p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid, Glyphosate, Difenzoquat, and Hexazinone; Proposed Tolerance Actions, 32899-32909 [E6-8827]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32899-32909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8827]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036; FRL-8062-7]


p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid, Glyphosate, Difenzoquat, and 
Hexazinone; Proposed Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the plant 
growth regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicide 
hexazinone. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the 
plant growth regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides 
glyphosate, difenzoquat, and hexazinone. In addition, EPA is proposing 
to establish new tolerances for the herbicides difenzoquat and 
hexazinone. The regulatory actions proposed in this document are part 
of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment 
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 
section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 
1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances 
that were in existence on August 2, 1996. No tolerance reassessments 
will be counted at the time of a final rule because tolerances in 
existence on August 2, 1996 that are associated with actions proposed 
herein were previously counted as reassessed at the time of the 
completed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), Report of the FQPA 
Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED), or 
Federal Register action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available in the electronic docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or, 
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in 
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 
Arlington, VA. The 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and 
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0048; e-mail 
address: smith.jane-scott@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 code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 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 Unit IIA. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes 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. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the 
Agency Proposes to Revoke?

    This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any 
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for 
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that 
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. 
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed 
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under 
FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and 
the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. 
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take 
appropriate action under FFDCA.
    EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are 
submitted in response to this proposed

[[Page 32900]]

rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, 
you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you 
fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period 
specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved 
in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the 
final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific 
tolerances for residues of the plant growth regulator p-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides glyphosate, difenzoquat, 
and hexazinone in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance 
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to 
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety 
standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable 
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each RED and report of 
the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision 
(TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the 
implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to 
reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change 
commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. 
Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's 
National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, 
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-00-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; 
internet at https://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and from the National 
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 
22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000; internet at https://
www.ntis.gov/. Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the 
internet for glyphosate at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
reregistration/status.htm, and p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, difenzoquat, 
and hexazinone in public dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0124, EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-
0097, and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0188, respectively, at https://
www.regulations.gov.
    The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop 
field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under 
the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected 
for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in 
such studies. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a 
separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data 
show that (1) lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result 
in a higher residue level on the commodity, and (2) the tolerance 
remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the 
tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on ``Risk management, Reregistration, 
and Tolerance Reassessment'' typically describes the regulatory 
position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, 
determination of safety for U.S. general population, and safety for 
infants and children. In particular, the human health risk assessment 
document which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and 
whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its 
evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient 
and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with 
appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will 
result from aggregate exposure.
    Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found 
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue 
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of 
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative 
Record and paper copies for difenzoquat and hexazinone can be found 
under their respective public docket numbers, identified above. Paper 
copies for p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and glyphosate are available in 
the public docket for this rule. Electronic copies are available 
through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, 
regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/. You may search for this 
rule under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036, or for an individual 
chemical under its respective docket number, then click on that docket 
number to view its contents.
    The aggregate exposures and risks are not of concern for the above 
mentioned pesticide active ingredients based upon the data identified 
in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted studies that the Agency 
found acceptable.
    EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this 
document to be established or modified, are safe, i.e., that there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children 
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in 
accordance with section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance 
nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These 
findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references 
are available for inspection as described in this document under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances 
because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food 
uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where 
registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay 
the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily canceled 
one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general 
practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of 
pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active 
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the 
proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on 
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    1. p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid. The Agency canceled the last 
registered uses for p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid on tomato in May 1995. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.202(a)(1) for combined residues of the plant regulator p-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol in or on 
tomato, remove paragraph (a)(1), and recodify existing paragraph (a)(2) 
as paragraph (a).
    Based on the available data that indicate combined residues of p-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol in or on 
mung bean sprouts will not exceed 0.2 ppm, the Agency determined that 
the tolerance should be lowered to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to decrease the tolerance for combined residues of the plant regulator 
p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-chlorophenol to inhibit 
embryonic root development in or on bean, mung, sprouts from 2.0 to 0.2 
ppm in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.202(a).
    2. Glyphosate. A RED was completed on glyphosate in September 1993 
before the passage of the FQPA. On April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17723) (FRL-
5598-6) EPA published a notice in the Federal Register which 
established new uses for glyphosate. Existing tolerances for glyphosate 
in 40 CFR 180.364 were

[[Page 32901]]

considered by the Agency to be reassessed at that time. Although the 
glyphosate RED recommended revocation of tolerances based on no 
registered uses for the following food commodities; bread fruit, 
canistel, cherimoya, cacao bean, date, marmaladebox (formerly genip), 
jaboticaba, jackfruit, persimmon, sapote (black and white), soursop, 
and tamarind at 0.2 ppm and coconut at 0.1 ppm; these food uses are 
currently active and have existed for years since the RED. Canistel, 
cacao bean, jackfruit, and sapote have existed since 2003; bread fruit, 
cherimoya, marmaladebox, jaboticaba, soursop, and tamarind since 2000, 
and persimmon and dates since 1998. Therefore, EPA will maintain these 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364.
    Data on glyphosate residues in or on both tea leaves and instant 
tea were available at the time of the RED. Nevertheless, instant tea 
was also recommended for revocation in the RED because the Agency at 
that time did not consider it to be a significant item in the daily 
dietary risk assessment of the population of the United States from 
pesticide use on that processed commodity. However, instant tea is now 
considered to be a processed commodity according to the ``Table 1.--Raw 
Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived from 
Crops'' which is found in Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 
860.1000 dated August 1996, available at https://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/
publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_
Guidelines/Series/. As stated above, existing tolerances for glyphosate 
in 40 CFR 180.364, including instant tea, were reassessed at the time 
of new use approvals on (April 11, 1997, 62 FR 17723). Therefore, EPA 
will maintain the tolerance on ``tea, instant'' in 40 CFR 180.364.
    In the RED, it was recommended that tolerances be established for 
potato chips, granules, flakes and processed potato waste; however, the 
quality of the data for potato chips, granules and processed potato 
waste was in question. In 1996 new residue data on potatoes and 
processed potato foods and feeds were provided to the Agency. These 
data indicated that at the 10x rate residues were <0.01 ppm glyphosate 
in or on fresh potato chips, dry peel, and wet peel; and 0.02 - 0.049 
ppm glyphosate on fresh flakes. Based on these data the Agency has 
determined that the established tolerance of 0.2 ppm for ``vegetable, 
root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet'' is sufficient to cover all 
measured and anticipated residues of glyphosate in raw tubers and in 
potato peels, chips, flakes or granules. Therefore, tolerances for 
potato chips, granules, flakes and processed potato waste are no longer 
needed.
    In an effort to achieve compatibility with Codex Maximum Residue 
Levels (MRLs), EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.364 (a) for residues of glyphosate -(phosphonomethyl)glycine 
resulting from the application of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt 
of glyphosate, the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate, the ammonium salt 
of glyphosate, and the potassium salt of glyphosate in or on kiwifruit 
from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm.
    In an effort to achieve compatibility with Codex MRLs, EPA is 
proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 (a) for residues 
of glyphosate -(phosphonomethyl)glycine resulting from the application 
of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, the ethanolamine 
salt of glyphosate, the ammonium salt of glyphosate, and the potassium 
salt of glyphosate in or on cattle, liver and hog, liver from 0.5 ppm 
to 1.0 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are 
safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.364 
to conform to current Agency practice as follows: Hop, dried cone to 
hop, dried cones; wheat, milling fractions, (except flour) to wheat, 
bran, wheat, middlings, and wheat, shorts; grain, cereal, stover and 
straw, group to grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16; 
vegetable, bulb, group to vegetable, bulb, group 3; vegetable, foliage 
of legume except soybean, subgroup 7A to vegetable, foliage of legume, 
subgroup 7A, except soybean; vegetable, legume, group 6 except soybean 
to vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean; vegetable, fruiting, 
group to vegetable, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, leafy, group to 
vegetable, leafy, group 4, and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, 
group (except sugar beet tops) to vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, 
group 2, except sugar beet tops.
    The tolerance reassessment in the RED proposed that alfalfa (fresh 
and hay), clover and other non-grass animal feeds be consolidated in 
the corresponding crop group ``animal feed, nongrass, group 18'' at 100 
ppm. Since the RED was published, the ``animal feed, nongrass, group 
18'' was established; however, due to changes in the use patterns and 
grazing intervals the corresponding tolerance level is 400 ppm. Also, 
the existing and conflicting tolerances for ``alfalfa, hay'' (400 ppm) 
and ``alfalfa, forage'' (175 ppm), respectively, should be removed 
since the existing tolerance on ``animal feed, nongrass, group 18'' 
(400 ppm) covers these animal feed items. This was originally proposed 
by the EPA June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36472) (FRL-7308-8). Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 on alfalfa, forage 
at 175 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 400 ppm, because they are no longer 
needed and their commodity uses are covered by the existing group 
tolerance.
    The RED recommended that a crop group tolerance for, ``grass 
forage, fodder and hay, group 17'' be established at 200 ppm. Since 
then, the tolerance ``grass forage, fodder and hay, group 17'' was 
established and increased to 300 ppm on September 27, 2002 due to 
changes in the use patterns and pre-grazing intervals (67 FR 60934, 
FRL-7200-2), and (65 FR 57957, FRL-6746-6).
    Since the 1993 RED tolerance recommendations, multiple tolerance 
actions have occurred to affect those original recommendations. The 
tolerance levels and commodity names have changed due to commodity 
terminology updates, crop group composition changes, adjustments in use 
patterns or intervals of use, additional data submissions, and changes 
in the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.364 for glyphosate (60 FR 
45062, FRL-4962-1), (61 FR 7729, FRL-5351-5), (61 FR 15192, FRL-5351-
1), (62 FR 17723, FRL-5598-6), (63 FR 54058, FRL-6036-1), (64 FR 18360, 
FRL-6073-5), (64 FR 41818, FRL-6096-2), (64 FR 66108, FRL-6390-5), (65 
FR 57957, FRL-6746-6), (67 FR 60934, FRL-7200-2), (68 FR 36472, FRL-
7308-8), (68 FR 39460, FRL-7316-5, (69 FR 65081, FRL-7683-9), and (70 
FR 7861, FRL-7697-7).
    3. Difenzoquat. Based on available field trial data that indicate 
residues of difenzoquat in or on barley grain were non-detectable 
(<0.05 ppm), barley straw were as high as 4.0 ppm, and wheat straw were 
as high as 4.2 ppm, the Agency determined that these tolerances should 
be decreased to 0.05 ppm, 5.0 ppm, and 5.0 ppm, respectively. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.369 
for residues of difenzoquat in or on barley, grain from 0.2 to 0.05 
ppm; barley, straw from 20 to 5.0 ppm; and wheat, straw from 20 to 5.0 
ppm.
    Processing data for wheat grain and aspirated grain fractions 
indicate that residues of difenzoquat concentrated 4-fold in wheat bran 
and 4.6-fold in shorts, and minimal concentration

[[Page 32902]]

occurred in middlings. Residues did not concentrate in flour. The wheat 
processing data are also applicable to barley. Based on those 
concentration factors and the reassessed tolerance of 0.05 ppm for 
wheat grain, the Agency determined that tolerances for both wheat bran 
and shorts should be established at 0.25 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.369 at 0.25 ppm for 
residues of difenzoquat in or on wheat, bran and wheat, shorts. In 
addition, because the wheat processing data are translated to barley, 
EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.369 for 
residues of difenzoquat in or on barley, bran at 0.25 ppm.
    4. Hexazinone. The TRED mentions the need for additional method 
validation of Method AMR 3783-6 for determining hexazinone (parent and 
metabolite) levels in milk and livestock tissues. The method has 
undergone successful independent validation and radiovalidation 
studies. Additional validation by EPA laboratories is not required. The 
method is considered adequate for enforcement purposes for residues of 
hexazinone (and metabolites) in milk and livestock tissues.
    According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which is currently 
expressed as hexazinone and its metabolites (calculated as hexazinone) 
in 40 CFR 180.396(a) for plant, animal, and milk commodities for 
general tolerances, and in plant commodities for regional tolerances in 
40 CFR 180.396(c), should be modified to include all the specific 
metabolites in plants, animal tissue and milk. Consequently, EPA is 
proposing to separate and recodify plant, animal, and milk tolerances 
from 180.396(a) to (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), respectively. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing that the tolerance expressions in 40 CFR 180.396 read 
as follows:

    (a)(1) General. Tolerances are established for the combined 
residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4(1H,3H)-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-
(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], D [3-
cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione], and E 
[3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-
trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following food 
commodities:
    (a)(2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of 
hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its animal tissue metabolites; B [3-
cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-
dione] and F [3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
(1H,3H)-dione (calculated as hexazinone) in the following food 
commodities:
    (a)(3) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of 
hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-
(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
(1H,3H)-dione] , C-1 [3-(2-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-
methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], C-2 [3-(3-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4(1H,3H)-dione] and F (calculated as hexazinone) in milk: and
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with 
regional registration, as defined in Sec. 180.1(n) and which 
excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, are established 
for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-
(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione and its 
plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-
methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-
(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,3H)-dione], C [3-(4-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
(1H,3H)-dione], D [3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-
(1H,3H,5H)-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the 
following commodities.

    Based on available ruminant feeding data at exaggerated pesticide 
dose levels and the maximum theoretical dietary burden, EPA determined 
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite hexazinone residues 
of concern in livestock from treated feed. At an exaggerated (62.5x) 
feeding level, residues of hexazinone and its metabolites were non-
detectable; i.e., were below the combined limit of quantitation (LOQs) 
of 0.1 ppm in fat. Therefore, the Agency determined that tolerances for 
fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep are no longer needed 
under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). As a result, EPA is proposing to revoke the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396 for combined hexazinone residues of 
concern in or on cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and 
sheep, fat.
    After correction of the exaggerated feeding dose (62.5x) for 
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency determined that residue 
levels of hexazinone and its metabolites ranged as high as 0.09 ppm 
(just below the sum of the LOQs or 0.1 ppm), and therefore meat and 
meat byproduct tolerances should be maintained in newly recodified 40 
CFR 180.396(a)(2) at 0.1 ppm for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep.
    After correction of the exaggerated feeding dose (640x) for hogs, 
the Agency determined that residue levels of hexazinone and its 
metabolites were non-detectable; i.e., were below the combined LOQs of 
0.1 ppm in tissue. Therefore, the tolerances on hog meat and meat 
byproducts are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). As a result 
of the available ruminant feeding data and the enforcement method, EPA 
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396 for combined 
hexazinone residues of concern in or on hog, meat and hog, meat 
byproducts.
    In addition, after correction of the exaggerated feeding dose 
(62.5x) for cattle, the Agency determined that residue levels of 
hexazinone and its metabolites in whole milk ranged as high as 0.164 
ppm. Based on the enforcement method, the sum of the combined LOQs for 
hexazinone and its metabolites, EPA is proposing to increase the 
tolerance in the newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3) for the combined 
hexazinone residues of concern in or on milk from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm. The 
Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is 
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Available data indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its 
regulated metabolites were <0.3 ppm in or on blueberries and <0.35 ppm 
in or on pineapples. Based on the combined LOQs (0.55 ppm) of the 
enforcement method for parent plus metabolites, EPA is proposing to 
increase the tolerances in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for 
combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on blueberry from 0.2 to 
0.6 ppm and pineapple (whole fruit) from 0.5 to 0.6 ppm, and revise 
pineapple (whole fruit) to pineapple. The Agency determined that the 
increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that 
no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue.
    Available data indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its 
regulated metabolites were <0.35 ppm in or on sugarcane. Based on the 
combined LOQs (0.55 ppm) of the enforcement method for parent plus 
metabolites, the Agency determined that the tolerance for sugarcane, 
cane should be increased to 0.6 ppm. Also, based on available sugarcane 
processing data, the Agency determined that residues of hexazinone and 
its metabolites concentrated 32-fold to final (blackstrap) molasses, 
the form of molasses typically fed to livestock. After adjusting for 
the 2.0x degree of exaggeration used in the processing study, the 
Agency determined that while the calculated residue was greater than 
the recommended tolerance for the

[[Page 32903]]

raw agricultural commodity (sugarcane, cane), it was below the current 
tolerance level for sugarcane molasses and should be decreased to 4.0 
ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance for 
sugarcane, cane and decrease the tolerance for sugarcane, molasses with 
regional registration in 40 CFR 180.396(c), as defined in 180.1(n) and 
which excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, for combined 
hexazinone residues of concern in or on sugarcane, cane from 0.2 to 0.6 
ppm and sugarcane molasses from 5.0 to 4.0 ppm, and revise sugarcane 
molasses to sugarcane, molasses. The Agency determined that the 
increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that 
no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue.
    Based on the available residue data, the TRED recommended 
decreasing the tolerance in/on alfalfa hay contingent upon previously 
requested label revisions by the registrant related to the pre-harvest 
and pre-grazing intervals. The tolerance decrease is solely a 
reflection of changes in the use pattern; the decrease is not required 
for the tolerance to be safe. The Agency is in the process of following 
up with the registrant and will address the tolerance modification in a 
future Federal Register notice.
    Based on available data that indicate combined residues of 
hexazinone and its regulated metabolites as high as 1.46 ppm in or on 
alfalfa seed, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be 
established at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a 
tolerance in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for combined 
hexazinone residues of concern in or on alfalfa, seed at 2.0 ppm.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to 
conform to current Agency practice as follows: In 40 CFR 180.396(a) 
alfalfa green forage to alfalfa, forage; grass, range to grass, forage; 
and grass, pasture to grass, hay.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of 
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural 
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 
as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the 
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, 
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues 
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and 
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing 
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore, 
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). 
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 
331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the 
pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, 
but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-
use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances 
in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported 
into the United States.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance 
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to 
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety 
standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in 
detail in each Post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs 
and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, 
including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety 
findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with 
new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are 
available as provided in Unit II.A.
    EPA has issued TREDs for p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, difenzoquat, 
and hexazinone. Glyphosate tolerances were reassessed post-FQPA as part 
of the Agency's determinations on April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17723) to 
establish new glyphosate uses and therefore a TRED to reassess its 
tolerances was not needed. All of these active ingredients had REDs 
which were completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's 
evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including 
requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm 
the potential human health and environmental risk assessments 
associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions 
under which these uses and products will be eligible for 
reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, 
modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED 
recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in 
some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the 
FQPA standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' However, 
tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed 
in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no 
longer necessary.
    EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for 
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA 
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore 
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been 
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover 
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of 
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish 
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are 
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import 
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States 
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no 
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency 
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered 
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that 
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food 
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. 
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or 
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a 
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to 
the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such 
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of 
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to 
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that 
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these 
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if 
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk 
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. 
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed 
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade 
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues 
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless 
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed 
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import 
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to 
cover imported commodities.

[[Page 32904]]

    Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware 
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties 
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency 
determines that additional information is reasonably required to 
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties 
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary 
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may 
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
    When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw 
agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible 
residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs 
produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, 
grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When 
considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:
    1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
    2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will 
exist.
    3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not 
exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide 
residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need 
to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
    EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg 
tolerances proposed for revocation in this rule and has concluded that 
there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of 
concern in or on those commodities.

C. When do These Actions Become Effective?

    EPA is proposing that these revocations, modifications, 
establishments of tolerances, and commodity terminology revisions 
become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. For this rule, proposed revocations will affect 
tolerances for uses which have been canceled for many years or are no 
longer needed. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had 
sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if 
EPA is presented with information that existing stocks would still be 
available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider 
extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments 
regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows 
sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, 
please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides 
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the 
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as 
established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these 
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so 
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug 
Administration that: (1) The residue is present as the result of an 
application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was 
lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed the level that 
was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on 
the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to 
show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the 
dates when the pesticide was applied to such food.

D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?

    By law, EPA is required by August 3, 2006 to reassess the 
tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of April 19, 2006, EPA 
has reassessed over 8,070 tolerances. Regarding tolerances mentioned in 
this proposed rule, tolerances in existence as of August 2, 1996 were 
previously counted as reassessed at the time of the signature 
completion of a post-FQPA RED or TRED for each active ingredient. 
Therefore, no further tolerance reassessments would be counted toward 
the August 2006 review deadline.

III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International 
Obligations?

    The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory 
and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported 
foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same 
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported 
foods.
    EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment 
program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers 
Codex MRLs in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are 
established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee 
within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization 
formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It 
is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the 
extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection 
required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is 
summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual 
Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed 
guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support in the 
Federal Register of June 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-6559-3). This 
guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic 
copies are available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/. On the 
Home Page select ``Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,'' then select 
``Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then look up the entry for this 
document under ``Federal Register''--Environmental Documents.'' You can 
also go directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances 
under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific 
tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (i.e., 
establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation 
for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under 
Executive Order 12866,entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted 
from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 
significance, this proposed 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 proposed 
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 as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review 
or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

[[Page 32905]]

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). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of 
tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, 
expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a 
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general 
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance 
establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were 
published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 
66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this 
analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in 
this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed 
action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 
2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in 
order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to 
adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and 
that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions 
holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This 
Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). 
Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency 
knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present 
proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments 
about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along 
with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a 
final rule. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be 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), 346a and 371.
    2. In Sec. 180.202, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  180.202  p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. A tolerance is established for the combined residues 
of the plant regulator p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite p-
chlorophenol to inhibit embryonic root development in or on the 
following food commodity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bean, mung, sprouts........................................          0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 180.364, the table in paragraph (a) is revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  180.364  Glyphosate; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acerola........................................                      0.2
Alfalfa, seed..................................                      0.5
Almond, hulls..................................                       25
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18................                      400
Aloe vera......................................                      0.5
Ambarella......................................                      0.2
Artichoke, globe...............................                      0.2
Asparagus......................................                      0.5
Atemoya........................................                      0.2
Avocado........................................                      0.2
Bamboo, shoots.................................                      0.2
Banana.........................................                      0.2
Barley, bran...................................                       30

[[Page 32906]]

 
Barley, grain..................................                       20
Beet, sugar, dried pulp........................                       25
Beet, sugar, roots.............................                       10
Beet, sugar, tops..............................                       10
Berry group 13.................................                      0.2
Betelnut.......................................                      1.0
Biriba.........................................                      0.2
Blimbe.........................................                      0.2
Borage, seed...................................                      0.1
Breadfruit.....................................                      0.2
Cactus, fruit..................................                      0.5
Cactus, pads...................................                      0.5
Canistel.......................................                      0.2
Canola, meal...................................                       15
Canola, seed...................................                       10
Cattle, kidney.................................                      4.0
Cattle, liver..................................                      1.0
Chaya..........................................                      1.0
Cherimoya......................................                      0.2
Citrus, dried pulp.............................                      1.5
Cacao bean.....................................                      0.2
Coconut........................................                      0.1
Coffee, bean...................................                      1.0
Corn, field, forage............................                      6.0
Corn, field, grain.............................                      1.0
Cotton, gin byproducts.........................                      175
Cotton, undelinted seed........................                       35
Cranberry......................................                      0.2
Crambe, seed...................................                      0.1
Custard apple..................................                      0.2
Date...........................................                      0.2
Dokudami.......................................                      2.0
Durian.........................................                      0.2
Egg............................................                     0.05
Epazote........................................                      1.3
Feijoa.........................................                      0.2
Fig............................................                      0.2
Fish...........................................                     0.25
Flax, meal.....................................                      8.0
Flax, seed.....................................                      4.0
Fruit, citrus, group 10........................                      0.5
Fruit, pome, group 11..........................                      0.2
Fruit, stone, group 12.........................                      0.2
Galangal, root.................................                      0.2
Ginger, white, flower..........................                      0.2
Goat, kidney...................................                      4.0
Goat, liver....................................                      0.5
Gourd, buffalo, seed...........................                      0.1
Governor's plum................................                      0.2
Gow kee, leaves................................                      0.2
Grain, aspirated fractions.....................                    100.0
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group                       100
 16............................................
Grain, cereal, group 15, except barley, field                        0.1
 corn, grain sorghum, oat and wheat............
Grape..........................................                      0.2
Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17........                      300
Guava..........................................                      0.2
Herbs subgroup 19A.............................                      0.2
Hog, kidney....................................                      4.0
Hog, liver.....................................                      1.0
Hop, dried cones...............................                      7.0
Horse, kidney..................................                      4.0
Horse, liver...................................                      0.5
Ilama..........................................                      0.2
Imbe...........................................                      0.2
Imbu...........................................                      0.2
Jaboticaba.....................................                      0.2
Jackfruit......................................                      0.2
Jojoba, seed...................................                      0.1
Juneberry......................................                      0.2
Kava, roots....................................                      0.2
Kenaf, forage..................................                      200
Kiwifruit......................................                      0.1
Lesquerella, seed..............................                      0.1
Leucaena, forage...............................                      200

[[Page 32907]]

 
Lingonberry....................................                      0.2
Longan.........................................                      0.2
Lychee.........................................                      0.2
Mamey apple....................................                      0.2
Mango..........................................                      0.2
Mangosteen.....................................                      0.2
Marmaladebox...................................                      0.2
Meadowfoam, seed...............................                      0.1
Mioga, flower..................................                      0.2
Mustard, seed..................................                      0.1
Nut, pine......................................                      1.0
Nut, tree, group 14............................                      1.0
Oat, grain.....................................                       20
Okra...........................................                      0.5
Olive..........................................                      0.2
Oregano, Mexican, leaves.......................                      2.0
Palm heart.....................................                      0.2
Palm heart, leaves.............................                      0.2
Palm, oil......................................                      0.1
Papaya.........................................                      0.2
Papaya, mountain...............................                      0.2
Passionfruit...................................                      0.2
Pawpaw.........................................                      0.2
Peanut.........................................                      0.1
Peanut, forage.................................                      0.5
Peanut, hay....................................                      0.5
Pepper leaf, fresh leaves......................                      0.2
Peppermint, tops...............................                      200
Perilla, tops..................................                      1.8
Persimmon......................................                      0.2
Pineapple......................................                      0.1
Pistachio......................................                      1.0
Pomegranate....................................                      0.2
Poultry, meat..................................                      0.1
Poultry, meat byproducts.......................                      1.0
Pulasan........................................                      0.2
Quinoa, grain..................................                      5.0
Rambutan.......................................                      0.2
Rapeseed, meal.................................                       15
Rapeseed, seed.................................                       10
Rose apple.....................................                      0.2
Safflower, seed................................                      0.1
Salal..........................................                      0.2
Sapodilla......................................                      0.2
Sapote, black..................................                      0.2
Sapote, mamey..................................                      0.2
Sapote, white..................................                      0.2
Sesame, seed...................................                      0.1
Sheep, kidney..................................                      4.0
Sheep, liver...................................                      0.5
Shellfish......................................                      3.0
Sorghum, grain, grain..........................                       15
Soursop........................................                      0.2
Soybean, seed..................................                       20
Soybean, forage................................                      100
Soybean, hay...................................                      200
Soybean, hulls.................................                      100
Spanish lime...................................                      0.2
Spearmint, tops................................                      200
Spice subgroup 19B.............................                      7.0
Star apple.....................................                      0.2
Starfruit......................................                      0.2
Stevia, dried leaves...........................                      1.0
Strawberry.....................................                      0.2
Sugar apple....................................                      0.2
Sugarcane, cane................................                      2.0
Sugarcane, molasses............................                       30
Sunflower, seed................................                      0.1
Surinam cherry.................................                      0.2
Tamarind.......................................                      0.2
Tea, dried.....................................                      1.0
Tea, instant...................................                      7.0
Teff, grain....................................                      5.0
Ti, leaves.....................................                      0.2

[[Page 32908]]

 
Ti, roots......................................                      0.2
Ugli fruit.....................................                      0.5
Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5............                      0.2
Vegetable, bulb, group 3.......................                      0.2
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9...................                      0.5
Vegetable, foliage of legume, subgroup 7A,                           0.2
 except soybean................................
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8...................                      0.1
Vegetable, leafy, group 4......................                      0.2
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2,                        0.2
 except sugar beet tops........................
Vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean.....                      5.0
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except                           0.2
 sugar beet....................................
Wasabi, roots..................................                      0.2
Water spinach, tops............................                      0.2
Watercress, upland.............................                      0.2
Wax jambu......................................                      0.2
Wheat, bran....................................                       20
Wheat, grain...................................                      5.0
Wheat, middlings...............................                       20
Wheat, shorts..................................                       20
Yacon