FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK PESTICIDE PROJECT

Return to FAN's Pesticide Homepage

Return to Oxyfluorfen Index Page

Oxyfluorfen (Rohm & Haas). December14, 1994. Request to Revoke Food Additive Regulations on cottonseed oil, mint oil, and soybean oil. Federal Register.

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1994/December/Day-14/pr-72.html

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-300373; FRL-4920-3]

Oxyfluorfen; Request for Comment on Petition To Revoke Certain Food Additive Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Receipt and Availability of Petition.

SUMMARY: This document announces the receipt of, and solicits comments on, a petition proposing the revocation of the section 409 food additive regulations established under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for the herbicide oxyfluorfen and its metabolites containing the diphenyl ether linkage (hereinafter oxyfluorfen). This notice sets forth the basis for the petitioner's proposal and provides opportunity for public comment.

DATES: Written comments, identified by the document control number [OPP-300373], must be received on or before January 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, requests for copies of the petition and comments should be forwarded to the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the petition will be available for public inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays in: Information Services Branch, Program Management and Support Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, 703-305-5805.

Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Niloufar Nazmi, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. WF32C5, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (703-308-8028).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Framework

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) authorizes under section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a) the establishent of tolerances and exemptions from tolerances for the residues of pesticides in or on raw agricultural commodities (RAC), and section 409 of the act authorizes promulgation of food additive regulations for pesticide residues in processed foods (21 U.S.C. 348). Under section 408 of the act, EPA establishes tolerances, or exemptions from tolerances when appropriate, for pesticide residues in raw agricultural commodities. Food additive regulations setting maximum permissible levels of pesticide residues in processed foods are established under section 409. Section 409 food/feed additive regulations (FAR) are needed, however, only for certain pesticide residues in processed food. Under section 402(a)(2) of the FFDCA, no section 409 FAR is needed if any pesticide residue in a processed food resulting from use on a RAC has been removed to the extent possible by good manufacturing practices and is below the tolerance for that pesticide in or on that RAC. This exemption in section 402(a)(2) is commonly referred to as the ``flow-through'' provision because it allows the section 408 raw food tolerance to flow through to processed food. Thus, a section 409 FAR is only necessary to prevent foods from being deemed adulterated when despite the use of good manufacturing practices the concentration of the pesticide residue in a processed food is greater than the tolerance prescribed for the raw agricultural commodity, or if the processed food itself is treated or comes into contact with a pesticide. Monitoring and enforcement are carried out by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The establishment of a food additive regulation under section 409 requires a finding that use of the pesticide will be ``safe'' (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)). Section 409 also contains the Delaney clause, which specifically provides that, with limited exceptions, no additive may be approved if it has been found to induce cancer in man or animals (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(5)).

In setting both section 408 tolerances and section 409 FAR, EPA reviews residue chemistry and toxicology data. To be acceptable, tolerances must be both high enough to cover residues likely to be left when the pesticide is used in accordance with its labeling, and low enough to protect the public health. With respect to section 408 tolerances, EPA determines the highest levels of residues that might be present in a raw agricultural commodity based on controlled field trials conducted under the conditions allowed by the product's labeling that are expected to yield maximum residues. Generally, EPA's policy concerning whether a section 409 FAR is needed depends on whether there is a possibility that the processing of a raw agricultural commodity containing pesticide residues would result in residues in the processed food at a level greater than the raw food tolerance.

II. Petition

Rohm and Haas Co. has submitted a petition requesting the revocation of the food additive regulations established under section 409 of the FFDCA for the herbicide oxyfluorfen in or on cottonseed oil, mint oil, and soybean oil. According to the petition, the oxyfluorfen FAR for cottonseed oil, mint oil, and soybean oil should be revoked because residues in the processed oils do not exceed the section 408 tolerance levels for raw commodities.

Rohm and Haas cites the method of application of oxyfluorfen as a key factor as to why no residues are expected to be present in the agricultural commodities. Particularly, the petitioner claims that oxyfluorfen is a nonselective herbicide that destroys plant tissue. Therefore, oxyfluorfen is not applied to food crops, but is applied either directly to weeds shortly after they have emerged, or to soil in order to prevent emergence of weeds. Rohm and Haas has developed and submitted data to support the assertion that oxyfluorfen does not translate from the soil into growing plants (MRID Nos. 42913201, 42873301, 42865001, 160143, 00040912, 00040911, 00039926, and 00039925).

The petitioner claims that all processed oil data from field studies show residue levels below the section 408 tolerance levels, even when applied at maximum level rates. The petition includes descriptions of previously submitted field residue data for cottonseed/ cottonseed oil, mint/mint oil, soybean/soybean oil, and some additional data. These residue data from field trials are on file with the EPA (MRID Nos. 92136075, 9213081, 92136086). The petitioner contends that there is further dilution of residues during processing and before the food containing these commodities is ready to eat.

Cotton: Although the residue levels in samples from the above studies are allegedly below the section 408 tolerance levels, Rohm and Haas claims that the actual processed food, when ready to eat, will have even lower residues. First, Rohm and Haas asserts that only 4 percent of the cotton grown in the U.S. is treated with oxyfluorfen. The processing of cottonseed oils occurs at centralized facilities where cottonseed from different producers is mixed. In addition, purification of the oil occurs during several stages in order to transform the crude oil into finished oil. This further processing would likely remove any oxyfluorfen residues. Finally, the petitioner contends that further dilution will occur as the cottonseed oil is incorporated into processed foods before the oil is ready to eat.

Mint: In addition to the claim that residues in the processed mint oil fraction do not exceed the section 408 mint tolerance, the petitioner asserts that residue levels in processed food will be much lower. Rohm and Haas contends that the section 408 tolerance will not be exceeded.

Soybeans: The petitioner claims that soybean data show residue levels substantially below the section 408 tolerance. Specifically, 95 percent of the data points are below the detection limit. Rohm and Haas Co. requests that EPA consider the foregoing arguments and revoke the section 409 FAR for oxyfluorfen in cottonseed oil, mint oil, and soybean oil.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 177.125 and 177.30, EPA may issue an order ruling on the petition or may issue a proposal in response to the petition and seek further comment. If EPA issues an order in response to the petition, any person adversely affected by the order may file written objections and a request for a hearing on those objections with EPA on or before the 30th day after the date of the publication of the order (40 CFR 178.20).

List of Subjects

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

Dated: December 1, 1994.

Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 94-30735 Filed 12-13-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F