auxin Tolerance Exemption 10/98
[Federal Register: October 23, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 205)]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
Certain Plant Regulators, Cytokinins, Auxins, Gibberellins,
Ethylene, and Pelargonic Acid; Tolerance Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the active ingredients cytokinins, auxins,
gibberellins, ethylene, and pelargonic acid in or on all food
commodities, when used as plant regulators on plants, seeds, or
cuttings and on all food commodities after harvest. EPA also proposes
to remove any existing crop-specific tolerances and/or exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance for the subject active ingredients as
well as considering such tolerances to be reassessed as required by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA is proposing this
regulation on its own initiative to facilitate the addition of new
crops, application rates, and uses to the labels of products containing
the listed active ingredients when used as plant regulators.
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number [OPP-300690],
must be received on or before December 22, 1998.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, deliver comments to:
Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically to: opp-
email@example.com. Follow the instructions under Unit VI of this
document. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that
does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the
public docket by EPA without prior notice. The public docket is
available for public inspection in Rm. 119 at the Virginia address
given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Denise Greenway, c/o Product
Manager (PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division
(7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number
and e-mail address: 9<SUP>th</SUP> fl., Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; (703) 308-8263;
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for the
active ingredients cytokinins (specifically: aqueous extract of seaweed
meal and kinetin); auxins (specifically: indole-3-acetic acid and
indole-3-butyric acid); gibberellins [gibberellic acids (GA<INF>3</INF>
and GA<INF>4</INF> + GA<INF>7</INF>), and sodium or potassium
gibberellate]; ethylene; and pelargonic acid, in or on all food
commodities, when used as plant regulators on plants, seeds or cuttings
and on all food commodities, after harvest, in accordance with good
agricultural practices. EPA concurrently proposes the revision or
revocation and removal of any existing crop-specific tolerances and/or
exemptions from the requirement of tolerances for the listed active
ingredients when used as plant regulators. In taking this action EPA
will consider those tolerances and/or exemptions to be reassessed
(Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 408(q) as amended by the FQPA of
The Agency has selected this group of plant regulators as the
subject of this proposal due to their non-toxic mode of action,
toxicity profile, low application rates, and the expectation that plant
regulator uses will not significantly increase their intake above
normally consumed levels. There are additional plant regulator active
ingredients which may meet the selection criteria. The Agency may, in
the future, propose a similar document addressing other candidate plant
regulator active ingredients.
All of the subject active ingredients are currently registered
plant regulators, with the exception of indole-3-acetic acid. The
Agency discourages the establishment (or existence) of tolerances, or
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, for active ingredients
for which there are no registered pesticide products. Therefore, any
Final Rule subsequent to this proposal will not include indole-3-acetic
acid (a naturally occurring analog of indole-3-butyric acid) in the
tolerance exemption for auxins, unless during the comment period
specific requests that it be included are received. Such requests must
document the intention of the commentor to promptly submit upon
publication of the Final Rule an application to register a plant
regulator product containing indole-3-acetic acid as an active
The Agency is making this proposal upon its own initiative to
facilitate the addition of new crops, application rates, and uses to
the labels of products containing the listed active ingredients when
used as plant regulators. A plant regulator is defined by EPA as
``...any substance or mixture of substances intended, through
physiological action, for accelerating or retarding the rate of growth
or rate of maturation, or for otherwise altering the behavior of plants
or the produce thereof...'' (FIFRA sec. 2 (v)). Additionally, plant
regulators are characterized by their low rates of application; high
application rates of the same compounds often are herbicidal.
I. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings
New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide
chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the
exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines ``safe'' to
mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing an exemption and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue...'' Additionally,
section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency consider ``available
information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
II. Toxicological Profile
EPA has assessed the toxicology data base for the subject plant
regulators and has sufficient data to assess the hazards and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(c)(2),
for the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA's
assessment of the exposures, including dietary exposure, and risks
associated with establishing these exemptions follows.
A. Waiver of Data Due to Low Toxicity
Tolerance exemptions for these types of substances are usually
based on the results of subchronic feeding, developmental toxicity and
mutagenicity studies, but for many of the plant regulators some or all
of these study requirements have been waived because of negligible
exposure from very low use rates. Such use rates for these active
ingredients are expected to be effective when these substances are used
as plant regulators and these low use rates are not expected to
significantly increase dietary intake over that anticipated from
consumption of a normal diet because the subject active ingredients are
naturally occurring (or are synthesized to approximate the naturally
occurring forms) in plants. Plants are part of a normal human diet.
These substances are effective plant regulators when applied at low
rates, but are often herbicidal when applied at high rates. The
toxicological data presented below demonstrate that testing at high
doses yields few effects in laboratory animals. Doses high enough to
cause toxicity in animal studies would represent application rates
toxic to crops (high, herbicidal rates), whereas the subject of this
proposal is the plant regulator (low rates) use.
Human health data requirements for indole-3-butyric acid were
waived for these reasons. Also, data from the published literature on
ethylene, and the absence of any reports of significant toxicity from
its widespread clinical use as an anesthetic were accepted by the
Agency as sufficient to support the conclusion that ethylene will be
nontoxic to humans under the conditions of use as a plant regulator
(including low application rate), and no additional toxicity data on
ethylene are required. No additional toxicity data are needed for
cytokinins since they are naturally occurring in numerous plant food
sources and are available as a food supplement.
Because there are no registered pesticide products with indole-3-
acetic acid as the active ingredient, no data have been received or
reviewed. Indole-3-acetic acid is a naturally occurring analog of
indole-3-butyric acid, for which all human health data were waived for
the reasons discussed above. Human health data on indole-3-acetic acid
would be similarly waived.
A full Tier I data set (40 CFR 158.690) was available and reviewed
for the gibberellins.
The 90-day oral toxicity study on pelargonic acid was waived on the
strength of the absence of toxic effects at or below a limit dose
(1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) in the 2-week range finding
and developmental toxicity test results.
B. Data on Acute Toxicity
The mammalian acute toxicity data for the plant regulators
considered in this exemption indicate low toxicity following single
oral, dermal, or inhalation exposures (Toxicity Category III or IV).
When tested for primary eye irritation, results for some of the subject
active ingredients (pelargonic acid and indole-3-butyric acid, only)
placed them in Toxicity Category II, but these findings do not
adversely affect the proposed tolerance exemptions, which are based on
dietary exposures. Prevention of eye irritation is addressed through
protective equipment required by the product labels.
C. Other Toxicity Data
Subchronic toxicity data and genotoxicity assays were considered
for gibberellins and pelargonic acid.
In two subchronic dietary studies of GA<INF>3</INF> and
GA<INF>4</INF> + GA<INF>7</INF> in rats, the No Observed Adverse Effect
Levels (NOAELs) approached or exceeded an oral limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/
day), and the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs) were
twofold to fivefold higher than the limit dose. An oral developmental
toxicity study with GA<INF>3</INF> in rats resulted in maternal and
developmental toxicity NOAELs equal to or greater than the oral limit
dose (highest dose tested), but an oral developmental toxicity study
with GA<INF>4</INF> + GA<INF>7</INF> in rabbits established maternal
and developmental toxicity NOAELs at 300 mg/kg/day. The highest dose
tested (1,000 mg/kg/day) increased incidences of mortality, abortion,
clinical signs of toxicity and gross pathological observations.
GA<INF>4</INF> + GA<INF>7</INF> had no genotoxic effects at or below
limit doses in a reverse mutation assay with Salmonella typhimurium, in
an in vivo mouse micronucleus test, and in an in vitro UDS (unscheduled
DNA synthesis) assay at concentrations up to 1,260 <greek-m>g/ml.
GA<INF>3</INF> was also negative at or below limit concentrations in S.
typhimurium reverse mutation assays and in an in vitro mouse lymphoma
cell assay. However, an in vitro cytogenetics assay in human
lymphocytes demonstrated chromosomal effects at 4,500 <greek-m>g/ml
with metabolic activation and at 2,500 <greek-m>g/ml without metabolic
activation which suggested a potential concern for induction of
chromosome damage in vitro. These two doses reduced the mitotic index
of test cultures by 69% and 50% compared with control cultures for the
4,500 and 2,500 <greek-m>g/ml levels, respectively, which indicated
that these dose levels had excessive cytotoxicity. In addition, dose
levels equal to or less than 2,500 <greek-m>g/ml with metabolic
activation or 1,250 <greek-m>g/ml in the absence of metabolic
activation did not induce chromosomal aberrations.
A 14-day range finding test with pelargonic acid to determine
dosing concentrations for a 90-day rat oral toxicity study revealed no
adverse effects from pelargonic acid at any dose level, including the
highest dose of 20,000 ppm (2 percent of the diet), or 1,834 mg/kg/day
(a level exceeding the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day). These results
and those from the developmental toxicity study described below
indicated that a 90-day oral toxicity study is not necessary for
dietary risk assessment. No evidence of maternal or developmental
seen in an oral developmental toxicity screen with pelargonic acid at a
limit dose (1,500 mg/kg/day). No dermal or systemic toxicity and no
increased incidence of tumors were observed in a chronic dermal
toxicity study in mice; the mice were treated twice weekly with 50 mg
doses of undiluted pelargonic acid for 80 weeks. Pelargonic acid was
shown not to be genotoxic in bacteria (S. typhimurium) at limit
concentrations (5,000 <greek-m>g/plate) or in an in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay at dose levels of 1,250, 2,500 or 5,000 mg/kg. In an
in vitro mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay pelargonic acid induced
a mutagenic response at levels greater than or equal to 50 <greek-m>g/
ml with metabolic activation. However, the small sizes of the mutant
colonies indicated that the genetic damage was associated with
chromosomal damage instead of specific gene mutations. Pelargonic acid
in the absence of metabolic activation did not induce gene mutations in
mouse lymphoma cells at concentrations as high as 1,200 <greek-m>g/ml,
and higher concentrations were cytotoxic. The in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay with pelargonic acid did not corroborate the
chromosomal findings in the in vitro mouse lymphoma assay.
III. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider
available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue
in food and drinking water and all other non-occupational exposures,
including exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
A. Dietary Exposure
The mammalian toxicology data for these plant regulators indicate
low acute toxicity following oral exposure (Toxicity Category III or
IV). At the levels used as plant regulators, human dietary exposure is
expected to be negligible and acute toxicity from such exposure is not
expected. Subchronic and developmental toxicity studies indicated that
toxicity did not occur as a result of repeated oral doses at or above
1,000 mg/kg of body weight, and no mutagenic activity was observed.
Therefore, it is unlikely that chronic dietary exposures would be high
enough to result in effects harmful to humans.
1. Food. Residue analyses data, if any have been submitted, are not
a component of this determination since these plant regulators either
are naturally occurring in many food plants and are therefore a
component of the normal human diet, and/or are used at very low rates.
The Agency believes that use of the above plant regulators will result
in negligible to nonexistent residues in or on foods or feed.
2. Drinking water exposure. For the purposes of assessing the
potential dietary exposure under these exemptions, EPA considered that
under these exemptions the subject active ingredients could be present
in all food commodities. Other potential sources of dietary exposure of
the general population to residues of pesticides are residues in
drinking water. Based on the available studies used in EPA's assessment
of environmental risk, EPA does not anticipate residues of the subject
active ingredients in drinking water.
B. Other Non-occupational Exposure
For the subject active ingredients, the toxicity data demonstrated
no toxic endpoints upon which to base a risk characterization at or
below 1,000 mg/kg of body weight/day (the limit dose). Any non-
occupational risk is expected to be insignificant because of the non-
toxic mode of action and low exposure resulting from the low plant
regulator application rates. Also, the subject active ingredients are
naturally occurring in foods and turf, or are synthetics approximating
the natural forms in structure and activity. Additionally, appropriate
label precautions will mitigate risk from exposure through residential
(home and garden) use.
1. Dermal exposure. The mammalian toxicology data for these plant
regulators indicate low acute toxicity following dermal exposure
(Toxicity Category III or IV), with the following exception. Acute
toxicity studies placed technical pelargonic acid in Toxicity Category
II for primary dermal irritation.
2. Inhalation exposure. The mammalian toxicology data for these
plant regulators indicate low acute toxicity following inhalation
exposure (Toxicity Category III or IV).
IV. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
The Agency has no information to suggest that the subject plant
regulators will have an effect on the immune and endocrine systems. The
Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine effects of these
biological plant regulators at this time; Congress has allowed 3 years
after August 3, 1996, for the Agency to implement a screening program
with respect to endocrine effects. Because of the long-term history of
natural exposure in the diet, it is not anticipated that the subject
active ingredients will require endocrine effects screening.
B. Analytical Method(s)
The Agency proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of
a tolerance without any numerical limitation; therefore, the Agency has
concluded that analytical methods are not required for enforcement
purposes for any of the subject active ingredients.
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
There are no CODEX tolerances nor international tolerance
exemptions established for the subject active ingredients, when used as
plant regulators, at this time.
V. Safety Determination for U.S. Population, Infants and Children
FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional
tenfold margin of exposure (safety) for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity
and the completeness of the data base, unless EPA determines that a
different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and
Margins of exposure (safety) are often referred to as uncertainty
(safety) factors. In this instance, the Agency believes that there are
reliable data to support the conclusion that the subject active
ingredients when used as plant regulators are practically non-toxic to
mammals, including infants and children, and, thus, there are no
threshold effects, and EPA has not used a margin of exposure (safety)
approach to assess their safety. As a result, the provision requiring
an additional margin of exposure (safety) does not apply.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that use of these pesticides as plant growth regulators will
not pose a dietary risk under reasonably foreseeable circumstances.
As to cytokinins, auxins, and ethylene, the lack of concern
regarding toxic effects (as evidenced by the waivers of data on indole-
3-butyric acid and cytokinins, and the reliance upon public literature
on ethylene), plus the low plant regulator application rates, and the
expectation that plant regulator uses will not significantly increase
intake of these active ingredients above normally consumed levels
demonstrate that there is reasonable certainty of no harm from their
use as plant regulators.
As to gibberillins, although there were some positive results at
cytotoxic doses from genotoxicity assays, the negative results from the
other genotoxicity assays with gibberellins, low plant regulator
application rates, and the expectation that plant regulator uses will
not significantly increase intake of gibberellins above normally
consumed levels demonstrate that there is reasonable certainty of no
harm from use of gibberellins as plant regulators.
As to pelargonic acid, the results of the toxicity studies,
negative results in two of the three genotoxicity assays, low plant
regulator application rates, and the expectation that plant regulator
uses will not significantly increase intake of pelargonic acid above
normally consumed levels demonstrate that there is reasonable certainty
of no harm from use of this substance as a plant regulator.
Accordingly, EPA concludes that, in amending 40 CFR part 180, to
establish the exemptions as proposed, there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm to the general population, including infants and children,
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues
of the subject active ingredients, when used as plant regulators. The
safety of infants and children is supported by oral toxicity data
indicating that, for the subject active ingredients, the doses must
exceed 1,000 mg/kg/day before toxicity occurs.
VI. Public Record and Electronic Submissions
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, has been established for this rulemaking under docket control
number [OPP-300690] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at the Virginia
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in Wordperfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket control number [OPP-300690]. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders
This action proposes exemptions from the tolerance requirement
under FFDCA section 408(d). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). In addition, this proposed action 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) (Pub. L. 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 require OMB review in accordance with Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishing
tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising tolerance levels or
expanding exemptions might adversely impact small entities and
concluded, as a generic matter, that there is no adverse economic
impact. The factual basis for the Agency's generic certification for
tolerance actions published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950), and was
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not issue a
regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate
upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must
provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments,
the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from
the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposed rule does not create an unfunded Federal mandate
on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19,1998), EPA may not
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in a separately identified
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
Dated: October 13, 1998.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.224 [Removed]
2. By removing Sec. 180.224 Gibberellins; tolerances for residues.
3. In Sec. 180.1016 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1016 Ethylene; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(a) For all food commodities, it is used as a plant regulator on
plants, seeds, or cuttings and on all food commodities after harvest
and when applied in accordance with good agricultural practices.
* * * * *
Sec. 180.1042 [Removed]
4. By removing Sec. 180.1042 Aqueous extract of seaweed meal;
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
5. By revising Sec. 180.1098, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1098 Gibberellins [Gibberellic Acids (GA<INF>3</INF> and
GA<INF>4</INF> + GA<INF>7</INF>), and Sodium or Potassium
Gibberellate]; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of gibberellins [gibberellic acids (GA<INF>3</INF> and
GA<INF>4</INF> + GA<INF>7</INF>), and sodium or potassium gibberellate]
in or on all food commodities when used as plant regulators on plants,
seeds, or cuttings and on all food commodities after harvest in
accordance with good agricultural practices.
Sec. 180.1099 [Removed]
6. By removing Sec. 180.1099 Indole butyric acid (IBA); exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
7. In Sec. 180.1159 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1159 Pelargonic acid; exemption from the requirement of
(a) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established
for residues of pelargonic acid in or on all food commodities when used
as a plant regulator on plants, seeds, or cuttings and on all food
commodities after harvest in accordance with good agricultural
* * * * *
8. By adding new Sec. 180.1157 and Sec. 180.1158 to read as
Sec. 180.1157 Cytokinins; exemption from the requirement of a
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of cytokinins (specifically; aqueous extract of seaweed meal
and kinetin) in or on all food commodities when used as plant
regulators on plants, seeds, or cuttings and on all food commodities
after harvest in accordance with good agricultural practices.
Sec. 180.1158 Auxins; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of auxins (specifically; indole-3-acetic acid and indole-3-
butyric acid) in or on all food commodities when used as plant
regulators on plants, seeds, or cuttings and on all food commodities
after harvest in accordance with good agricultural practices.
[FR Doc. 98-28360 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F