Chem-News April 1994
TO: Those Interested In Pesticide Information
FROM: William G. Smith, Sr. Extension Associate
DATE: April, 1994
***************************************************************************
**
INDEX
The Worker Protection Standard; Delayed Implementation
Delaney Clause: Updated List of Pesticides
Delaney Policy Notice Issued by EPA
NYSDEC Grants Third Party, SLN, Registration for Prowl on Onions
Sandoz Argo, Inc.; Approval of Pesticide Product Registrations
Pesticide Tolerances for Dimethenamid
Filings of Pesticide Petitions and a Corrected Petition
Tolerances for Acetochlor Proposed
Arthropod Pheromones; Tolerance Exemption
Proposed Pesticide Tolerance for Procymidone
***************************************************************************
*
___________________________________________________________________
The Worker Protection Standard:1994 Legislative Changes A Guide For
Agricultural Employers
___________________________________________________________________
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides in 1992. The WPS governs
pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants on farms and in
forests, nurseries, and greenhouses.
Most WPS provisions were due to take effect on April 15, 1994. However, in
April, legislation was enacted which delays implementation of some but not
all of the WPS until January 1, 1995. The new law provides more time for
the agricultural community to learn about the WPS and to prepare for
implementation. This guide summarizes the major WPS provisions, especially
those required in 1994, and describes how you can get more information.
Summary Of The New Worker Protection Law
In summary, most of the WPS requirements appear on the labels of the
pesticides used on the agricultural establishments where your employees
work. There are two types of WPS provisions that appear on the label:
those that are fully spelled out, and those that are referred to but not
thoroughly described on the label.
During 1994, you must comply with the WPS requirements that are spelled out
on the label. These include the label requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE), the restricted-entry interval (REI), and the requirement
for "double notification," if this requirement is on the label.
You do not need to comply with the "referenced" requirements until January
1, 1995. These requirements include pesticide safety training for
agricultural workers and handlers, decontamination sites, notification of
workers about pesticide applications, display of information about
pesticide applications, emergency assistance, and display of a safety
poster.
The legislation also provides optional PPE requirements for some irrigation
work in 1994 and excludes crop advisors from WPS coverage until January 1,
1995.
________________________________________________________________
Updated List of Pesticides and Uses Potentially Affected by the
Delaney Clause
________________________________________________________________
This Notice publishes an updated list of pesticides potentially affected by
the Delaney clause in section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
EPA regulates pesticide residues in foods under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The FFDCA gives EPA the authority to set legally
enforceable limits, or tolerances, for pesticide residues in food. EPA sets
tolerances for pesticide residues remaining in raw foods under section 408
of the FFDCA. Under section 409 of FFDCA, EPA sets food additive tolerances
for pesticide residues that concentrate in processed foods above raw food
tolerances, or are the result of pesticide application during or after food
processing.
EPA has reviewed all pesticides classified as probable or possible human
carcinogens in the past year and reviewed studies on how pesticide residues
concentrate. In the case of pesticides having existing section 409 (food
additive) tolerances, the new pesticides, together with their uses, have
been added to List I. Pesticides for which studies indicate concentration
in processed food, therefore requiring section 409 tolerances, were added
to List II. EPA has also added to List II pesticides used for direct
treatment of processed food, food handling equipment, and other uses which
are likely to result in residues in the processed food.
In the year since the original list was issued, EPA has taken action to
revoke section 409 tolerances for a number of pesticides. EPA has deleted
pesticides from List I if the food additive tolerance has been revoked.
Pesticides/uses have been removed from List II if more recent data has
shown that there is no concentration of residues during processing
associated with the uses in question. Pesticides used on dried hops have
also been deleted from the list because EPA has changed the regulatory
status of dried hops. Dried hops had been regulated as a processed food,
but now will be considered a raw agricultural commodity, for which
tolerances are established under section 408 of FFDCA. (See ``Status
of Dried Hops under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,'' PR notice
93-12, Dec. 23, 1993).
Thirty-four pesticides are included on the updated list. The lists contain
100 chemical/crop or site combinations. (Fourteen pesticides and 10
pesticide/crop combinations appear on both lists.)
The following List I includes 20 pesticides that have established section
409 food/feed additive tolerances. Forty-eight pesticide/commodity
combinations are included on List I. Notes and symbols used in List I and
II are explained at the end of List II.
List I.-Pesticides Classified As Group B or C Carcinogens That Have
Established Section 409 Food Additive Tolerances1
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Pesticide | Raw crop | Processed | Notes | CFR Cite
| | food/feed | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Acephate | Cotton | Seed: hulls, | | 186.100
| | meal | |
| Soybeans | Meal | | 186.100
| Not | Food | | 185.100
| applicable@ | handling | |
| | establish- | |
| | ments | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
(z)Benomyl | Apples | Pomace | | 186.350
| Citrus | Pulp | | 186.350
| Grapes | Pomace | | 186.350
| | Raisins | A | 185.350
| | Raisin waste | | 186.350
| | | |
| Rice | Hulls | | 186.350
| Tomatoes | Puree or | A | 185.350
| | catsup | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Captan | Grapes | Raisins | | 185.500
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
(z)Dichlorvos | Not | Pkg. | D, E | 185.1900
(DDVP) | applicable@ | nonperish. | |
| | food | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Dicofol | Not | Dried tea | F | 185.410
| applicable@ | | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Diflubenzuron | Soybeans2 | Hulls, | * | 186.2000
(metabolite)2 p | | Soapstock2| |
-chloroaniline | | | |
(PCA). | | | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Dimethipin | Cotton | Seed hulls | | 186.2050
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Dimethoate | Citrus | Pulp | | 186.2100
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Ethylene oxide | Whole spices | Ground | | 185.2850
| | spices | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
(z)Mancozeb | Barley | Bran | | 185.6300
| | Flour | | 185.6300
| | Milled | | 186.6300
| | fractions | |
| Grapes | Raisins | A | 185.6300
| Oats | Bran | | 185.6300
| | Flour | | 185.6300
| | Milled | | 186.6300
| | fractions | |
| Rye | Flour | | 185.6300
| | Bran | | 185.6300
| | Milled | | 186.6300
| | fractions | |
| Wheat | Bran | A | 185.6300
| | Flour | A | 185.6300
| | Milled | | 186.6300
| | fractions | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Norflurazon | Citrus | Pulp, | | 186.4450
| | molasses | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Oxyfluorfen | Cotton | Cottenseed | | 185.4600
| | Oil | |
| Peppermint | Oil | | 185.4600
| Spearmint | Oil | | 185.4600
| Soybean | Oil | | 185.4600
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
(z)Phosmet | Cotton | Cottonseed | A | 185.3950
| | oil | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Propargite | Apples | Pomace | | 186.5000
| Citrus | Pulp | | 186.5000
| Figs | Dried figs | | 185.5000
| Grapes | Raisins, | | 185.5000
| | Dried | |
| | pomace | |
| Tea | Dried tea | | 185.5000
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Propylene oxide2 | Not | Cocoa2 | B | 185.5150
| applicable@ | | |
| | Glace fruit | B | 185.5150
| | 2 | |
| | Edible gums | B | 185.5150
| | 2 | |
| | Processed | B | 185.5150
| | nutmeat | |
| | (except | |
| | peanuts)2 | |
| | Prunes2 | B | 185.5150
| | Processed | B | 185.5150
| | spices2 | |
| | Starch2 | B | 185.5150
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Simazine | Sugarcane | Molasses, | | 185.5350
| | Syrup | |
| | | | 186.5350
| Not | Potable | | 185.5350
| applicable@ | water | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Tetrachlorvinphos | Not | Feed items2| B | 186.950
2. | applicable@ | | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Thiophanate-methyl | Apples | Pomace | | 186.5700
| | | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
Triadimefon | Apples | Pomace | | 186.800
| Barley | Milled | | 185.800
| | fractions | |
| Grapes | Pomace | | 186.800
| | Raisin waste | | 186.800
| Wheat | Milled | | 185.800
| | fractions | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
(z)Trifluralin | Peppermint | Peppermint | A | 185.5900
| | Oil | |
| Spearmint | Spearmint | A | 185.5900
| | Oil | |
-------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+----------
1 Several 409s that have been proposed for cancellation are still
included since revocations are not yet final.
2 Use of this pesticide on this commodity has been added to the list.
The following List II shows pesticides that do not have established
section 409 food additive tolerances, but based upon data indicating that
residues present on a raw agricultural commodity concentrate during
processing, they would require food additive tolerances under EPA's current
policy. Fifty-two pesticide/commodity combinations are included on List II.
Pesticides and crops which appear on both this list and List I are noted by
``+.''
List II.-Pesticides That Do Not Have Established Section 409 Food
Additive Tolerances1
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Pesticide | Raw crop | Processed | Notes
| | food/feed |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
| | |
z,+ Acephate | +Soybeans | Hulls |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Alachlor | Peanuts | Meal |
| Soybeans | Hulls, meal |
| Sunflower seed | Meal |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Asulam | Sugarcane | Bagasse, |
| | molasses |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Atrazine | Sugarcane | Bagasse, |
| | molasses |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
z,+ Benomyl | +Rice | Bran |
| Soybeans2 | Hulls2 | C
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Captan | Apples | Dry pomace |
| +Grapes | Raisin waste, |
| | juice, dry |
| | pomace |
| Plums | Prunes |
| Tomatoes | Dry pomace |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Chlorothalonil | Potatoes | Wet peel |
| Soybeans | Hulls |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
z,+ Dichlorvos | Not applicable@ | Food handling | D
(DDVP) | | establish- |
| | ments |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Dicofol | Apples | Dry pomace |
| Citrus | Oil |
| Grapes | Dry pomace, |
| | raisins, |
| | raisin waste |
| | |
| Plums2 | Prunes2 | C
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Dimethoate | Apples | Juice |
| +Citrus | Oil |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Hexazinone | Alfalfa2 | Meal2 | C
| Pineapple2 | Bran, | C
| | molasses2 |
| Sugarcane | Bagasse, |
| | molasses |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Lindane | Tomatoes | Dry pomace |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Linuron | Potatoes | Dry & wet |
| | peel, chips, |
| | dried |
| | granules |
| Soybeans2 | Meal2 | C
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
z,+ Mancozeb | Apples | Dry pomace |
| +Grapes | Raisin waste |
| Sugar beets | Pulp |
| +Wheat | Middlings |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Maneb | Apples | Dry pomace |
| Grapes | Raisin waste |
| Sugar beets | Pulp |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Methidathion | Citrus | Oil |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Metiram | Apples | Dry pomace |
| Sugar beets | Dry pomace |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Metolachlor | Peanuts | Meal |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Methomyl | Wheat | Bran |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Norflurazon2 | +Citrus2 | Oil2 | C
| Grapes2 | Raisin waste | C
| | 2 |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Oxyfluorfen | Apples | Dry pomace |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
PCNB | Potatoes | Wet & dry |
| | peel |
| Tomatoes | Dry pomace |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
Permethrin | Tomatoes** | Dry pomace |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
z,+ Phosmet | Citrus | Oil |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Propargite | +Citrus | Oil |
| +Grapes | Raisin waste |
| Plums | Prunes |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Simazine | +Sugarcane | Bagasse |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
+ Triadimefon | Pineapple | Bran |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
z, + Trifluralin2 | Potatoes2 | Processed | C
| | potato waste |
| | 2 |
--------------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------
1 As noted in the table, some pesticides are listed because their
registered uses include contact with food processing, handling, or storage
areas, or equipment.
2 Use of this pesticide on this commodity has been added to the list.
Notes Used in Lists I and II.
@. For some of the pesticides listed, a tolerance is established for
residues on the processed food or feed items, and there is no corresponding
tolerance on a raw agricultural commodity. In these instances, the entry in
the ``raw crop'' column is ``Not Applicable.''
z. A pesticide which EPA has concluded ``induces cancer'' within the
meaning of the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause specifically provides
that, with limited exceptions, no food additive may be approved if it is
found to induce cancer in man or animals. For an explanation of the
``induce cancer'' standard, see the final rule revoking the food additive
regulations for benomyl, mancozeb, phosmet, and trifluralin (58 FR 37863,
July 14, 1993).
A. EPA issued a final rule revoking the food additive tolerances for
benomyl (on raisins and processed tomato products), mancozeb (on raisins
and bran of wheat), trifluralin (on spearmint and peppermint oil), and
phosmet (on cottonseed oil). (See 58 FR 37862, July 14, 1993). EPA revoked
the tolerances because they were inconsistent with the Delaney clause.
However, the Agency received several objections and petitions to stay the
effective date of the revocations. On September 16, 1993, EPA issued an
order staying the effective date during the time needed for EPA to review
and respond to the stay requests.
B. Added because EPA has evaluated the pesticide for potential
carcinogenicity and classified it as a probable or possible human
carcinogen.
C. Added because EPA has determined under its current concentration
policy that the residues of the pesticide concentrate in the processed food
form.
D. EPA expects to issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel registrations of
certain DDVP uses in food handling establishments which would result in
unlawful residues in processed food.
E. The Agency published a notice to revoke the use of dichlorvos (DDVP)
in Bagged/Packaged nonperishable processed food. The revocation was
published on November 10, 1993, with an effective date of March 10, 1994.
EPA received a request to stay the effective date. On March 10, 1994, EPA
issued an order staying the effective date during the time needed for EPA
to review and respond to a petition objecting to the revocation.
F. Dicofol: Use on dried tea, revocation published 59 FR 10993, March
9, 1994; effective date May 9, 1994.
* Indicates that the pesticide has been included because of a potential
carcinogenic metabolite PCA. Diflubenzuoron has not been classified by EPA
as a potential human carcinogen.
** The registration for permethrin is limited to use on tomatoes to be
sold fresh in the marketplace, and is not registered for uses on processed
food/feed commodities.
The following tables show the pesticides and uses which have been either
added to or deleted from the list of pesticides potentially affected by the
Delaney clause.
1. Additions to the Lists
a. List I. The following pesticides/use combinations have been added
to List I (Pesticides classified as Group B or C carcinogens that have
established section 409 food additive tolerances.)
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Pesticide | Raw Crop | Processed Food/Feed
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Diflubenzuron | Soybeans | Hulls, Soapstock
(metabolite PCA). | |
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Propylene oxide | | Cocoa
| | Glace fruit
| | Edible gums
| | Dried nutmeat (except
| | peanuts)
| | Prunes
| | Spices
| | Starch
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Tetrachlorvinphos | | Feed items
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
b. List II. The following pesticide/use combinations have been added
to List II (Pesticides classified as B or C carcinogens that do not have
established section 409 food additive tolerances, but based upon data
indicating concentration during processing, would require food additive
tolerances under EPA's current policy.)
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Pesticide | Raw Crop | Processed Food/Feed
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
| |
Benomyl | Soybeans | Hulls
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Dicofol | Plums | Prunes
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Hexazinone | Alfalfa | Meal
| Pineapple | Bran, molasses
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Linuron | Soybeans | Meal
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
b. List II (Cont'd.). The following pesticide/use combinations have
been added to List II (Pesticides classified as B or C carcinogens that do
not have established section 409 food additive tolerances, but based upon
data indicating concentration during processing, would require food
additive tolerances under EPA's current policy.)
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Pesticide | Raw Crop | Processed Food/Feed
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Norflurazon | Citrus | Oil
| Grapes | Raisin waste
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
Trifluralin | Potatoes | Processed potato waste
------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------
2. Deletions from the List
a. List I. The following pesticide/use combinations have been deleted
from List I, for reasons noted at the end of this section.
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Pesticide | Raw Crop | Processed Food/Feed | Notes | CFR Cite
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Captan | Corn | Seed (detreated) | A | 186.500
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Ethylene oxide | Copra, Black | | B | 185.2850
| walnut meats | | |
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Methomyl | Hops | Dried hops | C | 185.4100
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Norflurazon | Hops | Dried hops | C | 185.4450
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Propargite | Hops | Dried hops | C | 186.5000
---------------+----------------+----------------------+--------+----------
Notes:
A. Deleted because EPA revoked the food additive regulation. EPA
published the following final revocations:
Captan: Use on detreated corn seed, revocation published 58 FR 41430,
effective date August 4, 1993.
Propylene Oxide: An exemption from the requirement to obtain a
section 408 tolerance for all raw agricultural commodities has been
revoked, effective 10/21/93.
B. The use of ethylene oxide on copra and black walnut meats has been
deleted because it was incorrectly listed on the February 1993 list. The
section 409 tolerance for ethylene oxide is for its use as a fumigant on
whole spices-there is no tolerance established for use on copra and black
walnuts.
C. Uses noted were deleted due to a change in EPA guidelines with
respect to the classification of dried hops. Consistent with the directive
contained in Public Law 103 124, the appropriations act including EPA
funding for FY94, on December 23, 1993, the Agency issued a notice to
registrants informing them that dried hops are reclassified as a raw
agricultural commodity (RAC). This eliminates the requirement for a food
additive regulation for pesticides used on hops. As time and resources
permit, EPA will revoke existing section 409 tolerances for dried hops, and
issue section 408 tolerances in accordance with the reclassification of
hops as a RAC. EPA intends to apply the reclassification of dried hops in
all future regulatory decisions involving hops.
b. List II. The following pesticide/use combinations have been deleted
from List II, for reasons noted on the list.
----------------+-----------------+------------------------+---------------
Pesticide | Raw Crop | Processed Food/Feed | Notes
----------------+-----------------+------------------------+---------------
| | |
Alachlor | Sorghum | Bran, Flour,Germ | A
----------------+-----------------+------------------------+---------------
Dicamba | Barley | Hulls, bran, pearl | B
| Millet | barley |
| Oats | hulls, meal |
| Wheat | Hulls, rolled oats, |
| | bran, shorts, |
| | middling
----------------+-----------------+------------------------+---------------
--
Dicofol | | Dried hops | C
----------------+-----------------+------------------------+---------------
Notes:
A. Deleted because sorghum bran, germ and flour are not food/feed
items. Therefore, no food additive tolerance is required. This
pesticide/use combination was incorrectly included on the February 1993
list of pesticides and uses potentially affected by the Delaney clause.
B. Deleted because studies of the pesticide's residue in processed food
indicate that the residue does not concentrate in the commodities noted.
C. Deleted due to change in EPA guidelines with respect to the
classification of dried hops. (See note C above explaining deletions from
List I.)
Today's List Does Not Constitute a Final Determination of Pesticides With
Uses Prohibited By the Delaney Clause
For several reasons, the list of pesticide uses affected by the court's
interpretation of the Delaney clause may be smaller than the lists made
available by this notice. First, EPA has not made a final determination
whether all of these pesticides ``induce cancer'' within the meaning of the
Delaney clause. Second, many of the pesticide uses involve animal feeds,
and EPA has not evaluated whether those uses qualify for the limited
exception to the Delaney clause for animal feeds (the so-called ``DES
proviso''). Third, EPA has issued requests for comment on several
policyissues, the resolution of which will affect precisely what pesticides
and uses are affected. Fourth, in accordance with the requirements of the
FFDCA, EPA's process for revoking pesticide tolerances provides the
opportunity for public notice and comment on any proposed revocations. By
the same reasoning, however, the lists do not reflect all pesticide uses
that may be affected. EPA, through its registration and reregistration
programs, continually receives new data. New studies may identify
additional pesticides or uses that are subject to the Delaney clause. EPA
intends to update and reissue both List I and II periodically.
Dated: March 21, 1994.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
FR Doc. 94-7363 Filed 3-29-94
____________________________________________________________
Pesticides; Prioritization of Actions Subject to the Delaney
Clause; Policy Notice
_____________________________________________________________
EPA is announcing that it will temporarily cease review and processing of
tolerance petitions received under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) and the associated registration applications received under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) if any of the
pesticide uses that are subject of the applications and petitions appear to
result in a residue that needs a food additive regulation under section 409
of the FFDCA and such a regulation would be barred by the Delaney Clause.
EPA is adopting this policy to concentrate on food additive regulations
currently in force which are inconsistent on action which may be revised
once various policy issues are resolved. The effective data is April 6,
1994.
Reasons for Policy on Tolerance Petitions and Registration Actions Affected
by Delaney Clause
EPA is adopting this policy at the present time as part of the priorities
it has established following the decision in Les v. Reilly. The Les v.
Reilly decision clearly established that the Delaney Clause bars the
existence of a food additive regulation for any pesticide that induces
cancer in man or animal.
EPA has determined that there presently exist as many as 50 food additive
regulations for pesticides that may meet the induce-cancer standard. EPA's
first priority, thus, following the Les v. Reilly decision is to determine
which of these regulations must be revoked and to do so promptly. Because
food additive regulations are only established in situations where EPA
believes they are needed to prevent the adulteration of food, EPA's second
priority will be to determine what action should be taken, if any, against
the FIFRA registrations and section 408 tolerances which are associated
with the food additive regulations to be revoked. This issue has been made
more complex, as explained above, by the NFPA petition which challenges
EPA's existing policies on this matter. Finally, EPA's third priority is to
address the many petitions for establishing food additive regulations
which raise Delaney Clause problems.
Policy
EPA will temporarily stop all review and processing work related to
establishing a registration and/or tolerance(s) for any chemical/crop
combination in which: (1) either the chemical has been found to induce
cancer in man or animal or the chemical has shown evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals or humans; and (2) the pesticide residue in or
on a raw agricultural commodity concentrates when that commodity is
processed or EPA otherwise determines that a food additive regulation is
needed for the use. This will include any work on registrations under FIFRA
section 3, experimental use permits under FIFRA section 5, associated
tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA, as well as food additive
regulations under section 409 of the FFDCA.
Work on tolerances and registrations for other uses of the chemical, where
a food additive regulation is not needed, may continue. However, EPA
approves or denies tolerance petitions in toto. Therefore, if a petition
seeks a tolerance for any residue that appears subject to the Delaney
Clause, that petition cannot be approved and work on all tolerances in that
petition will temporarily stop. The Agency advises any person who has
submitted a pending tolerance petition containing a tolerance that appears
to be subject to the Delaney Clause to amend the petition to separate the
tolerances not affected by the Delaney Clause so that work on these
tolerances may resume.
EPA will also disapprove any State registrations approved under section 24
of FIFRA if the registration depends on the existence of a food additive
regulation that is subject to revocation under the Delaney Clause. The
basis of such disapproval would be that the registration is ``inconsistent
with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,'' FIFRA sec. 24(c)(3).
States are urged not to approve such section 24(c) registrations,
since State approval followed within 90 days by EPA disapproval will be
disruptive and cause unnecessary economic burdens.
There are approximately 60 actions currently in review that EPA believes
are subject to this policy. EPA will begin sending individual notices to
registrants and petitioners within 30 days of this notice and expects to
complete notification within 90 days. A registrant who receives no
notification may assume that petitions and application actions continue in
active review.
This policy does not affect the registration of new products or new uses
which have an associated 409 tolerance that has already been established
even if, under the Delaney Clause, that tolerance would not now be granted.
However, EPA intends to revoke such tolerances in the future, and will,
after revocation, immediately stop review and processing of additional
pending actions dependent on the tolerance at that time. Registrants who
intend to submit new registration applications under these circumstances
may wish to await further Agency action before submitting applications that
may be affected by such revocations.
FR Doc. 94-7701 Filed 4-5-94
_________________________________________________________________
NYSDEC Grants Third Party, SLN, Registration for Prowl on Onions
_________________________________________________________________
The New York State Vegetable Growers Association (NYSVGA) announces the
availability of a third party special local need 24(c) label for Prowl()
3.3 EC herbicide on New York muck-grown onions. Labels and application
information are being mailed to onion growers statewide on April 6. The
label is for this season only.
New York muck onion growers who have not received this information are
urged to contact the NYSVGA office immediately to obtain the information.
Write the NYSVGA office at P.O. Box 4256, Ithaca, NY 14852-4256, or call
607-539-7648.
New York is a major onion producing state, with its $61 million industry
ranking 7th in the nation overall. Making this third party label available
is one of the many services provided to growers by the New York State
Vegetable Growers Association.Also, A copy of the SLN letter from the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDEC can be accessed
be selecting item number 2 from the PMEP menu on CENET and then reviewing
the SLN labels.
Jean Warholic
NYSVGA
______________________________________________________________
Sandoz Argo, Inc.; Approval of Pesticide Product Registrations
______________________________________________________________
This EPA notice announces Agency approval of applications submitted by
Sandoz Agro, Inc. to conditionally register the pesticide products Sentinel
40WG Turf Fungicide, Technical Cyproconazole, and Sentinel 40WG For
Repackaging Use Only containing a new active ingredient not included in any
previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended.
The EPA issued a notice published in the Federal Register of September 28,
1988 (53 FR 37866), which announced that Sandoz Crop Protection Corp., 1300
E. Touchy Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018, had submitted applications to
register the pesticide products Cyproconazole 40% WG Fungicide containing
the active ingredient (4-chlorophenyl)-(1-cyclopropylethyl) triazole-1-
ethanol at 40 percent and Technical Cyproconazole containing the active
ingredient cyproconazole-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-
(1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol) at 93 percent (EPA File Symbols 55947-RGE and
55947-RGG) respectively, active ingredients not included in any previously
registered products.
The company changed the name of one of the products from ``Cyproconazole
40% WG Fungicide'' to ``Sentinel 40WG Turf Fungicide'' and amended the
active ingredient to read ``cyproconazole [alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-(1-
cyclopropylethyl) triazole-1-ethanol.''
FR Doc. 94-7703 Filed 4-5-94
_____________________________________
Pesticide Tolerances for Dimethenamid
_____________________________________
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the herbicide,
dimethenamid, 2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2- methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethyl-
thien-3-yl)-acetamide in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC)
soybeans at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). This regulation to establish the
maximum permissible level of residues of the herbicide in or on this
commodity was requested in a petition submitted by Sandoz Agro Inc.
FR Doc. 94-8104 Filed 4-5-94
_______________________________________________________
Filings of Pesticide Petitions and a Corrected Petition
_______________________________________________________
The EPA has received initial filings of pesticide petitions (PPs) as
follows proposing the establishment of regulations regarding residues of
certain pesticide chemicals in or on various agricultural commodities. EPA
is also correcting a previously issued petition.
Initial Filings
1. PP 4F4314. D-I-1-4, Inc., 15401 Cartwright Rd., Boise, ID 83703, has
submitted the petition to EPA proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant
growth regulator 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene for use on potatoes (post-
harvest).
2. PP 4F4322. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Agricultural
Products, Barley Mill Plaza, P.O. Box 80038, Wilmington, DE 19880-0038, has
submittedthe petition to EPA proposing to amend 40 CFR 180.451 to establish
tolerances for residues of the herbicide tribenuron methyl (methyl 2-[[[[N-
(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methylamino] carbonyl] amino]
sulfonyl] benzoate) in or on grass seed; grass, seed straw; and grass, seed
cleanings (screenings) at 0.04 part per million (ppm). The proposed method
for determining residues is gas chromatography with mass spectral detector.
3. PP 6F3417. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, has submitted the petition to EPA
proposing to amend 40 CFR 180.407(c) to establish permanent tolerances for
residues of the insecticide thiodicarb (dimethyl
N,N'[thiobis[[(methylimino) carbonyl]oxy]] bis[ethanimidothioate]) and its
metabolite methomyl (S-methyl N-[(methylcarbamoyl)oxy] thioacetimidate) in
or on broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower at 7 parts per million.
4. PP 7F3516. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, has submitted the petition to EPA
proposing to amend 40 CFR 180.407(b) to establish a permanent tolerance for
residues of the insecticide thiodicarb (dimethyl
N,N'[thiobis[[(methylimino) carbonyl]oxy]] bis[ethanimidothioate]) and its
metabolite methomyl (S-methyl N-[(methylcarbamoyl)oxy] thioacetimidate) in
or on leafy vegetables at 35 parts per million.
Corrected Filing
PP 2F4107. In the Federal Register of June 10, 1992 (57 FR 24644), EPA
issued notice of the petition submitted by the Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a regulation to permit residues of difenoconazole, 1-(2-[4-
chlorophenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl-methyl)-1H-1,2,4-
triazole, in or on wheat forage at 0.1 ppm, wheat straw at 0.1 ppm, barley
forage at 0.1 ppm, and barley straw at 0.1 ppm. Ciba-Geigy has submitted an
amendment to the petition, proposing to establish additional tolerances as
follows: cattle, fat, meat, and meat byproducts (mbyp) at 0.05 ppm; eggs at
0.05 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; goats, fat, meat, and mbyp at 0.05 ppm, hogs,
fat, meat, and mbyp at 0.05 ppm; horses, fat, meat, and mbyp at 0.05 ppm;
poultry, fat, meat, and mbyp at 0.05 ppm; sheep, fat, meat, and mbyp at
0.05 ppm; barley grain at 0.1 ppm; and wheat grain at 0.1 ppm. The proposed
analytical method for determining residues is gas chromatography with
nitrogen phosphorous detection.
FR Doc. 94-7372 Filed 3-29-94
____________________________________________
Pesticide Tolerances for Acetochlor Proposed
____________________________________________
This document proposes the establishment of tolerances for the combined
residues of the herbicide acetochlor (2-chloro-2`-methyl-6-ethyl-N-
ethoxymethyl acetanilide) and its metabolites containing the ethyl methyl
aniline (EMA) moiety and the hydroxyethyl methyl aniline (HEMA) moiety, to
be analyzed as acetochlor, and expressed as acetochlor equivalents, in or
on the raw agricultural commodities (RACs) wheat grain at 0.02 part per
million (ppm) and sorghum grain at 0.02 ppm. This proposed rule was
requested by the Acetochlor Registration Partnership and would establish
the maximum level for residues of the herbicide in or on the raw
agricultural commodities.
FR Doc. 94-7094 Filed 3-29-94
__________________________________________
Arthropod Pheromones; Tolerance Exemption
__________________________________________
EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of arthropod pheromones resulting from the use of these substances
in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers with an annual application
limitation of 150 grams active ingredient per acre (gm AI/acre) for pest
control in or on all raw agricultural commodities (RAC). EPA is
establishing this regulation on its own initiative. This regulation became
effective March 30, 1994.
In the Federal Register of December 8, 1993 (58 FR 64538), EPA issued a
proposed rule to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for all arthropod pheromones used in solid
matrix dispensers at rates less than or equal to 150 grams active
ingredient (AI)/acre/year. A pheromone is defined by EPA as a compound
produced by an arthropod that modifies the behavior of other individuals of
the same species (40 CFR 152.25(b)(1)). Solid matrix dispensers as defined
in the proposal include, but are not limited to, the following: Rubber
septa dispensers, trilaminate sheets, tapes, tags, wafers, macrocapillary
devices which are placed by hand in the field and are of such size and
construction that they are readily recognized. Formulations not included in
this exemption are as follows: Liquid flowables, microcapsules,
microcapillary straws; granular powder, flakes, or confetti formulations
which are sprayed or broadcast over the crop area; and cigarette filters or
unprotected ropes which generally contain the active ingredient on the
outer surface of the unit. In the proposal, EPA set forth its reasons for
determining that a tolerance for these pheromone products is not necessary
to protect public health.
EPA is choosing to change the term ``solid matrix dispensers'' to
``retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers'' for consistency with 40
CFR 180.1122, which exempts from the requirement of a tolerance the inert
materials of these dispensers (58 FR 64493). The Agency does not believe
this change will change the intent or scope of the original definition of a
dispenser. EPA intends the term ``retrievably sized polymeric matrix
dispensers '' to include such dispensers as the following: Rubber septa
dispensers; trilaminate sheets; tapes; tags, microcapillary devices such as
long tubes or fibers; twist ties; and protected ropes. Each of these
dispensers is placed by hand in the field and is of such size and
construction that it is readily recognized and retrievable.
Dispensers with similar characteristics would also come within this term.
In the preamble to the proposal, EPA included ``wafers'' in the list of
dispensers which would qualify under this exemption. EPA now believes use
of this example is ambiguous because wafers could be of a size that could
or could not be retrieved. To emphasize that this exemption only applies to
retrievable dispensers, EPA has intentionally omitted wafers from the
examples given above of qualifying dispensers.
FR Doc. 94-7368 Filed 3-29-94
_____________________________________________
Proposed Pesticide Tolerance for Procymidone
_____________________________________________
This document proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide procymidone, N-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)1,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1,2-
dicarboximide, in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) wine grapes at
5.0 parts per million (ppm). This regulation to establish the maximum
permissible level for residues of procymidone in or on wine grapes was
requested in a petition submitted by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit
comment on its consideration of Sumitomo's petition to establish under
section 408 of the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a, a
tolerance of 5 ppm for residues of the fungicide procymidone on grapes and
to establish immediately an interim tolerance of 7 ppm to last 1 year. The
Agency issued this ANPR to (1) give its preliminary assessment of the risk
posed by procymidone residues in imported wine, (2) set out its options for
a decision, and (3) request public comment on key scientific and policy
questions raised by this petition for tolerance. After considering the
comments received on the ANPR and after further review of the data
submitted by Sumitomo, EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register
of February 6, 1991 (56 FR 4772), giving notice that Sumitomo Chemical
Co.,Ltd., had submitted a pesticide petition, PP 0E3859, under
section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.). This document proposed to establish a time-limited
tolerance for procymidone in wine grapes grown prior to January 1, 1990 at
7 ppm. In the Federal Register of February 20, 1991 (56 FR 6821), EPA
reissued the proposed rule in its entirety to include certain statements in
the proposed rule document that were inadvertently omitted in the February
6, 1991 issuance. EPA addressed 17 comments received in response to the
second proposed rule in its final rule that established a time-limited
tolerance for procymidone in or on wine grapes at 7.0 ppm (56 FR 19518,
published April 26, 1991). This tolerance has two conditions placed on it:
(1) The tolerance will only be effective for 4 years, and (2) the tolerance
will only apply to wine grapes grown in 1989 or before. Since then Sumitomo
has requested that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408 (e) of the
FFDCA, amend the pesticide petition to remove the restriction which
allowsuse only on wine grapes grown before 1990 and to remove the
expiration date (April 1995) for the tolerance.
FR Doc. 94-7848 Filed 3-29-94
WGS
4/94
Disclaimer: Please read
the pesticide label prior to use. The information contained at this web
site is not a substitute for a pesticide label. Trade names used herein
are for convenience only; no endorsement of products is intended, nor is
criticism of unnamed products implied. Most of this information is historical
in nature and may no longer be applicable.
To Top
For more information relative to pesticides and their use in New York State, please contact the PMEP staff at:
| |
5123 Comstock Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-0901
(607) 255-1866
|
|
 |
This site is supported, in part, by funding from the
 |
Questions regarding the development of this web site should be directed to the
PMEP Webmaster
