat
...................................
0.003
Hogs,
liver
.................................
0.020
Hogs,
meat
...............................
0.002
Hogs,
meat
byproducts
(
except
liver)
......................................
0.005
Hogs,
milk
.................................
0.003
Horses,
fat
................................
0.003
Commodity
Parts
per
million
Horses,
liver
..............................
0.020
Horses,
meat
............................
0.002
Horses,
meat
byproducts
(
except
liver)
..............................
0.005
Horses,
milk
..............................
0.003
Sheep,
fat
.................................
0.003
Sheep,
liver
...............................
0.020
Sheep,
meat
.............................
0.002
Sheep,
meat
byproducts
(
except
liver)
..............................
0.005
Sheep,
milk
...............................
0.003
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
17212
Filed
7
 
8
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0134;
FRL
 
7303
 
6]

Diallyl
Sulfides;
Exemption
from
the
Requirement
of
a
Tolerance
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
regulation
establishes
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
for
residues
of
diallyl
sulfides
(
DADs)
in/
on
garlic,
leeks,
onions,
and
shallots.
Platte
Chemical
Company
submitted
a
petition
to
EPA
under
section
408(
d)(
1)(
B)
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
requesting
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance.
This
regulation
eliminates
the
need
to
establish
a
maximum
permissible
level
for
residues
of
DADs
in/
on
garlic,
leeks,
onions,
and
shallots.
DATES:
This
regulation
is
effective
July
9,
2003.
Objections
and
requests
for
hearings,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0134,
must
be
received
on
or
before
September
8,
2003.

ADDRESSES:
Written
objections
and
hearing
requests
may
be
submitted
by
mail,
electronically,
or
in
person.
Please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
for
each
method
as
provided
in
Unit
IX.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
By
mail:
Driss
Benmhend,
c/
o
Product
Manager
(
PM)
90,
Biopesticides
and
Pollution
Prevention
Division
(
7511C),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
308
 
9525;
e­
mail
address:
Benmhend.
driss@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
You
may
be
affected
by
this
action
if
you
are
an
agricultural
producer,
food
manufacturer,
or
pesticide
manufacturer.
Potentially
affected
categories
and
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
the
table
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
or
not
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
If
you
have
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
 
0134.
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/.
A
frequently
updated
electronic
version
of
40
CFR
part
180
is
available
at
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
cfrhtml_
00/
Title_
40/
40cfr180
_
00.
html,
a
beta
site
currently
under
development.
To
access
the
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guidelines
referenced
in
this
document,
go
directly
to
the
guidelines
at
http://

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
08
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYR1.
SGM
09JYR1
40804
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
www.
epa.
gov/
opptsfrs/
home/
guidelin.
htm.
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.

II.
Background
and
Statutory
Findings
In
the
Federal
Register
of
November
21,
2001
(
66
FR
58481)
(
FRL
 
6802
 
2),
EPA
issued
a
notice
pursuant
to
section
408(
d)(
3)
of
the
FFDCA,
21
U.
S.
C.
346a(
d)(
3),
announcing
the
filing
of
a
pesticide
tolerance
petition
(
PP
1F6316)
by
Platte
Chemical
Company,
419
18th
Street,
Greeley,
CO
80632.
As
required
by
section
408(
d)(
2)(
A)(
i)(
I),
this
notice
included
a
summary
of
the
petition
prepared
by
the
petitioner
Platte
Chemical
Company.
There
were
no
comments
received
in
response
to
the
notice
of
filing.
The
petition
requested
that
40
CFR
part
180
be
amended
by
establishing
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
for
residues
of
diallyl
sulfides.

III.
Risk
Assessment
New
section
408(
c)(
2)(
A)(
i)
of
the
FFDCA
allows
EPA
to
establish
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
for
a
tolerance
(
the
legal
limit
for
a
pesticide
chemical
residue
in
or
on
a
food)
only
if
EPA
determines
that
the
exemption
is
``
safe.''
Section
408(
c)(
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.
.
.
.''
Additionally,
section
408(
b)(
2)(
D)
requires
that
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
performs
a
number
of
analyses
to
determine
the
risks
from
aggregate
exposure
to
pesticide
residues.
First,
EPA
determines
the
toxicity
of
pesticides.
Second,
EPA
examines
exposure
to
the
pesticide
through
food,
drinking
water,
and
through
other
exposures
that
occur
as
a
result
of
pesticide
use
in
residential
settings.

IV.
Toxicological
Profile
Consistent
with
section
408(
b)(
2)(
D)
of
FFDCA,
EPA
has
reviewed
the
available
scientific
data
and
other
relevant
information
in
support
of
this
action
and
considered
its
validity,
completeness,
and
reliability
and
the
relationship
of
this
information
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.
DADs
are
a
composition
of
diallyl
sulfides
that
includes
diallyl
monosulfide,
diallyl
disulfide,
diallyl
trisulfide,
and
diallyl
pentasulfide.
They
are
naturally
occurring
compounds
found
in
Allium
crops,
including
onion
and
garlic
and
are
partially
responsible
for
the
distinctive
odor
of
garlic.
The
end­
use
product,
Alli­
Up
is
proposed
for
use
as
a
soil
fumigant
solution
for
the
control
of
white
rot
(
Sclerotium
cepivorum)
in
garlic,
leeks,
onions,
and
shallots.
It
contains
90%
of
DADs
in
a
liquid
formulation
(
8.3
lbs
of
active
ingredient
per
gallon).
Application
is
recommended
for
any
field
that
shows
evidence
or
has
a
history
of
white
rot
infestations.
When
applied
to
infected
soils
in
conjunction
with
a
rotational
crop,
DADs
will
mimic
the
presence
of
an
Allium
crop,
which
will
in
turn
stimulate
the
germination
of
white
rot
spores
(
sclerotia).
The
germinated
spores
will
subsequently
perish
since
no
host
crop
is
present.
The
product
is
applied
through
conventional
soil
fumigation
equipment
such
as
an
enclosed
shanking
system.
Toxicity
studies
submitted
in
support
of
the
tolerance
exemption
petition,
and
the
Agency
reviews
are
compiled
in
the
public
docket
established
for
this
action
under
the
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0134.
1.
Acute
oral
toxicity
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.1100;
152
 
10;
Master
Record
Identification
Number
(
MRID)
45422907).
Five
male
and
5
female
rats
were
dosed
with
200,
600,
and
1,000
milligram/
kilogram
(
mg/
kg)
and
10
of
each
were
dosed
with
5,000
mg/
kg.
The
acute
oral
LD
50
was
determined
at
346
mg/
kg.
Treated
rats
displayed
a
number
of
abnormalities
including
breathing
abnormalities,
wobbly
gait,
decreased
defecation,
decreased
activity,
and
pilo­
erection.
The
abnormalities
are
attributed
to
hemolytic
anemia
as
it
is
experienced
by
rodents
when
feeding
on
materials
rich
on
sulfur
and
derived
from
onion
and
garlic.
2.
Acute
dermal
toxicity
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.1200;
152
 
11;
MRID
45422908).
Five
male
and
5
female
rats
were
dosed
with
1,500,
1,750,
and
2,000
mg/
kg,
observed
daily
and
weighed
weekly.
The
acute
dermal
LD50
of
DADs
in
male
rats
was
determined
to
be
1,826
mg/
kg,
in
female
2,009
mg/
kg,
and
in
sexes
combined
1,967
mg/
kg,
or
a
Toxicity
Category
II.
3.
Primary
eye
irritation
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.2400;
152
 
13;
MRID
45422909).
Six
rabbits
were
administered
DADs
in
the
right
eye
with
the
left
eye
serving
as
an
untreated
control.
Exposure
of
the
test
article
produced
corneal
opacity
in
3/
6
test
eyes
at
the
1
or
24
 
hour
scoring
interval.
Conjunctivitis
was
noted
in
6/
6
test
eyes
at
the
1
 
hour
testing
interval.
The
conjunctival
irritation
resolved
completely
in
all
animals
by
study
day
14.
Under
the
conditions
of
the
test,
DADs
are
considered
a
moderate
eye
irritant,
and
Toxicity
Category
III
for
eye
irritation.
4.
Primary
dermal
irritation
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.2500;
152
 
14;
MRID
45422910).
These
compound
are
Toxicity
Category
II
for
dermal
irritation.
Severe
skin
reactions
of
the
rabbits
exposed,
with
evident
erythema
grade
2
and
1
at
1
hour
post­
exposure
were
observed.
5.
Dermal
sensitization
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.2600;
152
 
15;
MRID
45422911).
A
dermal
sensitization
potential
test
for
DADs
was
evaluated
using
guinea
pigs.
DADs
were
found
to
be
contact
dermal
sensitizers
in
guinea
pigs,
in
accordance
with
the
Buehler
test.
6.
Mutagenicity
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.5195;
MRID
45422912).
A
Salmonella/
mammalian­
microsome
reverse
mutation
assay
(
Ames
Test)
was
done
using
DADs.
The
assay
evaluated
the
test
article
for
its
ability
to
induce
reverse
mutations
at
the
histidine
locus
in
the
genome
of
specific
Salmonella
typhimurium
tester
strains
in
both
the
presence
and
absence
of
an
exogenous
metabolic
activation
system
of
mammalian
microsomal
enzymes
derived
from
ArocolrTM
induced
rat
liver.
The
results
of
the
assay
indicate
that
under
the
conditions
of
the
study,
DADs
did
not
cause
a
positive
increase
in
the
number
of
histidine
revertants
per
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
19
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYR1.
SGM
09JYR1
40805
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
plate
of
any
of
the
tester
strains
either
in
the
presence
or
absence
of
the
microsomal
enzymes
prepared
from
the
ArocolrTM
induced
rat
liver
(
S9).
As
a
result,
Diallyl
disulfide,
the
main
component
of
DADs,
are
not
considered
mutagenics.
Data
Waivers
were
requested
for
the
following
studies:
Acute
inhalation
toxicity
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.1300;
152
 
12).
Mammalian
mutagenicity
tests
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.5195)
except
for
an
Ames
test.
90
 
Day
feeding
(
1
species)
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.3100).
90
 
Day
dermal
(
1
species)
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.3250).
90
 
Day
inhalation
(
1
species)
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.3465).
Teratogenicity
(
1
species)
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.3700).
Chronic
exposure
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.4100)
(
Tier
III)
Oncogenicity
(
OPPTS
Harmonized
Guideline
870.4200)
(
Tier
III)
DADs
are
naturally
present
in
garlic
and
other
Allium
crops
and
in
fields
planted
with
these
crops.
In
spite
of
the
long
history
of
garlic
consumption
and
exposure
to
DADs
by
humans,
no
immunotoxic
effects,
such
as
induced
dysfunction
or
inappropriate
suppressive
or
stimulatory
responses
in
components
of
the
immune
system
of
humans
or
test
animals
have
been
reported
and
are
not
expected
from
the
exposure
to
DADs.
As
a
result,
the
waiver
requests
listed
above
were
approved.

V.
Aggregate
Exposures
In
examining
aggregate
exposure,
FFDCA
section
408
directs
EPA
to
consider
available
information
concerning
exposures
from
the
pesticide
residue
in
food
and
all
other
nonoccupational
exposures,
including
drinking
water
from
ground
water
or
surface
water
and
exposure
through
pesticide
use
in
gardens,
lawns,
or
buildings
(
residential
and
other
indoor
uses).

A.
Dietary
Exposure
The
product
Alli­
Up
containing
DADs
is
intended
for
agricultural
use
as
a
soil
fumigant
for
the
purpose
of
suppression
of
onion
white
rot
(
Sclerotia
cepivorum).
The
presence
of
DADs
in
the
soil
will
stimulate
the
pathogen
to
become
active
and
seek
out
its
host,
an
Allium
sp.,
which
is
not
present.
The
pathogen
will
then
perish.
DADs
in
the
soil
are
then
subject
to
microbial
breakdown
and
adsorption
to
soil
particles.
By
the
time
the
soil
is
prepared
and
ready
for
a
new
crop,
most
DADs
have
already
dissipated.
As
a
result,
when
new
crops
are
planted,
the
likelihood
of
DADs
residue
present
in
the
mature
crop
is
considered
low.
1.
Food.
From
food
and
feed
uses.
As
explained
above,
the
presence
of
DADs
residue
in
food
is
unlikely.
Moreover,
the
primary
source
for
human
exposure
to
DADs
would
occur
through
the
consumption
of
garlic,
other
Allium
crops
or
garlic
derived
products.
There
have
been
no
reports
of
adverse
reactions
to
humans
resulting
from
the
consumption
of
Allium
crops
and
derived
products.
The
over­
all
toxicology
profile
of
DADs
suggests
that
the
risk
associated
with
acute
exposures
by
the
oral
route
would
be
low.
2.
Drinking
water
exposure.
Since
Alli­
Up
will
only
be
used
as
a
soil
fumigant,
there
is
little
if
any,
potential
for
drinking
water
exposure
from
pesticide
drift
in
the
surface
water.
Moreover,
DADs
in
the
soil
are
then
subject
to
microbial
breakdown
and
adsorption
to
soil
particles
and
dissipation
in
the
air.
Therefore,
the
level
of
residues
that
might
get
into
the
ground
water
or
surface
water
would
most
likely
be
negligible.

B.
Other
Non­
Occupational
Exposure
The
potential
for
non­
dietary
exposure
to
DADs
for
the
general
population
is
unlikely
because
potential
use
sites
are
commercial
agricultural.
Since
the
material
is
shanked
into
the
treated
soil
during
commercial
applications,
any
odor
present
would
be
similar
to
that
of
a
commercial
garlic
field
or
to
that
arising
from
freshly
cut
or
pressed
garlic
as
found
in
a
typical
household
kitchen.
EPA
is
unaware
of
any
reports
of
adverse
reactions
to
humans
resulting
from
Allium
crops
and
derived
products
odor
or
consumption.

VI.
Cumulative
Effects
Section
408(
b)(
2)(
D)(
v)
of
the
FFDCA
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
DADs
have
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,
DADs
do
not
appear
to
produce
a
toxic
metabolite
produced
by
other
substances.
For
the
purposes
of
this
tolerance
action,
therefore,
EPA
has
not
assumed
that
DADs
have
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).

VII.
Safety
Factor
for
Infants
and
Children
1.
In
general.
Section
408
of
the
FFDCA
provides
that
EPA
shall
apply
an
additional
tenfold
margin
of
safety
for
infants
and
children
in
the
case
of
threshold
effects
to
account
for
prenatal
and
postnatal
toxicity
and
the
completeness
of
the
data
base
on
toxicity
and
exposure
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
MOE
analysis
or
through
using
uncertainty
(
safety)
factors
in
calculating
a
dose
level
that
poses
no
appreciable
risk
to
humans.
2.
Prenatal
and
postnatal
sensitivity.
Based
on
the
lack
of
observed
developmental
toxicity,
EPA
has
concluded
there
is
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
to
infants,
children,
or
adults
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
DADs
residues.
Exemption
of
DADs
from
the
requirements
of
a
tolerance
should
pose
no
significant
risk
to
humans
or
the
environment.
3.
Conclusion.
There
is
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
residues
of
diallyl
sulfides
to
the
U.
S.
population.
This
includes
all
anticipated
dietary
exposures
and
all
other
exposures
for
which
there
is
reliable
information.
The
Agency
has
arrived
at
this
conclusion
based
on
the
low
levels
of
toxicity,
the
long
history
of
safe
consumption
of
garlic
and
onions
which
naturally
contain
diallyl
sulfides,
and
the
lack
of
exposure.
Levels
of
exposure
resulting
from
use
of
diallyl
sulfides
would
be
significantly
lower
than
those
found
in
the
U.
S.
population's
consumption
of
onion
and
garlic
foods
(
raw,
cooked
and
processed).
Moreover,
the
Agency
concludes
that
diallyl
sulfides
is
nontoxic
to
humans,
including
infants
and
children.
Thus,
there
is
no
threshold
effects
of
concern
and,
as
a
result
the
provision
requiring
an
additional
margin
of
safety
does
not
apply.
Further,
the
provisions
of
consumption
patterns,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
19
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYR1.
SGM
09JYR1
40806
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
special
susceptibility,
and
cumulative
effects
do
not
apply.
As
a
result,
EPA
has
not
used
a
margin
of
exposure
(
safety)
approach
to
assess
the
safety
of
diallyl
sulfides.

VIII.
Determination
of
Safety
Based
on
the
preceding
assessments,
EPA
concludes
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
to
the
general
population,
and
to
infants
and
children
from
aggregate
exposure
to
DAD
residues.

IX.
Other
Considerations
A.
Endocrine
Disruptors
EPA
is
required
under
section
408
of
the
FFDCA
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
``
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate.''
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen
and
thyroid
hormone
systems
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allow,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).
When
the
appropriate
screening
and/
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
Agency's
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
have
been
developed,
DADs
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and/
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.
Based
on
available
data,
no
endocrine
system­
related
effects
have
been
identified
with
consumption
of
DADs.
In
addition,
DADs
do
not
share
any
structural
similarity
to
any
known
endocrine
disruptive
chemical.

B.
Analytical
Method
EPA
is
establishing
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
for
the
reasons
stated
above.
Because
a
tolerance
exemption
does
not
establish
numerical
limit
for
the
amount
of
the
pesticide
chemical
residues
that
may
be
present,
and
for
the
reasons
stated
above
that
led
the
Agency
to
conclude
that
a
tolerance
exemption
was
warranted,
the
Agency
has
concluded
that
an
analytical
method
is
not
necessary
for
enforcement
purposes
for
DADs.

C.
Codex
Maximum
Residue
Level
No
Codex
maximum
residue
levels
are
established
for
residues
of
DADs
in
or
on
any
food
or
feed
crop.
There
are
no
established
tolerances
or
exemptions
from
tolerance
for
DADs
in
the
United
States.
The
Agency
has
classified
DADs
as
a
biochemical
pesticide.

X.
Conclusions
Based
on
the
toxicology
data
submitted,
there
is
reasonable
certainty
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
of
residues
of
DADs
to
the
U.
S.
population,
including
infants
and
children,
This
includes
all
anticipated
dietary
exposures
and
all
other
exposures
for
which
reliable
data
were
submitted,
accepted
and
reviewed.
The
Agency
has
no
reports
of
adverse
reactions
of
humans
resulting
from
Allium
crops
and
derived
products'
odor
or
consumption.
As
a
result,
EPA
establishes
an
exemption
from
tolerance
requirements
pursuant
to
FFDCA
section
408(
c)
and
(
d)
for
residues
of
DADs
in
or
on
garlic,
leeks,
onions,
and
shallots.

XI.
Objections
and
Hearing
Requests
Under
section
408(
g)
of
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
the
FQPA,
any
person
may
file
an
objection
to
any
aspect
of
this
regulation
and
may
also
request
a
hearing
on
those
objections.
The
EPA
procedural
regulations
which
govern
the
submission
of
objections
and
requests
for
hearings
appear
in
40
CFR
part
178.
Although
the
procedures
in
those
regulations
require
some
modification
to
reflect
the
amendments
made
to
the
FFDCA
by
the
FQPA
of
1996,
EPA
will
continue
to
use
those
procedures,
with
appropriate
adjustments,
until
the
necessary
modifications
can
be
made.
The
new
section
408(
g)
provides
essentially
the
same
process
for
persons
to
``
object''
to
a
regulation
for
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
issued
by
EPA
under
new
section
408(
d),
as
was
provided
in
the
old
FFDCA
sections
408
and
409.
However,
the
period
for
filing
objections
is
now
60
days,
rather
than
30
days.

A.
What
Do
I
Need
To
Do
To
File
an
Objection
or
Request
a
Hearing?
You
must
file
your
objection
or
request
a
hearing
on
this
regulation
in
accordance
with
the
instructions
provided
in
this
unit
and
in
40
CFR
part
178.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
you
must
identify
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0134
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
submission.
All
requests
must
be
in
writing,
and
must
be
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Hearing
Clerk
on
or
before
September
8,
2003.
1.
Filing
the
request.
Your
objection
must
specify
the
specific
provisions
in
the
regulation
that
you
object
to,
and
the
grounds
for
the
objections
(
40
CFR
178.25).
If
a
hearing
is
requested,
the
objections
must
include
a
statement
of
the
factual
issues(
s)
on
which
a
hearing
is
requested,
the
requestor's
contentions
on
such
issues,
and
a
summary
of
any
evidence
relied
upon
by
the
objector
(
40
CFR
178.27).
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.
Mail
your
written
request
to:
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
(
1900C),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
You
may
also
deliver
your
request
to
the
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
in
Rm.
104,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
The
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
is
open
from
8
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
is
(
703)
603
 
0061.
2.
Tolerance
fee
payment.
If
you
file
an
objection
or
request
a
hearing,
you
must
also
pay
the
fee
prescribed
by
40
CFR
180.33(
i)
or
request
a
waiver
of
that
fee
pursuant
to
40
CFR
180.33(
m).
You
must
mail
the
fee
to:
EPA
Headquarters
Accounting
Operations
Branch,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
P.
O.
Box
360277M,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15251.
Please
identify
the
fee
submission
by
labeling
it
``
Tolerance
Petition
Fees.''
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
the
waiver
of
these
fees,
you
may
contact
James
Tompkins
by
phone
at
(
703)
305
 
5697,
by
e­
mail
at
tompkins.
jim@
epa.
gov,
or
by
mailing
a
request
for
information
to
Mr.
Tompkins
at
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
19
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYR1.
SGM
09JYR1
40807
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
If
you
would
like
to
request
a
waiver
of
the
tolerance
objection
fees,
you
must
mail
your
request
for
such
a
waiver
to:
James
Hollins,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
3.
Copies
for
the
Docket.
In
addition
to
filing
an
objection
or
hearing
request
with
the
Hearing
Clerk
as
described
in
Unit
IX.
A.,
you
should
also
send
a
copy
of
your
request
to
the
PIRIB
for
its
inclusion
in
the
official
record
that
is
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
2.
Mail
your
copies,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0134,
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
In
person
or
by
courier,
bring
a
copy
to
the
location
of
the
PIRIB
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
2.
You
may
also
send
an
electronic
copy
of
your
request
via
e­
mail
to:
oppdocket
epa.
gov.
Please
use
an
ASCII
file
format
and
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Copies
of
electronic
objections
and
hearing
requests
will
also
be
accepted
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
6.1/
8.0
or
ASCII
file
format.
Do
not
include
any
CBI
in
your
electronic
copy.
You
may
also
submit
an
electronic
copy
of
your
request
at
many
Federal
Depository
Libraries.

B.
When
Will
the
Agency
Grant
a
Request
for
a
Hearing?
A
request
for
a
hearing
will
be
granted
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
material
submitted
shows
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
issues(
s)
in
the
manner
sought
by
the
requestor
would
be
adequate
to
justify
the
action
requested
(
40
CFR
178.32).

XII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
This
final
rule
establishes
an
exemption
from
the
tolerance
requirement
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).
Because
this
rule
has
been
exempted
from
review
under
Executive
Order
12866
due
to
its
lack
of
significance,
this
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001).
This
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)
(
Public
Law
104
 
4).
Nor
does
it
require
any
special
considerations
under
Executive
Order
12898,
entitled
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
(
59
FR
7629,
February
16,
1994);
or
OMB
review
or
any
Agency
action
under
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997).
This
action
does
not
involve
any
technical
standards
that
would
require
Agency
consideration
of
voluntary
consensus
standards
pursuant
to
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note).
Since
tolerances
and
exemptions
that
are
established
on
the
basis
of
a
petition
under
section
408(
d)
of
the
FFDCA,
such
as
the
exemption
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.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
Federalism
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999).
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
final
rule
directly
regulates
growers,
food
processors,
food
handlers
and
food
retailers,
not
States.
This
action
does
not
alter
the
relationships
or
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
by
Congress
in
the
preemption
provisions
of
section
408(
n)(
4)
of
the
FFDCA.
For
these
same
reasons,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
have
any
``
tribal
implications''
as
described
in
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000).
Executive
Order
13175,
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
rule
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

XIII.
Congressional
Review
Act
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
to
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
this
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
final
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.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
19
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYR1.
SGM
09JYR1
40808
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Dated:
June
13,
2003.
James
Jones,
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
180.1228
is
added
to
subpart
D
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.1228
Diallyl
sulfides;
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance.
An
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
is
established
for
residues
of
diallyl
sulfides
when
used
in/
on
garlic,
leeks,
onions,
and
shallots.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
17106
Filed
7
 
8
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
DEPARTMENT
OF
COMMERCE
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
50
CFR
Part
648
[
Docket
No.
030514123
 
3162
 
02;
I.
D.
041003B]

RIN
0648
 
AQ76
Fisheries
of
the
Northeastern
United
States;
Northeast
Multispecies
Fishery;
Framework
Adjustment
38
to
the
Northeast
Multispecies
Fishery
Management
Plan
AGENCY:
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS),
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
NMFS
issues
this
final
rule
to
implement
measures
contained
in
Framework
Adjustment
38
(
Framework
38)
to
the
Northeast
(
NE)
Multispecies
Fishery
Management
Plan
(
FMP)
to
exempt
a
fishery
from
the
Gulf
of
Maine
(
GOM)
Regulated
Mesh
Area
mesh
size
regulations.
Framework
38
establishes
an
exempted
small
mesh
silver
hake
(
Merluccius
bilinearis)
(
whiting)
fishery
in
the
inshore
GOM.
The
exempted
fishery
is
authorized
from
July
1
through
November
30
each
year;
requires
the
use
of
specific
exempted
grate
raised
footrope
trawl
gear;
establishes
a
maximum
whiting
possession
limit
of
7,500
lb
(
3,402
kg);
and
includes
incidental
catch
restrictions.
DATES:
This
regulation
is
effective
July
9,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Copies
of
the
Framework
38
document,
its
Regulatory
Impact
Review
(
RIR),
the
Initial
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
IRFA),
the
Environmental
Assessment
and
other
supporting
documents
for
the
framework
adjustment
are
available
from
Paul
J.
Howard,
Executive
Director,
New
England
Fishery
Management
Council
(
Council),
50
Water
Street,
Mill
2,
Newburyport,
MA
01950.
These
documents
are
also
available
online
at
http://
www.
nefmc.
org.
The
Final
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
FRFA)
consists
of
the
IRFA,
public
comments
and
responses
contained
in
this
final
rule,
and
the
summary
of
impacts
and
alternatives
contained
in
this
final
rule.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
E.
Martin
Jaffe,
Fishery
Policy
Analyst,
978
 
281
 
9272.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
final
rule
implements
measures
contained
in
Framework
38
to
the
FMP.
Details
concerning
the
justification
for
and
development
of
Framework
38
and
the
implementing
regulations
were
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
(
68
FR
27774,
May
21,
2003)
and
are
not
repeated
here.

Exempted
Grate
Raised
Footrope
Trawl
Fishery
Area
The
Exempted
Grate
Raised
Footrope
Trawl
Fishery
Area
is
an
inshore
area
in
the
GOM
extending
to
the
Loran
44500
line
and
northward
along
the
coast
of
Maine.
This
area
most
closely
represents
the
historical
whiting
fishery
and
the
area
utilized
by
the
fishermen
who
participated
in
the
experimental
whiting
grate
fisheries
between
1996
and
2002.
During
the
development
of
this
framework
adjustment,
the
Council
considered
three
options
for
the
fishery
area,
including
the
area
option
implemented
by
this
final
rule.
The
first
option
was
the
largest
area
under
consideration
and
included
an
offshore
component
to
the
area
implemented.
Another
option
was
the
smallest
area
under
consideration
and
represented
a
subset
of
the
area
implemented,
where
past
experimental
fishing
was
concentrated.
The
area
implemented
was
selected
by
the
Council,
following
an
endorsement
by
the
Plan
Development
Team
(
PDT),
even
though
sampling
was
not
conducted
throughout
the
entire
area.
The
area
was
selected
because
there
were
sufficient
similarities
(
species
composition,
hydrography,
habitat,
current
flow,
bottom
topography)
between
it
and
the
subset
where
the
experiment
occurred
to
suggest
that
bycatch
in
the
area
implemented
may
be
similar
to
that
observed
in
the
experiments.
Thus,
the
rate
of
capture
of
regulated
species
is
not
expected
to
differ
over
the
area
implemented.

Fishing
Season
The
season
for
the
GOM
Grate
Raised
Footrope
Trawl
Fishery
is
July
1­
November
30.
This
period
encompasses
the
traditional
seasonal
presence
of
whiting
along
the
coast
of
Maine
in
the
GOM
and
the
period
of
documented
catch
and
bycatch
during
research
trials
and
experimental
small
mesh
fisheries
permitted
by
NMFS
between
1996
and
2002.
The
PDT
expressed
support
for
a
season
from
July
1
to
November
30,
based
on
documented
catch
rates
and
experimental
data
from
2001
and
2002,
which
were
reviewed
by
the
PDT
in
detail.
During
the
development
of
this
framework
adjustment,
the
Council
considered
establishing
a
season
for
this
fishery
from
June
1
to
November
30,
but
ultimately
decided
to
eliminate
the
month
of
June
from
consideration
after
evaluating
the
data.
These
data
show
that
the
coastal
whiting
fishery
started
in
July
and
ended
in
November.
The
majority
of
experimental
tows
with
the
proposed
sweepless
trawl
were
conducted
during
October
and
November
2001
and
2002.
Past
experience
demonstrates
that
the
catches
of
whiting
are
generally
lower
and
the
bycatch
of
regulated
species
is
relatively
higher
during
these
months
than
during
the
summer.
Given
that
the
2001
and
2002
data
for
the
proposed
sweepless
trawl
show
low
absolute
bycatch
of
regulated
species
during
October
and
November,
the
gear
is
expected
to
fish
with
even
lower
bycatch
during
the
summer.

Gear
Specifications
There
are
several
gear
specifications
for
this
fishery,
including
net
specifications
for
the
raised
footrope
trawl,
that
are
consistent
with
those
in
the
Cape
Cod
Bay
whiting
fishery,
a
requirement
to
use
a
sweepless
trawl,
and
a
requirement
to
use
a
Nordmorestyle
grate
with
a
maximum
bar
spacing
of
50
mm
(
1.97
inches).
There
is
also
a
minimum
codend
mesh
requirement
of
2.5
inches
(
6.35
cm)
(
square
or
diamond
mesh).
Vessels
may
use
net
strengtheners
in
this
fishery,
provided
that
they
are
consistent
with
the
existing
net
strengthener
provisions
for
2.5
inch
(
6.35
cm)
mesh.

Whiting/
Offshore
Hake
Possession
Limit
There
is
a
maximum
whiting/
offshore
hake
possession
limit
of
7,500
lb
(
3,402
kg)
for
this
fishery.
Vessels
using
mesh
larger
than
the
minimum
2.5
inches
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
19
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYR1.
SGM
09JYR1