[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42244-42249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20458]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30000/18F; FRL-5386-5]
Ethylene Bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs); Announcement of
Modifications to Existing EBDC Cancellation Orders and Issuance of New
Cancellation Orders for Four Crops
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Announcement of Two Modifications to EBDC Cancellation Orders
and Issuance of New Cancellation Orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EBDC Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) (PD 4) was
published in the Federal Register of March 2, 1992 (57 FR 7484) and
announced the Agency's intent to cancel certain EBDC product
registrations. This document announces three actions which have
occurred since the publication of the NOIC. The three actions are: (1)
May 28, 1992 modification of the pre-harvest interval on potatoes, (2)
August 3, 1994 modification allowing the use of more than one EBDC per
crop per season, and (3) February 1, 1996 issuance of the Cancellation
Order for four leafy green crops - collards, mustard greens, turnips,
and spinach -except for limited use in Georgia and Tennessee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Porter, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone: (703) 308-8054, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces two previous
modifications to the EBDC Cancellation Order and the issuance of an
additional Cancellation Order cited in the summary above. This document
is organized into four units. Unit I is the Regulatory Background. Unit
II is the announcement of a previous modification to the Cancellation
Order related to the use of EBDCs on Potatoes. Unit III is the
announcement of a previous modification to the Cancellation Order
related to the use of more than one EBDC on one crop during one season.
Unit IV announces the issuance of a Cancellation Order for Collards,
Mustard Greens, Turnips, and Spinach.
I. Regulatory Background
The EBDCs are a group of pesticides consisting of four registered
active ingredients: mancozeb, maneb, metiram, and nabam. They are used
primarily as protectants against fungal pathogens on apples, cucurbits
(i.e., cucumbers,
[[Page 42245]]
melons, pumpkins and squash), lettuce, onions, potatoes, small grains,
sweet corn, and fungal and bacterial pathogens on tomatoes. Nabam is
currently registered as an industrial biocide; all registrations of
nabam for agricultural uses have been voluntarily canceled (54 FR
50020) and currently there are no established tolerances.
The regulatory history of the EBDCs is described in detail in the
March 2, 1992 Notice of Intent to Cancel and Conclusion of Special
Review (57 FR 7484), the PD 4. In brief, EPA has twice initiated a
Special Review of the EBDCs. In 1977, EPA initiated a Rebuttable
Presumption Against Registration, or RPAR, (later referred to as a
Special Review) based on the presumption that the EBDCs and ETU, a
common contaminant, metabolite, and degradation product of EBDCs, posed
the following potential risks to humans and/or the environment:
carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity, and acute toxicity to aquatic
organisms. In 1982, EPA concluded this RPAR by issuing a PD 4, which
announced measures designed to preclude unreasonable adverse effects
pending development of additional data needed to arrive at a more
realistic assessment of the risks. At that time, EPA deferred a
decision on carcinogenic effects because of the lack of sufficient
information to estimate risk.
On July 17, 1987, EPA initiated a second Special Review by issuing
a Notice of Initiation of Special Review of the EBDC pesticides because
of carcinogenic, developmental, and thyroid effects caused by ETU (52
FR 21772).
On September 6, 1989, the four technical registrants of mancozeb,
maneb, and metiram (Elf Atochem, BASF, DuPont, and Rohm and Haas)
requested that EPA amend their registrations to delete 42 of the 55
registered food uses and to restrict formulation of their technical
products only into products labeled for the 13 retained uses. These
amendments were accepted on December 4, 1989 (54 FR 50020) and made
effective December 14, 1989. The thirteen remaining uses on affected
EBDC labels were: almonds, asparagus, bananas, caprifigs, cranberries,
grapes, onions, peanuts, potatoes, sugar beets, sweet corn, tomatoes,
and wheat.
EPA issued a Notice of Preliminary Determination (also known as a
PD 2/3) on December 20, 1989 (54 FR 52158) announcing its proposed
decision to cancel all but 10 uses on the basis of unreasonable risk
and a lack of support by the registrants. Forty-two of these were
deleted by the registrants and three additional uses were proposed for
cancellation by the Agency.
On May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20416) EPA issued a proposal to revoke and
reduce tolerances for the 42 deleted uses plus the three additional
uses proposed for cancellation.
On March 2, 1992 (57 FR 7484) EPA published in the Federal Register
a Notice of Intent to Cancel and Conclusion of Special Review (PD 4).
Based on information and comments received in response to the PD 2/3
and data submitted by registrants in response to a March 10, 1989 Data
Call-In, EPA revised its risk and benefits assessments. EPA determined
that 45 of the 56 uses posed acceptable risks and 11 of the 56 crops
posed unreasonable risks. (The 56 uses referred to in the PD 4 were
inadvertently referred to as 55 in the PD 2/3.) All maneb, mancozeb,
and metiram registrations for products with these 11 uses would be
canceled unless these uses were deleted from all EBDC labels. The 11
food uses were: apricots, carrots, celery, nectarines, peaches,
rhubarb, succulent beans, collards, mustard greens, spinach, and
turnips. Since publication of the NOIC, all product registrations with
one or more of the following eight food uses have been canceled or
amended to delete the affected uses: apricots, carrots, celery,
nectarines, peaches, rhubarb, succulent beans, and spinach. (Collards,
mustard greens, and turnips were not canceled, but use has been
modified as per a settlement agreement. See Unit IV of this notice for
discussion.)
Further, EPA determined that the remaining 45 food uses did not
pose an unreasonable risk provided certain use restrictions specified
in the PD 4 were incorporated into all EBDC product registrations and
labeling. The 45 uses subject to the specified modifications to terms
and conditions of registrations were: almonds, apples, asparagus,
bananas, barley, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, corn
(field, sweet and pop), cotton, cranberries, crabapples/quince,
cucumbers, dry beans, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapes, kadota figs,
kale, kohlrabi, lettuce (head and leaf), melons: cantaloupe, casaba,
crenshaw, honeydew, watermelon, oats, onions (dry bulb and green),
papayas, peanuts, pears, pecans, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, rye,
squash, sugar beets, tomatoes, and wheat.
II. Modified Cancellation Order Regarding the Use of EBDCs on
Potatoes
A. Background
The 1992 NOIC included certain requirements which product
registrations for potato use had to satisfy to avoid cancellation. For
a product to remain registered for potato use, the registrations had to
be amended to include directions for use including maximum application
rates, maximum number of applications per season, application interval,
and pre-harvest interval (PHI). The Agency allowed a minimum 3-day PHI
in Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin due to disease pressures caused by
late blight. A 14-day PHI was required in all other states.
At the time the NOIC was issued, the Agency had no information
suggesting that Delaware, Michigan and Ohio had a late blight problem
and included those states among the states subject to a minimum 14-day
PHI. Subsequent to the NOIC being issued, a group of registrants and
growers submitted to the Agency information on late blight supporting a
minimum 3-day PHI for Delaware, Michigan and Ohio. This group
(petitioners) requested a hearing to add these three states to the list
of states for which a 3-day PHI was permitted.
Additionally, at the time the Agency issued the NOIC, it understood
that the ``New England'' states as well as some other states had a late
blight problem and allowed a minimum three day PHI for those states.
Rhode Island was erroneously omitted from the list of states.
B. Potato--Pre-harvest Interval
1. Risks. Based on data received after the publication of the PD 4
and the PD 4 risk estimates, the Agency determined that the changes
proposed would not result in any significant changes in risk caused by
EBDC/ETU.
2. Benefits. The Agency understood that quality and yield impacts
were likely to occur in potato growing states where late blight was
present. Prior to the publication of the PD 4, the Agency was not aware
of the existence of late blight on potatoes in Delaware, Michigan, or
Ohio. When the Agency became aware of the late blight problems in these
states, the Agency determined that quality and yield impacts would
likely occur.
3. Risk/benefit conclusion. The Agency determined that in the
states with substantial late blight occurrence, the benefits outweigh
the risk associated with a 3-day PHI.
4. Provisions of use. On May 28, 1992, a settlement agreement was
reached allowing a 3-day PHI in Delaware, Michigan and Ohio on the
basis of late blight problems in those states. The Agreement also
included the addition of
[[Page 42246]]
Rhode Island to the list of other New England states for which a 3-day
PHI was allowed. (Ref. 1)
III. Modified Cancellation Order Regarding the Use of More Than One
EBDC on One Crop During One Season
A. Background
The March 2, 1992 NOIC contained a requirement that, to avoid
cancellation, all EBDC labels and product registrations bearing
agricultural uses must be amended to include the following label
statement: ``If this product is used on a crop, no other product
containing a different EBDC active ingredient may be used on the same
crop during the same growing season.'' This requirement prohibited the
use of more than one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season.
Although the reason for this requirement was not stated in the NOIC,
the Agency's decision to limit EBDC application as such was to avoid
the potential overuse of EBDC's through active ingredient switching.
The decision was not based on specific risk concerns or on the risk
calculations underlying the Agency's EBDC regulatory decision.
Subsequent to the NOIC becoming an effective order of cancellation,
the Agency received a request for a hearing from Elf Atochem and
Griffin Corporations (petitioners) with supporting letters from the
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and the National Potato Council
to replace the label requirement which allowed the use of only one EBDC
per crop per season and prohibited certain seed treatment applications.
A hearing was granted under subpart D of 40 CFR part 164, 40 CFR
164.130 - 164.133. 40 CFR part 164, subpart D allows the Administrator
to consider modifying a prior cancellation decision if the petitioner
presents substantial new evidence which may materially affect the prior
cancellation order and which was not available to the Administrator at
the time the final cancellation determination was made, and this
evidence could not, even with due diligence, have been discovered by
the petitioner prior to the issuance of the final order.
The petitioner's hearing request was found to meet these criteria
and a hearing was held on June 20, 1994. At this hearing, the
petitioners successfully demonstrated that since the issuance of the
NOIC, there had been considerable confusion in the marketplace and an
unexpected impact on the benefits of use. (See detailed discussion of
benefits below.) In light of the petitioners' evidence and reasoning,
the Administrator modified the Cancellation Order on July 8, 1994 to
reflect the proposed language. (Refs. 2 and 3)
Estimated risks/label change. The petitioners did not submit any
new information which would affect the validity of the Agency's
analysis of the toxicity of EBDCs or the methodology used to estimate
exposure to EBDCs. The petitioners asserted that the proposed language
did not increase the individual or seasonal application limits and
provided equivalent protection in terms of limiting exposure while
addressing the Agency's concerns about multiple EBDC use as well as
having the added advantage of being more easily understood. The
petitioners further asserted that the decision to restrict EBDC use as
per the restrictive language of the NOIC was not based on specific risk
concerns but on concerns of exceeding maximum amount of product allowed
per crop per season. The Agency agreed with the petitioner's
assertions, and agreed that there are other disincentives to growers
that should dissuade them from engaging in that type of practice, such
as the risk of having crops with over-tolerance residues. The Agency
concluded that the proposed label change would not result in a change
in EBDC risk.
Estimated benefits/label restriction. The petitioner's submission
included information and evidence on the benefits of using more than
one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season which was not available
to or considered by the Agency prior to the final Cancellation Order.
The petitioners asserted that the current label restriction had a
substantial impact on the industry, including negative effects on
competition, industry-wide confusion, and hardship for suppliers and
growers alike. The Agency agreed with the points included in the
submission which are summarized below:
The post PD 4 label specification precluded growers from switching
among EBDCs for any reason, even if a particular product was high
priced due to limited availability or if a particular product was
unavailable.
Many potato growers were required by contract with food processors
or packers to make pre-storage applications of Ridomil
(metalaxyl) which contains mancozeb, because consultants and
researchers have strongly recommended this as a way to prevent root rot
or late blight. This, coupled with the post PD 4 prohibition on
switching among EBDC active ingredients, precluded any potato grower
under such a contract from using any EBDC but mancozeb on that crop for
the remainder of the season--even though it may not have been the most
effective treatment for the pest. The Agency agreed with petitioners
that there is increased risk of resistance when the range of active
ingredients is limited.
Fungal problems associated with potatoes include root rot or late
blight which is commonly treated with a metalaxyl product that is
considered most effective when it is used in a metalaxyl/EBDC mix.
Product mixes (as opposed to tank mixes) are preferred because of their
convenience, ease in handling, reduced potential exposure, and reduced
costs. Post PD 4 labeling precluded growers from using metalaxyl/EBDC
mixes such as Ridomil Mz (metalaxyl and mancozeb) if they had
used maneb earlier in the season. This limited growers to using
metalaxyl without an EBDC which may be a less effective treatment and
may have limited the potatoes' marketability.
Reliability of supply was of concern for growers. All EBDC active
ingredients are manufactured abroad and domestic suppliers have little
control over ensuring their steady supply. The failure of a foreign
supplier or manufacturer to deliver the active ingredients as scheduled
can result in the shortage of a particular formulation. This was
creating problems for growers who were bound by post PD 4 label
specifications to use a specific active ingredient.
The submission provided evidence of the registrant/marketplace/
grower confusion that resulted from the post PD 4 language that was not
available at the time of the NOIC. The submission provided examples in
which misinterpretations of the language were printed in a grower group
newsletter and a journal.
The misinterpretations of the language differed substantially from
the EPA's post-cancellation order interpretation which was explained in
a 5/26/92 letter from Jack Housenger/EPA to Janet Ollinger (Ref. 4)
which clearly limited only switching among active ingredients and did
not restrict switching among different brands of the same EBDC active
ingredient. Petitioners asserted that this confusion was likely to
influence purchasing decisions and create unfair advantages for certain
products while undermining integrated pest control practices.
Risk/benefit conclusion. The Agency had attempted to clarify this
issue, but even with clarification, unintended impacts continued. The
Agency recognized that the label language required by the NOIC created
confusion and therefore there were
[[Page 42247]]
implementation problems in the marketplace and at the grower level. It
is obvious from the information provided at the hearing that the
confusion continued even after the Agency attempted to clarify the
requirement and its intent. The Agency agreed that the previous label
restriction was inconsistent with the nature of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) programs which are based on selective use of different
classes of pesticides, and recognized letters of support from the
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and the National Potato Council
for changing the EBDC label language. The Agency agreed that the
revised language adequately addressed the objective of the original
language, did not increase risk from EBDCs, and reduced impacts to
growers.
Provisions of use/label change. The language proposed by the
petitioners allowed the use of more than one EBDC active ingredient per
crop per season, specified formulas to follow for maximum poundage
allowed when different EBDCs are used, and allowed for a single seed
treatment per crop per season in addition to the foliar applications
where the crop has a registered seed treatment use. The language
approved by the Agency to replace the previous statement, if requested,
is as follows:
Foliar Applications:
Where EBDC Products Used Allow the Same Maximum Poundage of
Active Ingredient Per Acre Per Season:
If more than one product containing an EBDC active
ingredient (maneb, mancozeb, or metiram) is used on a crop during
the same growing season and the EBDC products used allow the same
maximum poundage of active ingredient per acre per season, then the
total poundage of all such EBDC products used must not exceed any
one of the specified individual EBDC product maximum seasonal
poundage of active ingredient allowed per acre.
Where EBDC Products Used Allow Different Maximum Poundage of
Active Ingredient Per Acre Per Season:
If more than one product containing an EBDC active
ingredient is used on a crop during the same growing season and the
EBDC products used allow different maximum poundage of active
ingredient per acre per season, then the total poundage of all such
EBDC products used must not exceed the lowest specified individual
EBDC product maximum seasonal poundage of active ingredient allowed
per acre.
Seed Treatment:
In addition to the maximum number of foliar applications
permitted by the formula stated above, a single application for seed
treatment may be made on crops which have registered seed treatment
uses.
IV. Cancellation Order for Collards, Mustard Greens, Turnips, and
Spinach
Background. As discussed above, the NOIC of March 2, 1992 announced
the Agency's decision to cancel 11 uses including collards, mustard
greens, turnips (includes tops), and spinach. The NOIC stated that
under FIFRA section 6(b), persons adversely affected by the Notice
could request a hearing within 30 days of receipt of the Notice or 30
days from the date of publication. A hearing request was submitted by
the American Food Security Coalition (AFSC), a group of Georgia leafy
greens growers, and United Foods, Inc. (the petitioners) regarding
cancellation of the use of EBDCs on collards, mustard greens, turnips,
and spinach. (Ref. 5)
On June 25, 1993, the Court granted a motion which stated that the
Agency and the petitioners had initiated settlement discussions and
that the petitioners had developed new scientific data that the Agency
would review. The parties were required to file monthly status reports
while reviews and negotiations were conducted.
The petitioners conducted field trial residue studies for maneb on
collards, mustard greens and turnips at use rates lower than those
previously allowed. These reports were submitted to the Agency in
December of 1993. Reviews of these studies and negotiations continued
through February 1, 1996 when the proceedings were concluded with the
Settlement Agreement between the petitioners and the Agency. (Refs. 5
and 6) This agreement canceled all EBDC uses on collards, mustard
greens, turnips, and spinach - except limited use on collards, mustard
greens, and turnips in Georgia and Tennessee, and announced the
petitioners' withdrawal of their hearing request.
Treated greens-risks. The Agency determined in the PD 4/NOIC that
the dietary risk of continued use of EBDCs on collards, mustard greens,
and turnips exceeded the benefits based on the evidence available at
the time. The PD 4 risk assessment for these crops was based on pre-PD
4 labels which allowed an unlimited number of applications with no
application intervals, required a 10-day pre-harvest interval, limited
the maximum rate per application to 2.4 lbs a.i., and permitted
nationwide use.
The petitioners claimed that the dietary exposure estimates used
for the leafy greens in the PD 4 (field trial data) were based on
residue estimates significantly higher than the estimates that would be
expected from market basket data, with adjustments for washing and
processing. The petitioners submitted residue data from new maneb field
trials conducted on collards, mustard greens, and turnips in Georgia
and Tennessee. These data reflect use rates lower than those previously
allowed.
Post PD 4 risk assessment. The field trial data were reviewed on
January 25, 1994. (Ref. 7) Using the cancer potency factor (Q1*)
of 0.11 (mg/kg/day)-1 as had been used for the PD 4, and assuming
100% crop treated, risk was estimated for a variety of registration
scenarios and population groups (Refs. 8, 9, 10, and 11). The risk from
treated greens to the general population was estimated to be 1.0 x
10-6 and risk to non-Hispanic blacks (the most sensitive sub-
population) was estimated to be 5.8 x 10-6. (A cancer risk of
5.8 x 10-6 indicates that the individual has an estimated 5.8
out of 1 million chance of developing cancer over a lifetime due to
exposure to the chemical.) The risk to Non-Hispanic Blacks is higher
than the general population because of higher reported consumption. The
Agency considered the risk to non-Hispanic blacks to be unacceptable.
The Agency met with the petitioners in September 1994 to convey the
determination that risk continued to outweigh benefits.
Revised Post PD 4 risk assessment. Subsequent to the September 1994
meeting with the petitioners, two significant factors led the Agency to
reassess the risk of these uses -- a revised interspecies scaling
factor was adopted by the Agency, and additional information was
submitted regarding percent crop treated.
In late 1994, the Agency adopted the Unified Interspecies Scaling
Factor for translation of animal bio-assays to humans. Because this
factor is used in calculating the Q1*, the Agency adjusted the
Q1* from 0.11 to 0.06. The revised Q1* resulted in a revised
risk estimate for the 45 retained uses, which decreased from 1.6 x
10-6 to 0.9 x 10-6 for the general population. Risk
estimates for greens for the general population decreased from 1.0 x
10-6 to 4.6 x 10-7 and for non-Hispanic blacks decreased
from 5.8 x 10-6 to 2.6 x 10-6. (Ref. 12)
Percent crop treated is the number of acres of treated crop divided
by the total number of acres of a crop grown in the United States if a
crop is only treated in certain areas of the United States, then the
Agency would normally assume that the percent crop treated was the same
as the percent of nationwide acreage grown in a particular area.
Originally, EPA used the conservative assumption that in certain areas
all of the leafy greens being marketed would have been treated with
maneb (100% crop treated). This
[[Page 42248]]
was based on EPA's belief at the time that leafy greens markets were
relatively static and that certain supermarket chains or regions would
tend to sell, over long periods of time, leafy greens grown in the same
area.
In May, 1995, however, the petitioners argued that a better way to
estimate the percent crop treated with maneb would be to take into
account the relative percentage of the leafy green crops grown in
Georgia and Tennessee. Turnips, collards, and mustard greens grown in
these states represents 22%, 31%, and 36% of national production,
respectively. In support of this request, petitioners provided market
distribution data for Georgia and Tennessee grown greens. The
information submitted demonstrated that Georgia and Tennessee greens
are distributed nationally, as are greens from other states, and that
in any given region the source of greens varies with the season and
with changes in marketing contracts. This information convinced the
Agency that there was no need to assume that individuals would be
exposed to 100% maneb-treated leafy greens over their lifetime.
Instead, the Agency assumed that 100% of these leafy greens grown in
Georgia and Tennessee (and 0% elsewhere) would be treated, resulting in
a nationwide percent of crop treated of 22% for turnips, 31% of
collards, and 36% of mustard greens.
The Agency's final risk assessment based on the 1993 leafy greens
data is presented in detail in the Health Effects Division's 2/21/95
Review of Potential Section 18 use, and the corresponding DRES Analysis
dated 3/23/95. (Refs. 12 and 13) The final risk estimate for maneb on
greens only with the revised Q1* and the 22/31/36 Georgia and
Tennessee percent crop treated assumption, is 1.3 x 10-7 for the
general population and 7.1 x 10-7 for non-Hispanic blacks.
Treated greens--benefits. At the time of the PD 4, the Agency
anticipated significant impacts from the loss of use of EBDC on the
three greens. The estimated impacts were $13 - $31 million, and this
was confirmed by yield loss information reported after the PD 4. The
current estimates are consistent with those from the PD 4.
Treated greens--risk/benefit conclusion. In the PD 4, the Agency
used cost-effectiveness to compare risks and benefits among uses. Cost-
effectiveness is a tool used to compare the impact to society
associated with the loss of use (cost) on a particular site to the
estimated reduction in risk of that site (effectiveness). For the
EBDCs, the cost-effectiveness refers to the societal cost per cancer
case avoided for a specific use. Although the cost estimates for the
greens have not changed since the PD 4, the risk estimates have
decreased significantly, bringing the cost-effectiveness ratios to an
acceptable range. The current cost-effectiveness estimates for
collards, mustard greens, and turnips are consistent with the PD 4
estimates for the other retained uses.
The revised risk from all EBDC treated crops combined, including
the addition of Georgia and Tennessee treated greens, is estimated to
be 1.6 x 10-6 for non-Hispanic blacks -- the level determined to
be acceptable at the PD 4, with comparable cost-effectiveness ratios.
The revised risk to the general population is 1.0 x 10-6 which
is lower than risk estimated at the PD 4. Based on current estimates,
EPA concludes that risk does not outweigh benefits, provided that the
use is limited to the use of maneb on leafy greens in Georgia and
Tennessee only at the use rates specified below.
Treated greens--provisions of use. As finalized by the February 1,
1996 Settlement Agreement, all EBDC/maneb uses on collards, mustard
greens, turnips, and spinach other than the uses in the following Table
1 for Maneb 75DF or Maneb 80WP in Georgia and Tennessee only, are now
canceled:
Table 1.--Application Rates for Maneb 75DF and Maneb 80WP
(Georgia and Tennessee only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnips (Varieties
Crop Collards grown for greens only) MustardGreens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Applications Per Cutting... 3 1 2
Interval between Applications........ 14 days N/A 14 days
Pre-Harvest Interval................. 14 days 14 days 14 days
Rate Per Application................. 1.2 lb active 1.2 lb active 1.2 lb active
ingredient per acre ingredient per acre ingredient per acre
Rate Per Cutting..................... 3.6 lb active 1.2 lb active 2.4 lb active
ingredient per acre ingredient per acre ingredient per acre
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
The following sources are referenced in this document.
1. IN RE: American Food Security Coalition (AFSC), et al. Joint
Motion for Accelerated Decision and Settlement Agreement. May 28,
1992. FIFRA Hearing Docket 646.
2. IN RE: Elf Atochem of North America, Inc. and Griffin
Corporation. Initial Decision, Recommended Order. July 8, 1994.
FIFRA Hearing Docket 657.
3. IN RE: Elf Atochem of North America, Inc. and Griffin
Corporation. Order Declining Review. August 3, 1994. FIFRA Hearing
Docket 657.
4. Housenger, Jack. Response to April 14, 1992 letter regarding
the ``Restriction Statement Required in the PD 4.'' May 26, 1992.
5. IN RE: American Food Security Coalition (AFSC), et al. Joint
Motion for an Accelerated Decision and Order and Settlement
Agreement. January 31, 1996. FIFRA Hearing Docket 646.
6. IN RE: American Food Security Coalition (AFSC), et al.
Accelerated Decision and Order. February 1, 1996. FIFRA Hearing
Docket 646.
7. Hummel, Susan V. Maneb on Collards/Field Trials, Residue
Decline Studies, Reduction of Residue Study, Final Reports. January
25, 1994.
8. Griffin, Richard. EBDC/ETU Special Review. DRES Dietary
Exposure and Risk Estimates for Use of Maneb on Collards, Mustard
Greens, and Turnip Tops. Estimates Based on New Residue Studies.
February 3, 1994.
9. Griffin, Richard. EBDC/ETU Special Review. DRES Dietary
Exposure and Risk Estimates for Use of Maneb on Collards, Mustard
Greens, and Turnip Tops. March 11, 1994.
10. Griffin, Richard. EBDC/ETU Special Review. DRES Dietary
Exposure and Risk Estimates for Use of Maneb on Collards, Mustard
Greens, and Turnip Tops. March 18, 1994.
11. Griffin, Richard. Special Review for Maneb (EBDC) Use on
Turnips, Collards, and Mustard Greens. DRES Dietary Exposure and
Risk Estimates. June 3, 1994.
12. Griffin, Richard. Special Review. DRES Dietary Exposure and
Risk Estimates for Proposed Section 18 Use of Formulations
[[Page 42249]]
Containing Metalaxyl, Maneb, Mancozeb, and Chlorothalonil. March 23,
1995.
13. Hummel, Susan V. Potential Section 18 use on Turnip,
Mustard, and Collards. February 21, 1995.
List of subjects
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Pesticides and pest, Reporting and recording requirements.
Dated: July 31, 1996.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-20458 Filed 8-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F