[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52483-52487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14641]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0504; FRL-8091-4


Propoxycarbazone; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes increased tolerances for residues 
of propoxycarbazone in or on wheat forage, meat byproducts and milk. 
Bayer CropScience requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality 
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 6, 2006. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 6, 2006, 
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0504. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, 
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in 
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone 
number is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration 
Division

[[Page 52484]]

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 305-6224; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; 
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and 
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural 
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; 
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural 
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and 
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal 
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a 
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the 
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any 
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may 
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural 
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for 
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or 
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the 
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by 
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0504 in the 
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be 
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or 
before November 6, 2006.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public 
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked 
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA 
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID 
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0504, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South 
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The 
Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 5, 2006 (71 FR 38151) (FRL-8073-5), 
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F6959) 
by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180. 600 be 
amended by increasing tolerances for residues of the herbicide 
propoxycarbazone, methyl 2-[[[(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-5-oxo-3-propoxy-1H-
1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoate (MKH-6561) and its 
metabolite, methyl 2-[[[(4,5-dihydro-3-(2-hydroxypropoxy)-4-methyl-5-
oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl] benzoate (Pr-2-OH 
MKH-6561), in or on wheat, forage from 1.5 parts per million (ppm) to 
11 ppm; and of propoxycarbazone in or on animal commodities cattle/
goat/horse/sheep, meat byproducts from 0.05 ppm to 0.30 ppm; and milk 
from 0.004 ppm to 0.03 ppm. Based on the scientific review of the 
residue chemistry data, EPA is raising the wheat forage tolerance to 17 
ppm. The petitioner proposed raising the tolerances in order that wheat 
forage may be grazed by livestock immediately after the herbicide's 
application. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's 
response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated 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) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special 
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide 
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 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....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the 
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for increasing tolerances for residues of the 
herbicide propoxycarbazone and its metabolite in or on wheat, forage to 
17 ppm; and for

[[Page 52485]]

propoxycarbazone in or on animal commodities cattle/goat/horse/sheep, 
meat byproducts to 0.30 ppm; and milk to 0.03 ppm. EPA's assessment of 
exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature 
of the toxic effects caused by propoxycarbazone as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the 
Federal Register of July 7, 2004 (69 FR 40774) (FRL-7365-7).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed 
(the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use 
in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of 
concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of 
concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk 
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. 
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent 
in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the 
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well 
as other unknowns.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method 
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as 
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead 
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the 
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for propoxycarbazone used 
for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of July 7, 2004 (69 FR 40774) (FRL-
7365-7).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been 
established (40 CFR 180.600) for the residues of propoxycarbazone, in 
or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were 
conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from propoxycarbazone in 
food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk 
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological 
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring 
as a result of a one-day or single exposure.
     No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for 
propoxycarbazone therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure 
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with 
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates 
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals 
(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. 
The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure 
assessments: For the chronic analyses, tolerance-level residues were 
assumed for all food commodities with current or proposed 
propoxycarbazone-sodium tolerances, and it was assumed that all of the 
crops included in the analysis were treated. Percent Crop Treated (PCT) 
and/or anticipated residues were not used in the chronic risk 
assessment.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks 
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary 
exposure analysis and risk assessment for propoxycarbazone in drinking 
water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, 
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on 
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical 
characteristics of propoxycarbazone.
    The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or 
the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/
EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index 
reservoir. The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide 
concentrations in shallow ground water. For a screening-level 
assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before 
using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the 
PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for 
pesticides. Both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir 
environment, and both models include a percent crop area factor as an 
adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a 
watershed or drainage basin.
    None of these models include consideration of the impact processing 
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as 
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the 
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this 
stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is 
unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health 
levels of concern.
    Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the 
risk assessment process, the Agency uses the estimated environmental 
concentrations (EECs), which are the model estimates of a pesticide's 
concentration in water. EECs derived from these models are used to 
quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD.
    Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental 
concentrations (EECs) of propoxycarbazone for chronic exposures are 
estimated to be 0.9 ppb for surface water and 0.4 ppb for ground water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Propoxycarbazone is not registered for use on any sites that would 
result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when 
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, 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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative 
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made 
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to propoxycarbazone and any 
other substances and propoxycarbazone does not appear to produce a 
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this 
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that propoxycarbazone 
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For 
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which

[[Page 52486]]

chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the 
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements 
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common 
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from 
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 
an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the 
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal 
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure 
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of 
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are 
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a 
MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in 
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In 
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X 
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, 
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety 
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or 
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Conclusion. EPA has determined that there is reliable data 
showing that it will be safe for infants and children to remove the 
FQPA safety factor. The FQPA factor is removed based on the following:
    i. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased 
susceptibility of rat and rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure to 
propoxycarbazone-sodium in developmental toxicity studies. There is no 
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility to 
propoxycarbazone-sodium following pre-/post-natal exposure to a 2-
generation reproduction study;
    ii. There is no concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting 
from exposure to propoxycarbazone-sodium. A developmental neurotoxicity 
study (DNT) study is not required;
    iii. The toxicological database is complete for FQPA assessment;
    iv. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilizes HED 
recommended tolerance level residues and 100% CT information for all 
commodities. By using these screening-level assessments, actual 
exposures/risks will not be underestimated; and
    v. The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water 
concentration values generated by model and associated modeling 
parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health 
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which will not 
likely be exceeded.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. An effect of concern attributable to a single 
exposure (dose) was not identified from the oral toxicity studies 
including the developmental toxicity studies in rat and rabbits. No 
acute risk is expected from exposure to propoxycarbazone-sodium.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to 
propoxycarbazone from food and drinking water will utilize < 1 % of the 
cPAD for the U.S. population, and < 1 % of the cPAD for Children 1-2 
years old. There are no residential uses for propoxycarbazone that 
result in chronic residential exposure to propoxycarbazone.
    3. Short-term risk. Propoxycarbazone is not registered for use on 
any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the 
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not 
exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    4. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to the general population and to infants and children from aggregate 
exposure to propoxycarbazone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass 
spectroscopy) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The 
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; 
telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address: 
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits 
established for propoxycarbazone-sodium on wheat, meat, meat byproducts 
or milk.

C. Response to Comments

    Public comments were received from B. Sachau who objected to the 
proposed tolerances because of the amounts of pesticides already 
consumed and carried by the American population. She further indicated 
that testing conducted on animals have absolutely no validity and are 
cruel to the test animals. B. Sachau's comments contained no scientific 
data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to propoxycarbazone, including all anticipated dietary exposures and 
all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has 
responded to B. Sachau's generalized comments on numerous previous 
occasions. [January 7, 2005, 70 FR 1349, 1354 (FRL-7691-4); October 29, 
2004, 69 FR 63083, 63096 (FRL-7681-9)].

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are increased for residues of the 
herbicide propoxycarbazone and its metabolite in or on wheat, forage to 
17 ppm; and for propoxycarbazone in or on animal commodities cattle/
goat/horse/sheep, meat byproducts to 0.30 ppm; and milk to 0.03 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of 
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. 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). Because this rule has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does 
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose 
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive 
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive 
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety

[[Page 52487]]

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any 
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of 
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and 
exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under 
section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do 
not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a 
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the 
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food 
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action 
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has 
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as 
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' 
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive 
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' 
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final 
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 28, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.


0
2. Section 180.600 is amended by revising the tolerance levels for 
wheat, forage in the table in paragraph (a)(1) and for cattle, meat 
byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; milk; and 
sheep, meat byproducts in the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  180.600  Propoxycarbazone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat, forage........................................                 17
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................                0.3
                                * * * * *
Goat, meat byproducts................................                0.3
                                * * * * *
Horse, meat byproducts...............................                0.3
Milk.................................................               0.03
                                * * * * *
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................                0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-14641 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S