Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0081-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Imidacloprid; Notice of Filing Pesticide Petitions to Establish Tolerances for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food
Posted Date: 2003-02-05T05:00Z

5880
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
24
/
Wednesday,
February
5,
2003
/
Notices
Dated:
January
22,
2003.
Linda
Vlier
Moos,
Acting
Director,
Information
Resources
Services
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
2772
Filed
2
 
4
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0081;
FRL
 
7287
 
5]

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

SUMMARY:
This
notice
announces
the
initial
filing
of
pesticide
petitions
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
 
2002
 
0081,
must
be
received
on
or
before
March
7,
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:
Sidney
Jackson,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
7610;
e­
mail
address:
jackson.
sidney@
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
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
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
To
determine
whether
you
or
your
business
may
be
affected
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
provisions
in
OPP
 
2002
 
0081.
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
 
2002
 
0081.
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
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
38
Feb
04,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
05FEN1.
SGM
05FEN1
5881
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
24
/
Wednesday,
February
5,
2003
/
Notices
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
 
2002
 
0081.
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
 
2002
 
0081.
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.
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
 
2002
 
0081.
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
 
2002
 
0081.
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.
Offer
alternative
ways
to
improve
the
notice
or
collection
activity.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
deadline
in
this
notice.
8.
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
pesticide
petitions
as
follows
proposing
the
establishment
and/
or
amendment
of
regulations
for
residues
of
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
these
petitions
contain
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:
January
24,
2003.
Peter
Caulkins,
Acting
Director,
Registration
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

Summaries
of
Petitions
The
petitioner's
summaries
of
the
pesticide
petitions
are
printed
below
as
required
by
FFDCA
section
408(
d)(
3).
The
summaries
of
the
petitions
were
prepared
by
Bayer
Corporation
and
represents
the
view
of
the
company.
The
petitions
summaries
announce
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.
The
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(
IR
 
4)
assembled
and
submitted
the
petitions
to
EPA
on
behave
of
the
Bayer
Corporation.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
38
Feb
04,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
05FEN1.
SGM
05FEN1
5882
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
24
/
Wednesday,
February
5,
2003
/
Notices
Interregional
Research
Project
Number
4
and
Bayer
Corporation
PP
1E6268,
PP
1E6254,
PP
1E6237,
PP
1E6225,
PP
0E6203,
PP
2E6403,
PP
2E6406,
PP
2E6409,
PP
2E6417,
PP
2E6421,
PP
2E6435,
PP
2E6414,
PP
2E6458,
and
PP
2E6506
EPA
has
received
pesticide
petitions
from
the
Interregional
Research
Project
Number
4
(
IR
 
4),
Technology
Centre
and
Rutgers
State
University
of
New
Jersey,
681
U.
S.
Highway
#
1
South,
North
Brunswick,
NJ
08902
 
3390
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
180.472
by
establishing
tolerances
for
the
combined
residues
of
imidacloprid,
1­(
6­
chloro­
3­
pyridinyl)
methyl­
N­
nitro­
2­
imidazolidinimine,
and
its
metabolites
containing
the
6­
chloropyridinyl
moiety,
all
expressed
as
imidacloprid
in
or
on
the
raw
agricultural
commodities
as
follows:
1.
PP
1E6268
proposes
tolerances
for
bushberry
subgroup
13B
and
lingonberry,
juneberry,
and
salal
at
3.5
parts
per
million
(
ppm).
2.
PP
1E6254
proposes
a
tolerance
for
okra
at
1.0
ppm.
3.
PP
1E6237
proposes
a
tolerance
for
watercress
at
3.5
ppm.
4.
PP
1E6225
proposes
a
tolerance
for
artichoke
at
2.5
ppm.
5.
PP
0E6203
proposes
a
tolerance
for
cranberry
at
0.05
ppm.
6.
PP
2E6403
proposes
a
tolerance
for
vegetable,
legume,
except
soybean,
group
6
at
4.0
ppm.
7.
PP
2E6406
proposes
tolerances
for
avocado,
papaya,
star
apple,
black
sapote,
mango,
sapodilla,
canistel,
and
mamey
sapote
at
1.0
ppm,
and
lychee,
longan,
Spanish
lime,
rambutan,
pulasan,
and
persimmon
at
3.0
ppm.
8.
PP
2E6409
proposes
a
tolerance
for
vegetable,
leaves
of
root
and
tuber,
group
2
at
4.0
ppm.
9.
PP
2E6417
proposes
a
tolerance
for
strawberry
at
0.5
ppm.
10.
PP
2E6421
proposes
a
tolerance
for
fruit,
stone,
group
12
at
3.0
ppm.
11.
PP
2E6435
proposes
tolerances
for
guava,
feijoa,
jaboticaba,
wax
jambu,
starfruit,
passionfruit,
and
acerola
at
1.0
ppm.
12.
PP
2E6414
proposes
tolerances
for
corn,
pop,
grain
at
0.05
ppm
and
corn,
pop,
stover
at
0.2
ppm.
13.
PP
2E6458
proposes
a
tolerance
for
mustard
seed
at
0.05
ppm.
14.
PP
2E6506
proposes
a
tolerance
for
vegetable,
root,
and
tuber,
except
sugar
beet,
group
1
at
0.4
ppm.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
petitions
contain
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
support
granting
of
the
petitions.
Additional
data
may
be
needed
before
EPA
rules
on
the
petitions.
Bayer
Corporation,
Crop
Protection,
Kansas
City,
MO
64120
 
0013
produces
the
imidacloprid
product(
s)
of
concern
for
these
pending
tolerances.

A.
Residue
Chemistry
1.
Plant
metabolism.
The
nature
of
the
imidacloprid
residue
in
plants
and
livestock
is
adequately
understood.
The
residues
of
concern
are
combined
residues
of
imidacloprid
and
it
metabolites
containing
the
6­
chloropyridinyl
moiety,
all
calculated
as
imidacloprid.
2.
Analytical
method.
The
analytical
method
is
a
common
moiety
method
for
imidacloprid
and
its
metabolites
containing
the
6­
chloropyridinyl
moiety
using
a
permanganate
oxidation,
silyl
derivatization,
and
capillary
gas
chromatography/
mass
spectrometry
(
GC/
MS)
selective
ion
monitoring.
This
method
has
successfully
passed
a
petition
method
validation
in
EPA
labs.
There
is
a
confirmatory
method
specifically
for
imidacloprid
and
several
metabolites
utilizing
GC/
MS
and
high
performance
liquid
chromotography/
using
ultra­
violet
detection
(
HPLC/
UV)
which
has
been
validated
by
EPA
as
well.
Imidacloprid
and
its
metabolites
are
stable
for
at
least
24
months
in
the
commodities
when
frozen.
3.
Magnitude
of
residues.
Bushberry
subgroup,
lingonberry,
juneberry,
and
salal.
IR
 
4
has
received
requests
from
Maine
for
imidacloprid
use
on
lowbush
blueberries
and
from
New
Jersey,
Delaware,
Michigan,
and
South
Carolina
for
use
on
high
bush
blueberries.
Two
field
trials
were
performed
on
lowbush
blueberries
and
nine
trials
on
highbush
blueberries
to
support
the
requested
tolerance
of
3.5
ppm.
 
Okra.
No
data
was
submitted
in
support
of
this
tolerance
petition;
rather,
IR
 
4
proposes
that
EPA,
utilizes
the
registrant's
fruiting
vegetable
data
(
peppers
and
tomatoes).
IR
 
4
believes
this
approach
is
justified
based
upon
the
similarities
of
okra
to
members
of
the
fruiting
vegetable
crop
group.
It
is
noteworthy
that
okra
is
classified
as
a
fruiting
vegetable
under
CODEX.
 
Watercress.
IR
 
4
received
a
request
from
the
Florida
Agricultural
Experiment
Station
for
the
registration
of
imidacloprid
on
watercress.
No
watercress
data
were
presented
in
support
of
this
petition;
rather,
IR
 
4
requests
that
EPA
utilizes
the
registrant's
head
and
leaf
lettuce
data
to
support
the
proposed
watercress
tolerance
of
3.5
ppm.
 
Artichoke.
IR
 
4
has
received
requests
from
California
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
artichoke.
To
support
this
request
and
the
proposed
tolerance
of
2.5
ppm,
magnitude
of
residue
data
were
collected
from
three
field
trials
in
California.
 
Cranberry.
IR
 
4
received
a
request
from
Massachusetts
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
cranberries.
To
support
this
request
and
the
proposed
tolerance
for
strawberry
at
0.05
ppm.
IR
 
4
conducted
five
field
trials
in
the
states
of
Massachusetts,
New
Jersey,
Wisconsin,
and
Oregon.
 
Peas.
IR
 
4
received
a
request
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
Delaware
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
peas.
In
support
of
this
request,
field
trials
were
conducted
in
Wisconsin,
Ohio,
Washington,
Maryland,
New
Jersey,
and
California.
 
Mamey
sapote.
IR
 
4
received
a
request
from
Florida
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
mamey
sapote.
In
support
of
this
request,
two
field
trials
were
conducted
in
southern
Florida.
 
Leaves
of
root
and
tuber
crop
group.
IR
 
4
received
a
request
from
Oregon
and
California
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
beets.
In
support
of
this
request,
magnitude
of
residue
data
were
collected
from
field
trials
conducted
in
Texas,
Ohio,
New
Jersey,
Oregon,
and
Indiana.
Data
from
beet
tops
were
combined
with
the
previously
submitted
petition
for
turnip
tops
to
support
a
tolerance
for
leaves
of
root
and
tuber
vegetables.
 
Stone
fruit.
IR
 
4
received
requests
from
Utah,
Washington,
Michigan,
and
Oregon
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
cherries,
Michigan
and
Washington
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
peaches,
and
Michigan
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
plums.
Magnitude
of
residue
data
were
collected
on
these
crops
to
support
a
stone
fruit
crop
group
tolerance.
 
Strawberry.
IR
 
4
received
requests
from
Oregon,
Mississippi,
Michigan,
Wisconsin,
and
North
Carolina
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
strawberries.
In
support
of
this
requested
tolerance,
magnitude
of
residue
trials
were
conducted
in
Florida,
California,
New
Jersey,
Wisconsin,
and
Oregon.
 
Dry
beans.
IR
 
4
received
requests
from
New
York,
Washington,
Wisconsin,
Georgia,
California,
and
Idaho
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
dry
beans.
In
support
of
this
request,
magnitude
of
residue
trials
were
conducted
in
Washington,
North
Dakota,
New
York,
Wisconsin,
and
California.
 
Guava
and
related
crops
(
feijoa,
jaboticaba,
wax
jambu,
starfruit,

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
38
Feb
04,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
05FEN1.
SGM
05FEN1
5883
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
24
/
Wednesday,
February
5,
2003
/
Notices
passion
fruit,
and
acerola).
IR
 
4
received
a
request
from
Florida
for
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
guava.
Magnitude
of
the
residue
data
were
collected
from
Florida
on
guava
to
support
a
tolerance
on
guava
and
related
crops.
 
Corn,
pop.
No
crop­
specific
data
were
submitted
with
the
petition
proposing
imidacloprid
tolerances
on
popcorn.
IR
 
4
proposes
that
EPA
translates
residue
data
from
field
corn
to
popcorn
in
order
to
establish
the
requested
tolerances.
 
Mustard
seed.
No
crop­
specific
data
are
being
submitted
with
this
petition
proposing
an
imidacloprid
tolerance
on
mustard
seed.
IR
 
4
proposes
that
EPA
translates
residue
data
from
canola
to
mustard
seed
in
order
to
establish
the
tolerance
based
upon
the
botanical
and
cultural
similarities
of
the
crops.
Additionally,
Canada
has
a
crop
group
for
oil
seeds
(
crop
group
20)
which
contains
mustard
seed
and
has
canola
as
one
of
the
representative
commodities.

B.
Toxicological
Profile
EPA
has
evaluated
the
available
imidacloprid
toxicity
data
and
considered
its
validity,
completeness,
and
reliability
as
well
as
the
relationship
of
the
results
of
the
studies
to
human
risk.
EPA
has
also
considered
available
information
concerning
the
reliability
of
the
sensitivities
of
major
identifiable
subgroups
of
consumers,
including
infants
and
children.
The
nature
of
the
toxic
effects
caused
by
imidacloprid
is
discussed
in
Unit
II.
A.
of
the
final
rule
on
imidacloprid
pesticide
tolerances
published
in
the
Federal
Register
of
September
18,
1998
(
63
FR
49837)
(
FRL
 
6027
 
1).
Please
refer
to
this
document
should
you
desire
detailed
toxicological
information
on
imidacloprid.
1.
Animal
metabolism.
The
metabolism
of
NTN
33893
(
imidacloprid)
in
rats
was
reported
in
seven
studies.
The
data
show
that
imidacloprid
was
rapidly
absorbed
and
eliminated
in
the
excreta
(
90%
of
the
dose
within
24
hours),
demonstrating
no
biologically
significant
differences
between
sexes,
dose
levels,
or
route
of
administration.
Elimination
was
mainly
renal
(
70
 
80%
of
the
dose)
and
fecal
(
17
 
25%).
The
major
part
of
the
fecal
activity
originated
in
the
bile.
Total
body
accumulation
after
48
hours
consisted
of
0.5%
of
the
radioactivity
with
the
liver,
kidney,
lung,
skin,
and
plasma
being
the
major
sites
of
accumulation.
Therefore,
bioaccumulation
of
imidacloprid
is
low
in
rats.
Maximum
plasma
concentration
was
reached
between
1.1
and
2.5
hours.
Two
major
routes
of
biotransformation
were
proposed
for
imidacloprid.
The
first
route
included
an
oxidative
cleavage
of
the
parent
compound
rendering
6­
chloronicotinic
acid
and
its
glycine
conjugate.
Dechlorination
of
this
metabolite
formed
the
6­
hydroxynicotinic
acid
and
its
mercapturic
acid
derivative.
The
second
route
included
the
hydroxylation
followed
by
elimination
of
water
of
the
parent
compound
rendering
NTN
35884.
A
comparison
between
[
methylene­
14C­]
imidacloprid
and
[
imidazolidine­
4,5­
14C]
imidacloprid
showed
that
while
the
rate
of
excretion
was
similar,
the
renal
portion
was
higher
with
the
imidazolidine­
labeled
compound.
In
addition,
accumulation
in
tissues
was
generally
higher
with
the
imidazolidine­
labeled
compound.
A
comparison
between
imidacloprid
and
one
of
its
metabolites,
WAK
3839,
showed
that
the
total
elimination
was
the
same
for
both
compounds.
The
proposed
metabolic
pathways
for
these
two
compounds
were
different.
WAK
3839
was
formed
following
pretreatment
(
repeated
dosing)
of
imidacloprid.
2.
Endocrine
disruption.
The
toxicology
data
base
for
imidacloprid
is
current
and
complete.
Studies
in
this
data
base
include
evaluation
of
the
potential
effects
on
reproduction
and
development,
and
an
evaluation
of
the
pathology
of
the
endocrine
organs
following
short­
or
long­
term
exposure.
These
studies
revealed
no
primary
endocrine
effects
due
to
imidacloprid.

C.
Aggregate
Exposure
1.
Dietary
exposure.
Assessments
were
conducted
to
evaluate
potential
risks
due
to
chronic
and
acute
dietary
exposure
of
the
U.
S.
population
and
selected
population
subgroups
to
residues
of
imidacloprid.
These
analyses
cover
all
registered
crops
including
rotational
crops;
uses
pending
with
EPA
Registration
Division's
2002
work
plan
including
dry
beans,
peas,
bushberries,
lingonberry,
juneberries,
salal,
carrots,
turnips,
okra,
cranberries,
artichoke
(
globe),
watercress,
beet
roots,
leaves
of
root
and
tuber
vegetables,
stone
fruit,
mamey
sapote,
guava,
feijoa,
jaboticaba,
wax
jambu,
starfruit,
passion
fruit,
acerola,
strawberry,
cucumber
(
greenhouse),
and
tomato
(
greenhouse),
and
an
import
tolerance
petition
on
bananas,
active
and
proposed
section
18
uses
on
blueberries,
cranberries,
table
beets,
strawberries
and
turnips.
Novigen
sciences,
Inc.'
s
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEMTM),
which
is
licensed
to
Bayer
Corporation,
was
used
to
estimate
the
chronic
and
acute
dietary
exposure.
This
software
uses
the
food
consumption
data
from
the
1994
 
1998
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
Continuing
Surveys
of
Food
Intake
by
Individuals
(
CSFII).
The
endpoint
for
acute
dietary
risk
assessments
is
based
on
neurotoxicity
characterized
by
decreases
in
motor
or
locomotor
activity
in
female
rats
at
42
milligrams/
kilogram
body
weight/
day
(
mg/
kg
bwt/
day)
(
the
lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level
(
LOAEL)
from
an
acute
neurotoxicity
study).
Based
on
an
uncertainty
factor
(
UF)
of
10x
for
interspecies
and
10x
for
intraspecies,
the
acute
reference
dose
(
RfD)
=
0.42
mg/
kg
bwt/
day.
EPA
has
determined
that
an
additional
UF
for
FQPA
(
reduced
to
3x)
applies
to
all
population
subgroups
for
acute
risk.
Application
of
the
additional
3x
safety
factor
results
in
an
acute
population
adjusted
dose
(
aPAD)
0.14
mg/
kg
bwt/
day
or
a
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
of
300.
For
chronic
dietary
analyses,
EPA
has
established
the
RfD
for
imidacloprid
at
0.057
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
no­
observed
adverse
effect
level
(
NOAEL)
of
5.7
mg/
kg
bwt/
day
from
a
rat
chronic
toxicity
carcinogenicity
study
and
UF
of
10x
for
interspecies
and
10x
for
intraspecies.
EPA
has
determined
that
an
additional
UF
for
FQPA
(
reduced
to
3x)
applies
to
all
population
subgroups
for
chronic
risk.
Application
of
the
additional
3x
safety
factor
results
in
a
chronic
population
adjusted
dose
(
cPAD)
of
0.019
mg/
kg
bwt/
day.
The
registrant
believes
that
results
from
the
acute
and
chronic
dietary
exposure
analyses
described
below
demonstrate
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
to
the
overall
U.
S.
population
or
any
population
subgroup
will
result
from
the
use
of
imidacloprid
on
currently
registered
and
pending
uses.
i.
Food.
Acute
and
chronic
(
Tier
3)
risk
assessments
were
made
using
the
results
of
field
trials
conducted
at
maximum
label
application
rates
and
the
shortest
pre­
harvest
intervals.
For
some
of
the
vegetable
crops,
the
residue
data
were
collected
at
1.5x
or
greater
than
the
maximum
label
rate
of
0.5
lb
active
ingredient/
acre
per
season.
In
addition,
no
adjustments
were
made
to
account
for
dissipation
of
residues
during
storage,
transportation
from
the
field
to
the
consumer,
washing
or
peeling.
Therefore,
the
actual
dietary
exposure
will
be
less
than
that
presented
here.
For
the
chronic
analysis,
mean
field
trial
residues
were
calculated.
For
the
acute
Monte
Carlo
analysis,
the
entire
distribution
of
residue
field
trial
data
were
used
for
the
``
non­
blended''
and
``
partially
blended''
foods
as
determined
by
EPA's
standard
operating
procedure
(
SOP)
99.6.
For
the
foods
considered
as
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
38
Feb
04,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
05FEN1.
SGM
05FEN1
5884
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
24
/
Wednesday,
February
5,
2003
/
Notices
``
blended''
by
EPA's
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED)
SOP
99.6,
mean
field
trial
residue
data
were
used.
As
allowed
in
EPA's
draft
guidance
for
submission
of
probabilistic
human
health
exposure
assessments
one
half
limit
of
detection
limit
of
detection
(
LOD)
limit
of
quantitation
(
LOQ)
values
were
used
for
all
non­
detected
values
(
values
below
the
sensitivity
of
the
method).
ii.
Acute.
Bayer
Corporation's
acute
Monte
Carlo
dietary
exposure
assessment
estimated
percent
of
the
aPAD
and
corresponding
MOE
for
the
overall
U.
S.
population
(
all
seasons)
and
various
subpopulations.
In
this
analysis,
the
exposure
for
the
total
U.
S.
population
was
equal
to
7.73%
of
the
aPAD
at
the
99.9th
percentile.
The
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup,
children
(
1
to
6
yrs),
had
an
exposure
equal
to
16.42%
of
the
aPAD
at
the
99.9th
percentile.
Therefore,
the
acute
dietary
exposure
estimates
are
below
EPA's
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
the
overall
U.
S.
population
as
well
as
the
various
subpopulations.
iii.
Chronic.
The
Bayer
Corporation
chronic
dietary
exposure
estimated
the
percent
of
the
cPAD
for
the
overall
U.
S.
population
(
all
seasons)
and
various
subpopulations.
In
this
analysis,
the
exposure
for
the
total
U.
S.
population
was
equal
to
1.4%
of
the
cPAD.
The
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup,
children
(
1
to
6
yrs),
had
an
exposure
equal
to
3.0%
of
the
cPAD.
Therefore,
the
chronic
exposure
estimates
are
below
EPA's
LOC
for
the
overall
U.
S.
population
as
well
as
the
various
subpopulations.
iv.
Drinking
water.
EPA,
as
published
in
the
Federal
Register
of
April
10,
2001
(
69
FR
18554)
(
FRL
 
6777
 
6),
calculated
acute
and
chronic
drinking
water
levels
of
concern
(
DWLOC)
and
compared
them
with
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
surface
water
and
ground
water.
Based
on
this
comparison,
they
determined
that
acute
exposure
and
chronic
exposure
would
not
be
expected
to
exceed
the
aPAD
and
cPAD,
respectively.
It
is
not
expected
that
the
additional
exposure
from
the
minor
crops
pending
in
EPA's
2002
work
plan
would
significantly
change
EPA's
water
assessment.
2.
Non­
dietary
exposure
 
i.
Residential
turf.
Bayer
Corporation
has
conducted
an
exposure
study
to
address
the
potential
exposures
of
adults
and
children
from
contact
with
imidacloprid
treated
turf.
The
population
considered
to
have
the
greatest
potential
exposure
from
contact
with
pesticide
treated
turf
soon
after
pesticides
are
applied
are
young
children.
Margins
of
safety
(
MOS)
of
7,587
 
41,546
for
10
 
year
old
children
and
6,859
 
45,249
for
5
 
year
old
children
were
estimated
by
comparing
dermal
exposure
doses
to
the
imidacloprid
no­
observable
effect
level
of
1,000
mg/
kg/
day
established
in
a
15
 
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rabbits.
The
estimated
safe
residue
levels
of
imidacloprid
on
treated
turf
for
10
 
year
old
children
ranged
from
5.6
­
38.2
grams/
centimeters
(
g/
cm2)
and
for
5
 
year
old
children
from
5.1
­
33.5
g/
cm2.
This
compares
with
the
average
imidacloprid
transferable
residue
level
of
0.080
g/
cm2
present
immediately
after
the
sprays
have
dried.
The
data
indicate
that
children
can
safely
contact
imidacloprid­
treated
turf
as
soon
after
application
as
the
spray
has
dried.
ii.
Termiticide.
Imidacloprid
is
registered
as
a
termiticide.
Due
to
the
nature
of
the
treatment
for
termites,
exposure
would
be
limited
to
that
from
inhalation
and
was
evaluated
by
EPA
and
the
Bayer
Corporation.
Data
indicate
that
the
MOS
for
the
worst
case
exposures
for
adults
and
infants
occupying
a
treated
building
who
are
exposed
continuously
(
24
hours/
day)
are
8.0
x
107
and
2.4
x
108,
respectively
­
and
exposure
can
thus
be
considered
negligible.
iii.
Tobacco
smoke.
Studies
have
been
conducted
to
determine
residues
in
tobacco
and
the
resulting
smoke
following
treatment.
Residues
of
imidacloprid
in
cured
tobacco
following
treatment
were
a
maximum
of
31
ppm
(
7
ppm
in
fresh
leaves).
When
this
tobacco
was
burned
in
a
pyrolysis
study
only
2%
of
the
initial
residue
was
recovered
in
the
resulting
smoke
(
main
stream
plus
side
stream).
This
would
result
in
an
inhalation
exposure
to
imidacloprid
from
smoking
of
approximately
0.0005
mg
per
cigarette.
Using
the
measured
subacute
rat
inhalation
NOAEL
of
5.5
milligrams/
meters
(
mg/
m3),
it
is
apparent
that
exposure
to
imidacloprid
from
smoking
(
direct
exposure
and/
or
indirect
exposure)
would
not
be
significant.
iv.
Pet
treatment.
Human
exposure
from
the
use
of
imidacloprid
to
treat
dogs
and
cats
for
fleas
has
been
addressed
by
EPA.
Bayer
Corporation
believes,
that
due
to
the
fact
that
imidacloprid
is
not
an
inhalation
or
dermal
toxicant
and
that
while
dermal
absorption
data
are
not
available,
imidacloprid
is
not
considered
to
present
a
hazard
via
the
dermal
route.

D.
Cumulative
Effects
Imidacloprid
is
a
chloronicotinyl
insecticide.
At
this
time,
EPA
has
not
made
a
determination
that
imidacloprid
and
other
substances
that
may
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
would
have
cumulative
effects.
Therefore,
for
these
tolerance
petitions,
Bayer
Corporation
assumes
that
imidacloprid
does
not
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
substances
and
only
the
potential
risks
of
imidacloprid
in
its
aggregate
exposure
are
considered.

E.
Safety
Determination
1.
U.
S.
population.
EPA
has
considered
data
from
developmental
toxicity
studies
in
the
rat
and
rabbit
and
a
2
 
generation
reproduction
study
in
the
rat.
These
studies
are
discussed
in
the
toxicological
profile
section
of
Unit
II.
of
the
Federal
Register
dated
September
18,
1998
(
63
FR
49837).
The
developmental
toxicity
data
demonstrated
no
increased
sensitivity
of
rats
or
rabbits
to
in
utero
exposure
to
imidacloprid.
In
addition,
the
multigeneration
reproductive
toxicity
study
did
not
identify
any
increased
sensitivity
of
rats
to
in
utero
or
postnatal
exposure.
Parental
NOAELs
were
lower
or
equivalent
to
developmental
or
offspring
NOAELs.
The
developmental
toxicity
studies
are
designed
to
evaluate
adverse
effects
on
the
developing
organism
resulting
from
maternal
pesticide
exposure
during
gestation.
Reproduction
studies
provide
information
relating
to
effects
from
exposure
to
the
pesticide
on
the
reproductive
capability
of
mating
animals
and
data
on
systemic
toxicity.
FFDCA
section
408
provides
that
EPA
shall
apply
an
additional
ten­
fold
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
unless
EPA
determines
that
a
different
margin
of
safety
will
be
safe
for
infants
and
children.
Margin
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.
EPA
believes
that
reliable
data
support
using
the
standard
UF
(
usually
100
for
combined
interspecies
and
intraspecies
variability)
and
not
the
additional
tenfold
MOE/
UF
when
EPA
has
a
complete
data
base
under
existing
guidelines
and
when
the
severity
of
the
effect
in
infants
or
children
or
the
potency
or
unusual
toxic
properties
of
a
compound
do
not
raise
concerns
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
standard
MOE/
SF.
Although
developmental
toxicity
studies
showed
no
increased
sensitivity
in
fetuses
as
compared
to
maternal
animals
following
in
utero
exposures
in
rats
and
rabbits,
no
increased
sensitivity
in
pups
as
compared
to
adults
was
seen
in
the
2
 
generation
reproduction
toxicity
study
in
rats,
and
the
toxicology
data
base
is
complete
as
to
core
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
38
Feb
04,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
05FEN1.
SGM
05FEN1
5885
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
24
/
Wednesday,
February
5,
2003
/
Notices
requirements,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
additional
SF
for
the
protection
of
infants
and
children
will
be
retained
but
reduced
to
3x
based
on
the
following
weight­
of­
the­
evidence
considerations
relating
to
potential
sensitivity
and
completeness
of
the
data:
 
There
is
concern
for
structure
activity
relationship.
Imidacloprid,
a
chloronicotinyl
compound,
is
an
analog
to
nicotine
and
studies
in
the
published
literature
suggest
that
nicotine,
when
administered
causes
developmental
toxicity,
including
functional
deficits,
in
animals
and/
or
humans
that
are
exposed
in
utero.
 
There
is
evidence
that
imidacloprid
administration
causes
neurotoxicity
following
a
single
oral
dose
in
the
acute
study
and
alterations
in
brain
weight
in
rats
in
the
2
 
year
carcinogenicity
study.
 
The
concern
for
structure
activity
relationship
along
with
the
evidence
of
neurotoxicity
dictates
the
need
of
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
for
assessment
of
potential
alterations
on
functional
development.
Because
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
potentially
relates
to
both
acute
and
chronic
effects
in
both
the
mother
and
the
fetus,
EPA
has
applied
the
additional
UF
for
FQPA
for
all
population
subgroups,
and
in
both
acute
and
chronic
risk
assessments.
Based
on
the
exposure
assessments
described
above
and
on
the
completeness
and
reliability
of
the
toxicity
data,
Bayer
Corporation
has
concluded
that
the
dietary
exposure
estimates
from
all
label
and
pending
uses
of
imidacloprid
are
7.73%
of
the
aPAD
at
the
99.9th
percentile
and
1.4%
of
the
cPAD
for
the
U.
S.
population.
Thus,
Bayer
Corporation
has
concluded
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
imidacloprid
residues.
2.
Infants
and
children.
Based
on
the
exposure
assessments
described
above
for
the
safety
determination
of
the
U.
S.
population
and
on
the
completeness
and
reliability
of
the
toxicity
data,
Bayer
Corporation
has
concluded
that
the
dietary
exposure
estimates
from
all
label
and
pending
uses
of
imidacloprid
are
16.42%
of
the
aPAD
at
the
99.9th
percentile
and
3.0%
of
the
cPAD
for
the
most
sensitive
population
subgroup,
children
1
to
6
years.
Thus,
Bayer
Corportion
has
concluded
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
imidacloprid
residues.

F.
International
Tolerances
No
Codex
maximum
residue
levels
have
been
established
for
residues
of
imidacloprid
on
any
crops
currently
pending
at
EPA.
FR
Doc.
03
 
2773
Filed
2
 
4
 
03;
8:
45
a
m]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL
 
7448
 
3]

Jack
Goins
Waste
Oil
Superfund
Site/
Cleveland,
Tennessee;
Notice
of
Proposed
Settlement
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
settlement.

SUMMARY:
Under
section
122(
h)(
1)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA),
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
has
proposed
to
settle
claims
for
response
costs
at
the
Jack
Goins
Waste
Oil
Superfund
Site
(
Site)
located
in
Cleveland,
Tennessee,
with
Jack
L.
Goins,
Susie
T.
Goins,
Jack
Goins
Waste
Oil
Pumping
Service,
and
Frances
L.
Lockmiller.
EPA
will
consider
public
comments
on
the
proposed
settlement
for
thirty
days.
EPA
may
withdraw
from
or
modify
the
proposed
settlement
should
such
comments
disclose
facts
or
considerations
which
indicate
the
proposed
settlement
is
inappropriate,
improper,
or
inadequate.
Copies
of
the
proposed
settlement
are
available
from:
Ms.
Paula
V.
Batchelor,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
IV,
Waste
Management
Division,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303,
(
404)
562
 
8887.
Written
comment
may
be
submitted
to
Mr.
Greg
Armstrong
at
the
above
address
within
30
days
of
the
date
of
publication.

Dated:
January
15,
2003.
Anita
L.
Davis,
Acting
Chief,
CERCLA
Program
Services
Branch,
Waste
Management
Division.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
2769
Filed
2
 
4
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
FEDERAL
MARITIME
COMMISSION
Notice
of
Agreement(
s)
Filed
The
Commission
hereby
gives
notice
of
the
filing
of
the
following
agreement(
s)
under
the
Shipping
Act
of
1984.
Interested
parties
can
review
or
obtain
copies
of
agreements
at
the
Washington,
DC
offices
of
the
Commission,
800
North
Capitol
Street,
NW.,
Room
940.
Interested
parties
may
submit
comments
on
an
agreement
to
the
Secretary,
Federal
Maritime
Commission,
Washington,
DC
20573,
within
10
days
of
the
date
this
notice
appears
in
the
Federal
Register.

Agreement
No.:
011510
 
017.
Title:
West
African
Discussion
Agreement.
Parties:
Atlantic
Bulk
Carriers,
Ltd.,
HUAL
AS,
A.
P.
Moller
Maersk
Sealand,
Mediterranean
Shipping
Company,
P&
O
Nedlloyd
Limited,
Safmarine
Container
Lines
NV,
Zim
Israel
Navigation
Company
Ltd.
Synopsis:
The
amendment
adds
Safmarine
Container
Lines
as
a
party
to
the
agreement
effective
February
1,
2003.

Agreement
No.:
011802
 
001.
Title:
Evergreen/
Lloyd
Triestino/
Hatsu
Marine
Alliance­
WTSA
Bridging
Agreement.
Parties:
The
Evergreen/
Lloyd
Triestino/
Hatsu
Marine
Alliance
Agreement,
Westbound
Transpacific
Stabilization
Agreement.
Synopsis:
The
amendment
updates
the
membership
of
the
Westbound
Transpacific
Stabilization
Agreement.

Agreement
No.:
011839.
Title:
Med­
Gulf
Space
Charter
Agreement.
Parties:
Compania
Chilena
de
Navegacion
Interoceanica,
Compania
Sud­
Americana
de
Vapores
S.
A.,
Lykes
Lines
Limited
LLC.
Synopsis:
The
proposed
agreement
authorizes
Lykes
to
charter
space
to
the
other
parties
in
the
trade
between
U.
S.
Gulf
ports,
including
Miami,
Florida,
and
San
Juan,
Puerto
Rico,
on
the
one
hand,
and
ports
in
Spain,
Italy,
and
Mexico,
on
the
other
hand.

Agreement
No.:
201026
 
002.
Title:
Port
of
New
Orleans/
P&
O
Ports
Lease.
Parties:
Port
of
New
Orleans,
P&
O
Ports
Louisiana,
Inc.
Synopsis:
The
modification
expands
the
leased
premises
under
the
basic
lease.
The
additional
space
may
be
used
on
an
as­
needed
basis.

By
Order
of
the
Federal
Maritime
Commission.

Dated:
January
31,
2003.

Bryant
L.
VanBrakle,

Secretary.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
2791
Filed
2
 
4
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6730
 
01
 
P
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
38
Feb
04,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
05FEN1.
SGM
05FEN1