11330
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
46
/
Monday,
March
10,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
8)
For
any
storm
water
discharge
associated
with
small
construction
activity
identified
in
paragraph
(
b)(
15)(
i)
of
this
section,
see
§
122.21(
c)(
1).
Discharges
from
these
sources,
other
than
discharges
associated
with
small
construction
activity
at
oil
and
gas
exploration,
production,
processing,
and
treatment
operations
or
transmission
facilities,
require
permit
authorization
by
March
10,
2003,
unless
designated
for
coverage
before
then.
Discharges
associated
with
small
construction
activity
at
such
oil
and
gas
sites
require
permit
authorization
by
March
10,
2005.
*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
5708
Filed
3
 
7
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0348;
FRL
 
7292
 
6]

Aluminum
tris
(
O­
ethylphosphonate);
Pesticide
Tolerance
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
regulation
establishes
a
tolerance
for
residues
of
the
fungicide
aluminum
tris
(
O­
ethylphosphonate)
(
fosetyl­
Al)
in
or
on
onion,
green.
The
Interregional
Research
Project
#
4
(
IR­
4),
Center
for
Minor
Crop
Management,
Rutgers,
The
State
University
of
New
Jersey,
681
U.
S.
Highway
#
1
South,
North
Brunswick,
NJ
08902
 
3390
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
March
10,
2003.
Objections
and
requests
for
hearings,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0348,
must
be
received
on
or
before
May
9,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Written
objections
and
hearing
requests
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
VI.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Sidney
Jackson,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
7610;
e­
mail
address:
jackson.
sidney@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
You
may
be
potentially
affected
by
this
action
if
you
are
an
agricultural
producer,
food
manufacturer,
or
pesticide
manufacturer.
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.
Potentially
affected
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
 
Crop
production
(
NAIC
code
111)
 
Animal
production
(
NAIC
code
112)
 
Food
manufacturing
(
NAIC
code
311)
 
Pesticide
manufacturing
(
NAIC
code
32532)
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
To
determine
whether
you
or
your
business
may
be
affected
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
provisions
in
OPP
 
2002
 
0348.
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
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0348.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
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.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
A
frequently
updated
electronic
version
of
40
CFR
part
180
is
available
at
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
cfrhtml_
00/
Title_
40/
40cfr180_
00.
html,
a
beta
site
currently
under
development.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.

II.
Background
and
Statutory
Findings
In
the
Federal
Register
of
January
2,
2003
(
68
FR
103)
(
FRL
 
7282
 
5),
EPA
issued
a
notice
pursuant
to
section
408
of
FFDCA,
21
U.
S.
C.
346a,
as
amended
by
FQPA
(
Public
Law
104
 
170),
announcing
the
filing
of
a
pesticide
petition
(
PP
2E6366)
by
IR­
4,
Center
for
Minor
Crop
Management,
Rutgers,
The
State
University
of
New
Jersey,
681
U.
S.
Highway
#
1
South,
North
Brunswick,
NJ
08902
 
3390.
That
notice
included
a
summary
of
the
petition
prepared
by
Bayer
CropScience,
the
registrant.
The
petition
requested
that
40
CFR
180.415
be
amended
by
establishing
a
tolerance
for
residues
of
the
fungicide
fosetyl­
Al,
aluminum
tris
(
Oethylphosphonate
in
or
on
onion,
green
at
10
parts
per
million
(
ppm).
There
were
no
comments
received
in
response
to
the
notice
of
filing.
Section
408(
b)(
2)(
A)(
i)
of
the
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
the
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
the
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....''

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
08
Mar
07,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
10MRR1.
SGM
10MRR1
11331
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
46
/
Monday,
March
10,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
the
final
rule
on
Bifenthrin
Pesticide
Tolerances
(
62
FR
62961,
November
26,
1997)
(
FRL
 
5754
 
7).

III.
Aggregate
Risk
Assessment
and
Determination
of
Safety
Consistent
with
section
408(
b)(
2)(
D)
of
the
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
the
FFDCA,
for
a
tolerance
for
residues
of
fosetyl­
Al
on
onion,
green
at
10
ppm.
EPA's
assessment
of
exposures
and
risks
associated
with
establishing
the
tolerance
follows.

A.
Toxicological
Profile
EPA
has
evaluated
the
available
toxicity
data
on
fosetyl­
Al
and
considered
their
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.
The
nature
of
the
toxic
effects
caused
by
fosetyl­
Al
are
discussed
in
the
Federal
Register
of
August
18,
2000
(
65
FR
50431)
(
FRL
 
6599
 
4)
as
well
as
the
noobserved
adverse­
effect­
level
(
NOAEL)
and
the
lowest­
observed­
adverse­
effectlevel
(
LOAEL)
from
the
toxicity
studies
reviewed.
Please
refer
to
this
document
should
you
desire
detailed
toxicological
information
on
fosetyl­
Al.

B.
Toxicological
Endpoints
The
dose
at
which
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.
An
UF
of
100
is
routinely
used,
10X
to
account
for
interspecies
differences
and
10X
for
intraspecies
differences.
For
dietary
risk
assessment
(
other
than
cancer)
the
Agency
uses
the
UF
to
calculate
an
acute
or
chronic
reference
dose
(
acute
RfD
or
chronic
RfD)
where
the
RfD
is
equal
to
the
NOAEL
divided
by
the
appropriate
UF
(
RfD
=
NOAEL/
UF).
Where
an
additional
safety
factors
(
SF)
is
retained
due
to
concerns
unique
to
the
FQPA,
this
additional
factor
is
applied
to
the
RfD
by
dividing
the
RfD
by
such
additional
factor.
The
acute
or
chronic
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(
aPAD
or
cPAD)
is
a
modification
of
the
RfD
to
accommodate
this
type
of
FQPA
SF.
For
non­
dietary
risk
assessments
(
other
than
cancer)
the
UF
is
used
to
determine
the
LOC.
For
example,
when
100
is
the
appropriate
UF
(
10X
to
account
for
interspecies
differences
and
10X
for
intraspecies
differences)
the
LOC
is
100.
To
estimate
risk,
a
ratio
of
the
NOAEL
to
exposures
(
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
=
NOAEL/
exposure)
is
calculated
and
compared
to
the
LOC.
The
linear
default
risk
methodology
(
Q*)
is
the
primary
method
currently
used
by
the
Agency
to
quantify
carcinogenic
risk.
The
Q*
approach
assumes
that
any
amount
of
exposure
will
lead
to
some
degree
of
cancer
risk.
A
Q*
is
calculated
and
used
to
estimate
risk
which
represents
a
probability
of
occurrence
of
additional
cancer
cases
(
e.
g.,
risk
is
expressed
as
1
x
10
 
6
or
one
in
a
million).
Under
certain
specific
circumstances,
MOE
calculations
will
be
used
for
the
carcinogenic
risk
assessment.
In
this
non­
linear
approach,
a
``
point
of
departure''
is
identified
below
which
carcinogenic
effects
are
not
expected.
The
point
of
departure
is
typically
a
NOAEL
based
on
an
endpoint
related
to
cancer
effects
though
it
may
be
a
different
value
derived
from
the
dose
response
curve.
To
estimate
risk,
a
ratio
of
the
point
of
departure
to
exposure
(
MOEcancer
=
point
of
departure/
exposures)
is
calculated.
A
summary
of
the
toxicological
endpoints
for
fosetyl­
Al
used
for
human
risk
assessment
is
discussed
in
Unit
III.
B.
of
the
final
rule
on
fosetyl­
Al
tolerances
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
August
29,
2002
(
67
FR
55339)
(
FRL
 
7195
 
1).

C.
Exposure
Assessment
1.
Dietary
exposure
from
food
and
feed
uses.
Tolerances
have
been
established
(
40
CFR
180.415)
for
the
residues
of
fosetyl­
Al,
in
or
on
a
variety
of
raw
agricultural
commodities.
Residues
of
fosetyl­
Al
are
currently
regulated
under
40
CFR
180.415(
a)
in
bushberry
subgroup,
and
juneberry,
lingonberry,
and
salal,
at
40
ppm;
caneberries,
fresh
ginseng
root,
pineapple,
pineapple
fodder
and
forage
at
0.1
ppm;
onions
(
dry
bulb)
at
0.5
ppm,
macadamia
nuts
at
0.2
ppm;
cranberry
at
0.5
ppm;
fruit,
citrus,
group
at
5.0
ppm;
pea,
succulent
at
0.3
ppm;
tomatoes
and
bananas
at
3.0
ppm;
pome
fruit
at
10
ppm;
cucurbit
vegetables
group
at
15
ppm;
avocados
at
25
ppm;
hops,
dried
at
45
ppm;
brassica
(
cole)
leafy
vegetables
group
at
60
ppm;
strawberries
at
75
ppm;
turnip,
roots
at
15
ppm;
turnip,
tops
at
40
ppm;
and
leafy
vegetables
(
except
brassica
vegetables)
group
at
100
ppm.
Timelimited
tolerances
associated
with
a
section
18
request
for
the
residues
of
fosetyl­
Al
have
been
granted
in/
on
peas,
succulent
at
1.0
ppm
under
40
CFR
180.415(
b)
which
expired
September
31,
2000.
Additionally,
tolerances
are
established
in
40
CFR
180.415(
c)
for
residues
of
fosetyl­
Al
in/
on
asparagus
at
0.1
ppm
and
grapes
at
10
ppm
in
conjunction
with
regional
registrations.
Risk
assessments
were
conducted
by
EPA
to
assess
dietary
exposures
from
fosetyl­
Al
in
food
as
follows:
i.
Acute
exposure.
Acute
dietary
risk
assessments
are
performed
for
a
fooduse
pesticide
if
a
toxicological
study
has
indicated
the
possibility
of
an
effect
of
concern
occurring
as
a
result
of
a
1
 
day
or
single
exposure.
No
appropriate
endpoint
attributable
to
a
single
exposure
(
dose)
of
fosetyl­
Al
was
identified
from
the
oral
toxicity
studies
including
developmental
toxicity
studies
in
rats
and
rabbits.
Therefore,
fosetyl­
Al
is
not
expected
to
pose
an
acute
risk.
ii.
Chronic
exposure.
In
conducting
this
chronic
dietary
risk
assessment,
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEM)
analysis
evaluated
the
individual
food
consumption
as
reported
by
respondents
in
the
USDA
1989
 
1992
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:
The
Tier
1
(
assuming
tolerance
level
residues
and
100%
crops
treated
for
all
commodities)
chronic
dietary
exposure
assessment
was
conducted
for
all
supported
fosetyl­
Al
food
uses.
Chronic
dietary
exposure
estimates
were
provided
for
the
general
U.
S.
population
and
various
population
subgroups.
iii.
Cancer.
The
Agency
concludes
that
pesticidal
use
of
fosetyl­
Al
is
unlikely
to
pose
a
carcinogenic
hazard
to
humans.
Therefore,
a
cancer
dietary
exposure
analysis
for
fosetyl­
Al
was
not
performed.
2.
Dietary
exposure
from
drinking
water.
Fosetyl­
Al
is
not
expected
to
reach
ground
water
or
surface
water
under
most
conditions.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
08
Mar
07,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
10MRR1.
SGM
10MRR1
11332
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
46
/
Monday,
March
10,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Based
on
screening
models,
FQPA
Index
Reservoir
Screening
Tool
(
FIRST)
and
Screening
Concentrations
in
Ground
Water
(
SCI­
GROW),
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
of
fosetyl­
Al
for
acute
exposures
are
estimated
to
be
0.0086
parts
per
billion
(
ppb)
for
surface
water
and
0.006
ppb
for
ground
water.
The
EECs
for
chronic
exposures
are
estimated
to
be
0.00003
ppb
for
surface
water
and
0.006
ppb
for
ground
water.
3.
From
non­
dietary
exposure.
Fosetyl­
Al
is
currently
registered
for
use
on
the
following
residential
non­
dietary
sites:
Lawn,
turf,
and
ornamental
plants
under
the
brand
names
CHIPO
 
Aliette
WDG
and
Aliette
 
HG.
CHIPO
 
Aliette
WDG
is
sold
to
professional
applicators
only,
which
includes
lawn
care
operators
(
LCO).
Because
all
residential
uses
of
CHIPO
 
Aliette
WDG
are
applied
by
the
LCO,
a
residential
applicator
exposure
assessment
for
this
product
was
not
performed.
Short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal,
inhalation,
and
oral
exposures
to
fosetyl­
Al
may
occur
from
residential
handling/
postapplication
activities.
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
fosetyl­
Al
risk
assessment,
see
Unit
III.
C.
3.
of
the
final
rule
on
fosetyl­
Al
tolerances
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
August
29,
2002
(
67
FR
55339).
4.
Cumulative
exposure
to
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.''
EPA
does
not
have,
at
this
time,
available
data
to
determine
whether
fosetyl­
Al
has
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
substances
or
how
to
include
this
pesticide
in
a
cumulative
risk
assessment.
Unlike
other
pesticides
for
which
EPA
has
followed
a
cumulative
risk
approach
based
on
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
fosetyl­
Al
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
fosetyl­
Al
has
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
substances.
For
information
regarding
EPA's
efforts
to
determine
which
chemicals
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
and
to
evaluate
the
cumulative
effects
of
such
chemicals,
see
the
final
rule
for
Bifenthrin
Pesticide
Tolerances
(
62
FR
62961,
November
26,
1997).
D.
Safety
Factor
for
Infants
and
Children
1.
In
general.
Section
408
of
the
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
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.
2.
Prenatal
and
postnatal
sensitivity.
The
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
data
did
not
indicate
increased
quantitative
or
qualitative
susceptibility
of
rats
or
rabbits
to
in
utero
and/
or
postnatal
exposure.
3.
Conclusion.
There
is
a
complete
toxicity
data
base
for
fosetyl­
Al
and
exposure
data
are
complete
or
are
estimated
based
on
data
that
reasonably
accounts
for
potential
exposures.
EPA
determined
that
the
10X
safety
factor
to
protect
infants
and
children
should
be
reduced
to
1X.
The
FQPA
factor
was
reduced
because
the
toxicology
data
base
is
complete;
the
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
data
did
not
indicate
increased
quantitative
or
qualitative
susceptibility
of
rats
or
rabbits
to
in
utero
and/
or
postnatal
exposure;
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
is
not
required
by
the
Agency;
and
the
exposure
assessment,
which
assumes
the
theoretical
maximum
residue
contribution
will
not
underestimate
the
potential
dietary
(
food
and
water)
and
non­
dietary
exposures
for
infants
and
children
resulting
from
the
use
of
fosetyl­
Al.

E.
Aggregate
Risks
and
Determination
of
Safety
To
estimate
total
aggregate
exposure
to
a
pesticide
from
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
uses,
the
Agency
calculates
drinking
water
level
of
concerns
(
DWLOC)
which
are
used
as
a
point
of
comparison
against
the
model
estimates
of
a
pesticide's
concentration
in
water
(
EECs).
DWLOC
values
are
not
regulatory
standards
for
drinking
water.
DWLOCs
are
theoretical
upper
limits
on
a
pesticide's
concentration
in
drinking
water
in
light
of
total
aggregate
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
food
and
residential
uses.
In
calculating
a
DWLOC,
the
Agency
determines
how
much
of
the
acceptable
exposure
(
i.
e.,
the
PAD)
is
available
for
exposure
through
drinking
water
[
e.
g.,
allowable
chronic
water
exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
cPAD
­
(
average
food
+
residential
exposure)].
This
allowable
exposure
through
drinking
water
is
used
to
calculate
a
DWLOC.
A
DWLOC
will
vary
depending
on
the
toxic
endpoint,
drinking
water
consumption,
and
body
weights.
Default
body
weights
and
consumption
values
as
used
by
EPA
are
used
to
calculate
DWLOCs:
2
liter
(
L)/
70
kg
(
adult
male),
2L/
60
kg
(
adult
female),
and
1L/
10
kg
(
child).
Default
body
weights
and
drinking
water
consumption
values
vary
on
an
individual
basis.
This
variation
will
be
taken
into
account
in
more
refined
screening­
level
and
quantitative
drinking
water
exposure
assessments.
Different
populations
will
have
different
DWLOCs.
Generally,
a
DWLOC
is
calculated
for
each
type
of
risk
assessment
used:
Acute,
short­
term,
intermediate­
term,
chronic,
and
cancer.
When
EECs
for
surface
water
and
ground
water
are
less
than
the
calculated
DWLOCs,
EPA
concludes
with
reasonable
certainty
that
exposures
to
the
pesticide
in
drinking
water
(
when
considered
along
with
other
sources
of
exposure
for
which
EPA
has
reliable
data)
would
not
result
in
unacceptable
levels
of
aggregate
human
health
risk
at
this
time.
Because
EPA
considers
the
aggregate
risk
resulting
from
multiple
exposure
pathways
associated
with
a
pesticide's
uses,
levels
of
comparison
in
drinking
water
may
vary
as
those
uses
change.
If
new
uses
are
added
in
the
future,
EPA
will
reassess
the
potential
impacts
of
residues
of
the
pesticide
in
drinking
water
as
a
part
of
the
aggregate
risk
assessment
process.
1.
Acute
risk.
The
acute
aggregate
risk
assessment
takes
into
account
exposure
estimates
from
dietary
consumption
of
fosetyl­
Al
(
food
and
drinking
water).
However,
no
appropriate
endpoint
attributable
to
a
single
dose
(
exposure)
was
identified
in
oral
toxicity
studies
for
fosetyl­
Al.
Therefore,
fosetyl­
Al
is
not
expected
to
pose
an
acute
risk.
2.
Chronic
risk.
The
chronic
aggregate
risk
assessment
takes
into
account
average
exposure
estimates
from
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
uses.
However,
based
on
the
use
pattern,
no
chronic
residential
exposures
are
expected.
Therefore,
the
chronic
aggregate
risk
assessment
will
consider
exposure
from
food
and
drinking
water
only.
Chronic
risk
estimates
resulting
from
aggregate
exposure
to
fosetyl­
Al
in
food
and
water
are
below
Agency's
LOC.
Using
the
exposure
assumptions
described
in
this
unit
for
chronic
exposure,
EPA
has
concluded
that
exposure
to
fosetyl­
Al
from
food
will
utilize
4%
of
the
cPAD
for
the
U.
S.

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
08
Mar
07,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
10MRR1.
SGM
10MRR1
11333
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
46
/
Monday,
March
10,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
population,
5%
of
the
cPAD
for
infants
and
8%
of
the
cPAD
for
children
1
 
6
years
old,
subpopulation
at
greatest
exposure.
Based
the
use
pattern,
chronic
residential
exposure
to
residues
of
fosetyl­
Al
is
not
expected.
In
addition,
there
is
potential
for
chronic
dietary
exposure
to
fosetyl­
Al
in
drinking
water.
After
calculating
DWLOCs
and
comparing
them
to
the
EECs
for
surface
water
and
ground
water,
EPA
does
not
expect
the
aggregate
exposure
to
exceed
100%
of
the
cPAD,
as
shown
in
Table
1
of
this
unit:

TABLE
1.
 
DWLOCS
FOR
CHRONIC
(
NON­
CANCER)
EXPOSURE
TO
FOSETYL­
AL
Population
Subgroup1
cPAD
mg/
kg/
day
%
cPAD
(
Food)
Surface
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
2
Ground
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
2
Chronic
DWLOC
(
ppb)
3
U.
S.
Population
........................................................................................
2.5
4
0.00003
0.006
84,000
Children
(
1
 
6
years
old)
..........................................................................
2.5
8
0.00003
0.006
23,000
All
infants
(<
1
year
old)
..........................................................................
2.5
5
0.00003
0.006
24,000
Female
(
13
 
50
years
old)
........................................................................
2.5
3
0.00003
0.006
73,000
1
Within
each
of
these
subgroups,
the
subpopulation
with
the
highest
food
exposurehaving
an
adequately
representative
number
of
samples
was
selected.
Default
body
weights
are:
General
U.
S.
population,
70
kg;
females
(
13
plus
years
old),
60
kg;
and,
All
Infants/
Children,
10
kg.
2
Estimate
for
the
highest
use
rate
was
chosen.
3
DWLOC
(
µ
g/
L)
=
[
Maximum
water
exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
X
body
wt
(
kg)
divided
by
(
10
 
3
mg/
µ
g)
X
water
consumed
daily
(
L/
day)].
µ
g/
L
=
parts
per
billion.
Default
daily
drinking
rates
are
2
L/
day
for
Adults
and
1
L/
day
for
Infants/
Children.

3.
Short­
term
risk.
Short­
term
aggregate
exposure
takes
into
account
residential
exposure
plus
chronic
exposure
to
food
and
water
(
considered
to
be
a
background
exposure
level).
The
short­
term
aggregate
risk
assessment
estimates
risks
likely
to
result
from
1
to
30
day
exposure
to
fosetyl­
Al
residues
from
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
pesticide
uses.
High­
end
estimates
of
residential
exposure
are
used
in
the
short­
term
assessment,
while
average
values
are
used
for
food
and
drinking
water
exposure
(
i.
e.
chronic
exposures).
A
short­
term
risk
assessment
is
required
for
adults
because
there
is
a
residential
handler
inhalation
exposure
scenario.
In
addition,
a
short­
term
risk
assessment
is
required
for
infants
and
children
because
there
is
a
residential
post­
application
oral
exposure
scenario.
As
no
short­
or
intermediate­
term
dermal
endpoint
was
established,
there
is
no
dermal
component
to
these
aggregate
risk
assessments.
Fosetyl­
Al
is
currently
registered
for
use
that
could
result
in
short­
term
residential
exposure
and
the
Agency
has
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
to
aggregate
chronic
food
and
water
and
short­
term
exposures
for
fosetyl­
Al.
Using
the
exposure
assumptions
described
in
this
unit
for
short­
term
exposures,
EPA
has
concluded
that
food
and
residential
exposures
aggregated
result
in
aggregate
MOEs
of
3,300
for
adults,
570
for
children
ages
1
 
6
years
old,
and
650
for
all
infants
<
1
year
old.
These
aggregate
MOEs
do
not
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
aggregate
exposure
to
food
and
residential
uses.
In
addition,
short­
term
DWLOCs
were
calculated
and
compared
to
the
EECs
for
chronic
exposure
of
fosetyl­
Al
in
ground
water
and
surface
water.
After
calculating
DWLOCs
and
comparing
them
to
the
EECs
for
surface
water
and
ground
water,
EPA
does
not
expect
short­
term
aggregate
exposure
to
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern,
as
shown
in
Table
2
of
this
unit:

TABLE
2.
 
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
FOR
SHORT­
TERM
EXPOSURE
TO
FOSETYL­
AL
Population
Subgroup
Aggregate
MOE
(
Food
+
Residential
1
Aggregate
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)
2
Surface
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
3
Ground
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
3
Short­
Term
DWLOC
(
ppb)
4
Adults
.......................................................................................................
3,300
100
0.00003
0.006
102,000
Children
(
1
 
6
years
old)
..........................................................................
570
100
0.00003
0.006
25,000
All
infants
(<
1
year
old)
............................................................................
650
100
0.00003
0.006
25,000
1
Aggregate
MOE
=
[
NOAEL
(
300
mg/
kg/
day)
 
(
Avg
Food
Exposure
+
Residential
Exposure)]
2
The
LOC
is
100,
based
on
interspecies
and
intraspecies
safety
factors
totaling
100.
3
The
crop
producing
the
highest
level
was
used.
4
DWLOC(
µ
g/
L)
=
[
Maximum
water
exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
x
body
weight
(
kg)
 
water
consumption
(
L)
x
10
 
3
mg/
µ
g]
For
adults,
a
70
kg
body
weight
was
used,
for
children,
10
kg.

4.
Intermediate­
term
risk.
Intermediate­
term
aggregate
exposure
takes
into
account
residential
exposure
plus
chronic
exposure
to
food
and
water
(
considered
to
be
a
background
exposure
level).
An
intermediate­
term
risk
assessment
was
not
performed
since
adult
residential
handler
scenarios
are
not
expected
to
occur
for
longer
than
a
short­
term
timeframe
(
more
than
30
days
of
continuous
exposure)
and
intermediate­
term
exposure
is
not
likely
to
occur
for
infants
and
children
(
residential
post­
application
oral
exposure
scenario)
because
fosetyl­
Al
has
a
very
short
half­
life
(
less
than
3
hours
in
aerobic
soil).
5.
Aggregate
cancer
risk
for
U.
S.
population.
The
Agency
concludes
that
pesticidal
uses
of
fosetyl­
Al
are
not
likely
to
pose
a
carcinogenic
hazard
to
humans.
Therefore,
an
aggregate
cancer
risk
assessment
was
not
performed.
6.
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
fosetyl­
Al
residues.

IV.
Other
Considerations
A.
Analytical
Enforcement
Methodology
An
adequate
analytical
method
is
available
for
enforcement
of
the
proposed
tolerances
in/
on
onion,
green.
The
method
is
Method
I
in
PAM
II,
which
uses
diazomethane
as
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
08
Mar
07,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
10MRR1.
SGM
10MRR1
11334
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
46
/
Monday,
March
10,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
methylating
agent
and
quantitation
of
fosetyl­
Al
by
GC/
FPD.
The
method
may
be
requested
from:
Francis
Griffith,
Analytical
Chemistry
Branch,
Environmental
Science
Center,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
701
Mapes
Road,
Fort
George
G.
Mead,
MD
20755
 
5350;
telephone
number:
(
410)
305
 
20905;
e­
mail
address:
griffith.
francis@
epa.
gov.

B.
International
Residue
Limits
There
is
no
established
or
proposed
maximum
residue
limit
(
MRL)
or
tolerance
for
fosetyl­
Al
in
or
on
onion,
green
for
Canada,
Mexico,
or
Codex.

V.
Conclusion
Therefore,
the
tolerance
is
established
for
residues
of
fosetyl­
Al,
aluminum
tris
(
O­
ethylphosphonate),
in
or
on
onion,
green
at
10
ppm.

VI.
Objections
and
Hearing
Requests
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.
Although
the
procedures
in
those
regulations
require
some
modification
to
reflect
the
amendments
made
to
the
FFDCA
by
the
FQPA,
EPA
will
continue
to
use
those
procedures,
with
appropriate
adjustments,
until
the
necessary
modifications
can
be
made.
The
new
section
408(
g)
of
the
FFDCA
provides
essentially
the
same
process
for
persons
to
``
object''
to
a
regulation
for
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
issued
by
EPA
under
new
section
408(
d)
of
FFDCA,
as
was
provided
in
the
old
sections
408
and
409
of
the
FFDCA.
However,
the
period
for
filing
objections
is
now
60
days,
rather
than
30
days.

A.
What
Do
I
Need
to
Do
to
File
an
Objection
or
Request
a
Hearing?
You
must
file
your
objection
or
request
a
hearing
on
this
regulation
in
accordance
with
the
instructions
provided
in
this
unit
and
in
40
CFR
part
178.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
you
must
identify
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0348
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
May
9,
2003.
1.
Filing
the
request.
Your
objection
must
specify
the
specific
provisions
in
the
regulation
that
you
object
to,
and
the
grounds
for
the
objections
(
40
CFR
178.25).
If
a
hearing
is
requested,
the
objections
must
include
a
statement
of
the
factual
issues(
s)
on
which
a
hearing
is
requested,
the
requestor's
contentions
on
such
issues,
and
a
summary
of
any
evidence
relied
upon
by
the
objector
(
40
CFR
178.27).
Information
submitted
in
connection
with
an
objection
or
hearing
request
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
information
that
does
not
contain
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
record.
Information
not
marked
confidential
may
be
disclosed
publicly
by
EPA
without
prior
notice.
Mail
your
written
request
to:
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
(
1900C),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
You
may
also
deliver
your
request
to
the
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
in
Rm.
104,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
The
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
is
open
from
8
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
is
(
703)
603
 
0061.
2.
Tolerance
fee
payment.
If
you
file
an
objection
or
request
a
hearing,
you
must
also
pay
the
fee
prescribed
by
40
CFR
180.33(
i)
or
request
a
waiver
of
that
fee
pursuant
to
40
CFR
180.33(
m).
You
must
mail
the
fee
to:
EPA
Headquarters
Accounting
Operations
Branch,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
P.
O.
Box
360277M,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15251.
Please
identify
the
fee
submission
by
labeling
it
``
Tolerance
Petition
Fees.''
EPA
is
authorized
to
waive
any
fee
requirement
``
when
in
the
judgement
of
the
Administrator
such
a
waiver
or
refund
is
equitable
and
not
contrary
to
the
purpose
of
this
subsection.''
For
additional
information
regarding
the
waiver
of
these
fees,
you
may
contact
James
Tompkins
by
phone
at
(
703)
305
 
5697,
by
e­
mail
at
tompkins.
jim@
epa.
gov,
or
by
mailing
a
request
for
information
to
Mr.
Tompkins
at
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
If
you
would
like
to
request
a
waiver
of
the
tolerance
objection
fees,
you
must
mail
your
request
for
such
a
waiver
to:
James
Hollins,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
3.
Copies
for
the
Docket.
In
addition
to
filing
an
objection
or
hearing
request
with
the
Hearing
Clerk
as
described
in
Unit
VI.
A.,
you
should
also
send
a
copy
of
your
request
to
the
PIRIB
for
its
inclusion
in
the
official
record
that
is
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Mail
your
copies,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0348,
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
In
person
or
by
courier,
bring
a
copy
to
the
location
of
the
PIRIB
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
You
may
also
send
an
electronic
copy
of
your
request
via
e­
mail
to:
oppdocket
epa.
gov.
Please
use
an
ASCII
file
format
and
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Copies
of
electronic
objections
and
hearing
requests
will
also
be
accepted
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
6.1/
8.0
or
ASCII
file
format.
Do
not
include
any
CBI
in
your
electronic
copy.
You
may
also
submit
an
electronic
copy
of
your
request
at
many
Federal
Depository
Libraries.

B.
When
Will
the
Agency
Grant
a
Request
for
a
Hearing?
A
request
for
a
hearing
will
be
granted
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
material
submitted
shows
the
following:
There
is
a
genuine
and
substantial
issue
of
fact;
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
available
evidence
identified
by
the
requestor
would,
if
established
resolve
one
or
more
of
such
issues
in
favor
of
the
requestor,
taking
into
account
uncontested
claims
or
facts
to
the
contrary;
and
resolution
of
the
factual
issues(
s)
in
the
manner
sought
by
the
requestor
would
be
adequate
to
justify
the
action
requested
(
40
CFR
178.32).

VII.
Statuatory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
This
final
rule
establishes
a
tolerance
under
section
408(
d)
of
the
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
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
08
Mar
07,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
10MRR1.
SGM
10MRR1
11335
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
46
/
Monday,
March
10,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
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
the
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
the
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.
VIII.
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:
February
28,
2003.
Debra
Edwards,
Acting
Director,
Registration
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

Therefore,
40
CFR
chapter
I
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
180
 
[
AMENDED]

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

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

2.
Section
180.415
is
amended
by
alphabetically
adding
an
entry
for
``
Onion,
green''
to
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.415
Aluminum
tris
(
Oethylphosphonate
tolerance
for
residues.

(
a)
*
*
*

Commodity
Parts
per
million
Expiration/
Revocation
Date
*
*
*
*
*
Onion,
green
................................................................................................................................................
10.0
None
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
5616
Filed
3
 
7
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47
CFR
Part
73
[
DA
03
 
431;
MM
Docket
No.
01
 
254;
RM
 
10264;
RM
 
10375;
RM
 
10376]

Radio
Broadcasting
Services;
Atoka,
Haileyville
and
Clayton,
OK
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
document
dismisses
a
petition
for
rule
making
filed
at
the
request
of
Maurice
Salsa
(``
Salsa'')
proposing
the
allotment
of
FM
Channel
290A
at
Atoka,
Oklahoma,
as
that
community's
second
local
FM
transmission
service
(
RM
 
10264).
See
66
FR
52733,
October
17,
2001.
In
response
to
a
counterproposal
filed
on
behalf
of
Keystone
Broadcasting,
this
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
14:
08
Mar
07,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
10MRR1.
SGM
10MRR1
