[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5491]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-
cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid; Amendment to an
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation amends the current temporary exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical
pesticide S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-
cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid (ABA), to make it
a permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of ABA in or on all food commodities when applied or used preharvest as
a plant regulator. Valent Biosciences Corporation submitted a petition
to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting that the Agency amend the existing temporary exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of S-Abscisic Acid.
DATES: This regulation is effective March 12, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 11, 2010, 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-2009-0127. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Pfeifer, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-0031; e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 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. 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
B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2009-0127 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and
requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the
Hearing Clerk on or before May 11, 2010. Addresses for mail and hand
delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
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-2009-0127, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility'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 Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of May 6, 2009 (74 FR 20946) (FRL-8411-2),
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 tolerance petition (PP
8F7391) by Valent Biosciences Corporation, 870 Technology Way,
Libertyville, IL 60048. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1281 be
amended by establishing a permanent exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-
(hereafter referred to as ABA). This notice stated that a summary of
the petition prepared by the petitioner Valent Biosciences Corporation
could be found in the docket for this action, which is available to the
public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
substantive comments received in response to the notice of filing.
Currently, there is a two-part temporary exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of ABA. ABA is exempt from the requirement
of a tolerance when used on grapes in accordance with Experimental Use
permit 73049-EUP-4, which expires on October 1, 2010; and ABA is exempt
when used on grapes, herbs and spices, leafy vegetables, pineapple,
pome fruit and stone fruit in accordance with Experimental Use permit
73049-EUP-7, which expires on August 7, 2012. Valent Biosciences
Corporation requested an amendment of this two-part temporary exemption
to a permanent exemption in or on all food commodities.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) 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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 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. . .
.'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that the
Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
III. Toxicological Profile
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 and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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.
ABA is a plant regulator present in all vascular plants, algae, and
some fungi. Its name derives from its purported role in abscission--the
shedding of leaves, fruits, flowers, and seeds. As a plant hormone, ABA
is known to be a strong actor in regulating plant growth by aiding in
stress resistance, fruit set, ripening, and senescence. It is naturally
present in fruits and vegetables at various levels, generally not in
excess of 10 parts per million (ppm), and has always been a component
of any diet containing plant materials. To date, no toxic effects to
humans have been associated with the consumption of ABA in fruits and
Summaries of the toxicological data submitted in support of this
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance follows:
1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity studies, submitted to support the
registration of the end-use product containing ABA, confirm a low
toxicity profile and buttress the finding that this active ingredient
poses no significant human health risk with regard to new food uses.
Altogether, the acute toxicity data show virtual nontoxicity for all
routes of exposure and suggest that any dietary risks associated with
this naturally occurring plant regulator would be negligible.
i. The acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) in rats was
greater than 5,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and confirmed
negligible toxicity through the oral route. There were no observed
toxicological effects on the test subjects in the acute oral study
submitted (Master Record Identification Number MRID No. 46895611). ABA
is Toxicity Category IV for acute oral toxicity.
ii. The acute dermal LD50 in rats was greater than 5,000
mg/kg. These data substantiated ABA's relative dermal nontoxicity to
the general public (MRID
No. 46895612). ABA is Toxicity Category IV for acute dermal toxicity.
iii. The acute inhalation median lethal concentration
(LC50) was greater than 2.06 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in
rats and showed no significant inhalation toxicity (MRID No. 46895613).
ABA is Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity.
iv. A skin irritation study on rabbits indicated that ABA was not
irritating to the skin (MRID No. 46895615). ABA is Toxicity Category IV
for dermal irritation.
v. Data indicated ABA is not a dermal sensitizer (MRID No.
46895616). Data indicate that ABA is not acutely toxic. No toxic
endpoints were established, and no significant toxicological effects
were observed in any of the acute toxicity studies.
2. Mutagenicity. Three mutagenicity studies, using ABA as the test
substance, were performed. These studies are sufficient to confirm that
there are no expected dietary or non-occupational risks of mutagenicity
with regard to new food uses.
i. The Reverse Mutation Assay (MRID No. 47030901) showed that ABA
did not induce mutant colonies relative to control groups.
ii. The In vitro Mammalian Cells in Culture Assay (MRID No.
47005302) demonstrated that ABA did not damage chromosomes or the
mitotic apparatus of hamster ovary cells.
iii. A Bone Marrow Micronucleus Assay (MRID No. 47005301) indicated
no mutagenicity in the bone marrow cells of mice up to the limit dose
of 2,000 mg/kg.
3. Subchronic toxicity. Based on its biodegradation properties,
residues of ABA are not expected to result in significant dietary
exposure beyond the levels expected in background dietary exposures.
Nonetheless, two subchronic oral toxicity studies satisfied the data
requirements for subchronic toxicity and indicated that ABA has no
subchronic toxicological effect.
i. A 28-day Oral Toxicity Study (MRID No. 47470509) found no
toxicological effects regarding mortality, clinical observations,
neurotoxicity assessment, body weight, food consumption, hematology,
clinical chemistry, organ weights, and macroscopic or microscopic
observations. The no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) was
determined to be 20,000 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day).
ii. A 90-day Oral Toxicity Study (MRID No. 47470510) found no
statistical difference in hematology, clinical chemistry, or urinalysis
between test subjects and the control. The NOAEL was determined to be
4. Developmental toxicity. The data submitted to the Agency (MRID
No. 47470511) demonstrate a clear lack of developmental toxicity and
support the Agency's conclusion that there is no risk of developmental
toxicity associated with new food uses. Data submitted to the Agency
satisfy the data requirements for developmental toxicity and indicate
that ABA poses negligible risk with regard to developmental toxicity.
A Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study (MRID No. 47470512) found
no significant treatment-related reproductive effects or fetal
abnormalities and established a NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day.
5. Effects on endocrine systems. There is no available evidence
demonstrating that ABA is an endocrine disruptor in humans. As a
result, the Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine
effects of ABA at this time. However, the Endocrine Disruption
Screening Program (EDSP) has established a protocol, which guides the
Agency in selecting suspect ingredients for review, and the Agency
reserves the right to require new information should the program
require it. Presently, based on the lack of exposure and the negligible
toxicity profile of ABA, no adverse effects to the endocrine are known
or expected. Overall, the lack of evidence of endocrine disruption is
consistent with ABA's low toxicity profile and supports this exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
IV. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
A. Dietary Exposure
ABA is a plant regulator present in all vascular plants, algae, and
some fungi. It is naturally present in fruits and vegetables at various
levels, generally not in excess of 10 ppm, and has always been a
component of any diet containing plant materials. Because of the rapid
degradation of ABA, the proposed preharvest uses of this active
ingredient are not expected to result in dietary residues in or on food
above the natural background levels. Even in a worst-case scenario,
exposure to ABA residues would not be expected to exceed exposures
expected in a vegetarian diet.
1. Food. Residues of ABA applied to food crops are expected to
dissipate to background levels before they are distributed for
consumption. Data submitted by the registrant confirm ABA's rapid
dissipation through metabolization, photo-isomerization, and
degradation (MRID No. 47131404). Data demonstrate that ABA residues on
grape leaves are 95% degraded within 24 hours of application. Moreover,
confirmatory data on the degradation of ABA on wheat leaves show a
half-life ranging between 5 and 8 hours. Given ABA's preharvest
application and rapid degradation, no significant residues are
expected. Even in the unlikely event of dietary exposure to ABA
residues, it is noted that ABA is naturally present in fruits and
vegetables at various levels up to 10 ppm and has always been a
component of any diet containing plant materials. No toxicological
hazard has historically been associated with its consumption. In sum,
while little to no dietary exposure from use of ABA as a pesticide is
expected, dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any
quantifiable risk, due to ABA's nontoxic profile as described in Unit
2. Drinking water exposure. Applications of ABA are made directly
to terrestrial crops. Accordingly, no aquatic exposures are expected.
While ABA residues might runoff after application, they are not
expected to be able to reach surface water or to percolate through the
soil to ground water because of the rapid biodegradation of ABA and the
rapid metabolization of ABA by soil microbes (MRID No. 47131404).
Modeling of estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in water
indicate that maximum residues in water resulting from an incidental
offsite movement of ABA would not exceed the low parts per billion
level - an amount that is indistinguishable from the natural level of
ABA already found in our water. (Notably, the highest potential EECs in
water are many orders of magnitude below the amounts that would be
commonly found in a typical serving of fruit and vegetables.) In sum,
the Agency concludes that any residues resulting from the application
of ABA to crops are not expected to result in any significant drinking
water exposure and that any incidental residues resulting from a drift
or run-off event would be so negligible that they would not pose any
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
Non-occupational exposure is not expected because ABA is not
approved for residential uses. The active ingredient is applied
directly to food commodities and degrades rapidly. Furthermore, the
Agency notes that health risks are not expected from any pesticidal
exposure to this active ingredient, no matter the circumstances. A
December 2009 Agency risk assessment of ABA clearly establishes that
even prolonged and regular occupational exposures, which are associated
with this active ingredient, pose negligible risks. In the event of
incidental non-occupational exposure, no risks are expected due to
ABA's low toxicity profile, nontoxic mode of action, and demonstrable
lack of dietary effects.
1. Dermal exposure. Non-occupational dermal exposures to ABA are
expected to be negligible because of its directed agricultural use. In
the event of dermal exposure to residues, the nontoxic profile of ABA
(as described in Unit III.) is not expected to result in any risks
through this route of exposure.
2. Inhalation exposure. Non-occupational inhalation exposures are
not expected to result from the agricultural uses of ABA. Any
inhalation exposure associated with this new agricultural use pattern
is expected to be occupational in nature.
V. Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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 has not found S-Abscisic Acid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and S-Abscisic Acid does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that S-
Abscisic Acid does not have 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 EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children
Health risks to humans, including infants and children, are
considered negligible with regard to the pesticidal use of ABA. As
illustrated in Unit III., acute toxicity studies indicate that ABA has
negligible toxicity. Furthermore, it is ubiquitous in nature and
present in all fruits and vegetables. To date, there is no history of
toxicological incident involving its consumption. Of equal note, little
to no exposure to the residues of ABA is expected. Pesticidal
applications are applied directly to agricultural crops, and data
suggest that significant residues are not expected beyond the time of
harvest. Accordingly, little to no dietary exposure is expected. As
such, the Agency has determined that this food use of ABA poses no
foreseeable risks to human health or the environment. Thus, there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm to the general U.S. population,
including infants and children, from exposure to this active
1. U.S. population. The Agency has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to residues of ABA to the U.S. population. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and other non-occupational exposures for
which there is reliable information. The Agency arrived at this
conclusion based on the low levels of mammalian dietary toxicity
associated with ABA, the natural ubiquity of ABA in foodstuffs, and
information suggesting that the pesticidal use of ABA will not result
in any significant exposure. For these reasons, the Agency has
determined that ABA residues in and on all food commodities will be
safe, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to residues of ABA.
2. Infants and children. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides
that EPA shall assess the available information about consumption
patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants
and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects
on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a
common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of
exposure (safety) for infants and children in the case of threshold
effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database unless the EPA determines that a different
margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children.
Margins of exposure (safety), which are often referred to as
uncertainty factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either
directly or through the use of a margin of exposure analysis, or by
using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that
poses no appreciable risk. Based on all the information evaluated for
ABA, the Agency concludes that there are no threshold effects of
concern and, as a result, the provision requiring an additional margin
of safety does not apply. Further, the considerations of consumption
patterns, special susceptibility, and cumulative effects do not apply
to pesticides, such as ABA, without a demonstrated significant adverse
VII. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Through this action, the Agency proposes an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance of ABA when used on all food commodities
without any numerical limitations for residues. EPA has determined that
residues resulting from the pesticidal uses of ABA would be so low as
to be virtually indistinguishable from natural background levels. As a
result, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not
required for enforcement purposes for ABA.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no codex maximum residue levels established for residues
Based on the data submitted to support this tolerance exemption,
and other information available to the Agency, EPA is amending the
current temporary exemption from the tolerance requirements, pursuant
to section 408(c) of FFDCA, to be a permanent exemption from the
requirement for a tolerance for residues of ABA in or on all food
commodities when applied pre-harvest as a plant regulator.
IX. 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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., 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).
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.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not 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).
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
X. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
Dated: February 25, 2010.
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In subpart D, revise Sec. 180.1281 to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1281 S-Abscisic Acid, (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-2,6,6-trimethyl-4-
oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic Acid; exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of S-Abscisic Acid in or on all food commodities when applied
or used preharvest as a plant regulator.
[FR Doc. 2010-5491 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S