Endosulfan, Fenarimol, Imazalil, Oryzalin, Sodium Acifluorfen, Trifluralin, and Ziram; Proposed Tolerance Actions, 24615-24627 [E6-6207]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24615-24627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6207]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459; FRL-7771-9]


Endosulfan, Fenarimol, Imazalil, Oryzalin, Sodium Acifluorfen, 
Trifluralin, and Ziram; Proposed Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the 
insecticide endosulfan, the fungicides fenarimol, imazalil, and ziram; 
and the herbicide trifluralin. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain 
tolerances for the insecticide endosulfan, the fungicides fenarimol, 
imazalil, and ziram; and the herbicides sodium acifluorfen and 
trifluralin. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances 
for the insecticide endosulfan, the fungicides fenarimol, imazalil, and 
ziram; and the herbicides oryzalin and trifluralin. The regulatory 
actions proposed in this document are part of the Agency's 
reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment requirements of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as 
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA 
is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in 
existence on August 2, 1996. No tolerance reassessments will be counted 
at the time of a final rule because tolerances in existence on August 
2, 1996, that are associated with actions proposed herein were 
previously counted as reassessed at the time of the completed 
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), Report of the Food Quality 
Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk 
Management Decision (TRED), or Federal Register action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., 
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.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the 
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday, 
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any 
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility 
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP 
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will 
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. 
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing 
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The 
OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number and hours of operation 
will remain the same after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0459. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you

[[Page 24616]]

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made 
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA 
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., 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 https://www.regulations.gov, or, 
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at 
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The 
hours of operation for this docket facility are 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: Kendra Tyler, Special Review and 
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0125; e-mail 
address:tyler.kendra@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. 
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 
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the 
Agency Proposes to Revoke?

    This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any 
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for 
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that 
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. 
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed 
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under 
FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and 
the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. 
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take 
appropriate action under FFDCA.
    EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are 
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting 
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection 
at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the 
final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the 
right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the 
specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised 
again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific 
tolerances for residues of the insecticide endosulfan, the fungicides 
fenarimol, imazalil, and ziram; and the herbicides oryzalin, sodium 
acifluorfen, and trifluralin in or on commodities listed in the 
regulatory text.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance 
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to 
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety 
standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable 
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each

[[Page 24617]]

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the Food 
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk 
Management Decision (TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs 
recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including 
modifications to reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, 
and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA 
policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from 
EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-
9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at https://www.epa.gov/ncepihom and 
from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000; 
internet at https://www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs 
are available on the internet for endosulfan, fenarimol, imazalil, 
oryzalin, sodium acifluorfen, trifluralin, and ziram in public dockets 
EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0262, EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0250, EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0217, EPA-
HQ-OPP-2003-0369, EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0293, EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0142, and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2004-0194, respectively, at https://www.regulations.gov.
    The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop 
field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under 
the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected 
for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in 
such studies. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a 
separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data 
show that: (1) Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result 
in a higher residue level on the commodity and (2) the tolerance 
remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the 
tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on ``Risk management, Reregistration, 
and Tolerance Reassessment'' typically describes the regulatory 
position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, 
determination of safety for U.S. general population, and safety for 
infants and children. In particular, the human health risk assessment 
document which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and 
whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its 
evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient 
and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with 
appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will 
result from aggregate exposure.
    Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found 
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue 
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of 
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative 
Record and paper copies for endosulfan, fenarimol, imazalil, oryzalin, 
sodium acifluorfen, and trifluralin can be found under their respective 
public docket numbers, identified above. Paper copies for ziram and 
imazalil are available in the public docket for this proposed rule. 
Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public docket 
and comment system, regulations.gov athttps://www.regulations.gov. You 
may search for this proposed rule under docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0459, or for an individual chemical under its respective docket number, 
then click on that docket number to view its contents.
    EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not 
of concern for the above-mentioned pesticide active ingredients based 
upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted 
studies that the Agency found acceptable.
    EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this 
document to be modified, are safe, i.e., that there is a reasonable 
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from 
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance 
with section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance nomenclature 
do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These findings are 
discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references are available 
for inspection as described in this document under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances 
because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food 
uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where 
registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay 
the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily canceled 
one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general 
practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of 
pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active 
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the 
proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on 
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    EPA is proposing to revoke specific tolerances for combined 
imazalil residues of concern on the fat, liver, meat, and meat 
byproducts of hogs because the Agency has concluded that there is no 
reasonable expectation of finite residues in or on the commodities 
associated with the tolerances, and therefore these tolerances are no 
longer needed.
    The determinations that there are no reasonable expectations of 
finite imazalil residues of concern on the fat, liver, meat, and meat 
byproducts of hogs were made based on the Agency's conclusion that 
there are no current imazalil commodity uses which are significant feed 
items for hogs. (While there is an imazalil tolerance for citrus dried 
pulp, the Agency does not consider it to be a significant feed item for 
hogs). Because EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation 
of finite residues, under 40 CFR 180.6 the imazalil tolerances for hog, 
fat; hog, liver; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts are no longer 
needed under the FFDCA and can be proposed for revocation.
    1. Endosulfan. Currently, the tolerance expression for residues is 
defined in terms of endosulfan and its metabolite endosulfan sulfate in 
40 CFR 180.182. Because the tolerance expression should reflect the 
alpha- and beta-isomers of the parent compound, EPA is proposing to 
modify the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.182 in order to specify 
the alpha- and beta-isomers of the parent. Also, EPA is proposing to 
remove the ``(N)'' designation from all entries to conform to current 
Agency administrative practice (``N'' designation means negligible 
residues).
    Because no active registrations exist for use of endosulfan on 
globe artichokes, sugar beets, raspberries, safflower seeds, and 
sunflower seeds, the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) to revoke the tolerances for 
``artichoke, globe''; ``beet, sugar, roots''; ``raspberry''; 
``safflower, seed''; and ``sunflower, seed.''
    Based on available data on almond that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern are non-detectable in or on almond kernels, the 
Agency has determined that the tolerance on almond should be increased 
to 0.3 ppm, the combined limits of detection. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for 
combined endosulfan residues of

[[Page 24618]]

concern in or on ``almond'' from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm.
    Based on available data on the grain and straw of barley and wheat 
that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 0.30, 
0.30, 0.35, and 0.38 ppm in/on barley grain, wheat grain, barley straw, 
and wheat straw, respectively, the Agency has determined that the 
tolerances on barley and wheat grain should be increased to 0.3 ppm and 
tolerances on barley and wheat straw should be increased to 0.4 ppm. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``barley, grain'' and ``wheat, grain'' from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm, and 
``barley, straw'' and ``wheat, straw'' from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm.
    Based on available data on blueberry that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern are non-detectable (<0.1 ppm), the Agency has 
determined that the tolerance on blueberry should be increased to 0.3 
ppm, the combined limits of detection. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan 
residues of concern in or on ``blueberry'' from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm.
    Based on available data on broccoli that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern as high as 2.41 ppm, the Agency has determined that 
the tolerance on broccoli should be increased to 3.0 ppm. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for 
combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on ``broccoli'' from 2.0 
to 3.0 ppm.
    Based on available data that show combined endosulfan residues of 
concern as high as 3.1 ppm on cabbage with wrapper leaves, the Agency 
has determined that the tolerance on cabbage should be increased to 4.0 
ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``cabbage'' from 2.0 to 4.0 ppm.
    Based on available data on celery that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern as high as 7.0 ppm, the Agency has determined that 
the tolerance on celery should be increased to 8.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for 
combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on ``celery'' from 2.0 to 
8.0 ppm.
    Based on available data that show combined endosulfan residues of 
concern as high as 10.11 ppm in or on head lettuce with wrapper leaves 
and 5.72 ppm in or on leaf lettuce, the Agency has determined that the 
existing tolerance on lettuce should be split into separate tolerances 
for head lettuce and leaf lettuce, and increased to 11.0 ppm and 6.0 
ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing to split the tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) on lettuce into ``lettuce, head'' and 
``lettuce, leaf'' and increase them for combined endosulfan residues of 
concern from 2.0 to 11.0 and 6.0 ppm, respectively.
    Based on available data on oat grain, oat straw, rye grain, and rye 
straw that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 
0.30, 0.32, 0.30, and 0.30 ppm, respectively, the Agency has determined 
that the tolerances on oat grain, oat straw, rye grain, and rye straw 
should be increased to 0.3, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3 ppm, respectively. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``oat, grain'' from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm; ``oat, straw'' from 0.2 to 0.4 ppm; 
``rye, grain'' from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm; and rye, straw from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm.
    Available ruminant metabolism data indicate that combined 
endosulfan residues of concern at 1.1x and 1.7x the maximum dietary 
burden for beef and dairy cattle, respectively were 0.78 ppm in milk, 
12 ppm in fat, 0.85 ppm in kidney, 4.6 ppm in liver, and 2.0 ppm in 
muscle. The Agency determined that separate tolerances for liver should 
be established and that the tolerances for meat byproducts should be 
revised to meat byproducts, except liver and the appropriate tolerances 
for fat, meat byproducts (except liver), liver, and meat of cattle, 
goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be increased to 13.0, 1.0, 5.0, 
and 2.0 ppm, respectively. Also, the Agency determined that the 
tolerance for milk fat should be increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to increase the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``cattle, fat''; ``goat, fat''; ``hog, fat''; ``horse, fat''; and 
``sheep, fat'' from 0.2 to 13.0 ppm; ``cattle, meat byproducts, except 
liver''; ``goat, meat byproducts, except liver''; ``hog, meat 
byproducts, except liver''; ``horse, meat byproducts, except liver''; 
and ``sheep, meat byproducts, except liver'' from 0.2 to 1.0 ppm; 
``cattle, meat''; ``goat, meat''; ``hog, meat''; ``horse, meat''; and 
``sheep, meat'' from 0.2 to 2.0 ppm; ``milk, fat (=N in whole milk)'' 
from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm; and establish tolerances at 5.0 ppm for ``cattle, 
liver''; ``goat, liver''; ``hog, liver''; ``horse, liver''; and 
``sheep, liver.''
    Based on available data on cantaloupes, cucumbers, and summer 
squash that show combined endosulfan residues of concern as high as 
0.76, 0.66, and 0.25 ppm, respectively, the Agency has determined that 
the tolerances on melon, cucumber, and summer squash should be 
decreased to 1.0 ppm. Also, the available data for melon, cucumber, and 
summer squash may be translated to pumpkin and winter squash. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to combine the individual tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.182(a)(1) on cucumber, melon, pumpkin, squash, summer; and 
squash, winter into ``vegetable, cucurbit, group 9'' and decrease the 
tolerance for combined endosulfan residues of concern from 2.0 to 1.0 
ppm.
    Based on available data on tomato that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern as high as 0.97 ppm, respectively, the Agency has 
determined that the tolerance on tomato should be decreased to 1.0 ppm. 
Also, the available data for tomato may be translated to eggplant. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``eggplant'' from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm and ``tomato'' from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm.
    Based on available data on sweet potatoes that show combined 
endosulfan residues of concern are non-detectable (each <0.05 ppm), the 
Agency has determined that the tolerance on sweet potato should be 
decreased to 0.15 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the 
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of 
concern in or on ``sweet potato, roots'' from 0.2 to 0.15 ppm.
    Based on available data on apple that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern as high as 0.84 ppm, the Agency has determined that 
the tolerance on apple should be decreased to 1.0 ppm. This level is 
also compatible with CODEX Alimentarius Commission Maximum Residue 
Limits (MRLs) for endosulfan residues on pome fruits. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for 
combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on ``apple'' from 2.0 to 
1.0 ppm.
    Apple processing data indicate that combined endosulfan residues of 
concern concentrate by 6x in wet apple pomace. Based on HAFT combined 
residues of 0.77 ppm in/on apples, combined residues as high as 4.62 
ppm would be expected. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) to establish a tolerance for combined endosulfan residues 
of concern in or on ``apple, wet pomace'' at 5.0 ppm.
    Based on available data on pineapple that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern as high as 0.5 ppm, the Agency has determined that 
the tolerance on pineapple should be

[[Page 24619]]

decreased to 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the 
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of 
concern in or on ``pineapple'' from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm.
    Based on processing data that indicate combined endosulfan residues 
of concern concentrate 7x in peel and 41x in bran processed from whole 
pineapple and a HAFT combined residues of 0.44 ppm for in/on pineapple, 
residues as high as 18.04 ppm would be expected and the Agency 
determined that a tolerance for pineapple process residue (also known 
as wet bran) should be established at 20.0 ppm. Although, the RED and 
Residue Chemistry Chapters have tables which inadvertently are listed 
as 18 ppm; the text within the RED and Residue Chemistry Chapter both 
state that 20.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 
CFR 180.182(a)(1) to establish a tolerance for combined endosulfan 
residues of concern in or on ``pineapple, process residue'' at 20.0 
ppm.
    Based on available data on sweet corn that show combined endosulfan 
residues of concern as high as 12.0 ppm in or on sweet corn forage and 
13.92 ppm in or on sweet corn stover, the Agency has determined that 
tolerances should be established at 12.0 and 14.0 ppm, respectively. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``corn, sweet, forage'' at 12.0 ppm and ``corn, sweet, stover'' at 14.0 
ppm.
    Based on available data on cotton gin byproducts that show combined 
endosulfan residues of concern as high as 27.5 ppm, the Agency has 
determined that a tolerance on cotton gin byproducts should be 
established at 30.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a 
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of 
concern in or on ``cotton, gin byproducts'' at 30.0 ppm.
    Based on the translation of data from carrot and potato, the Agency 
determined that a tolerance should be established for turnip roots at 
0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.182(a)(1) for combined endosulfan residues of concern in or on 
``turnip, roots'' at 0.2 ppm.
    EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.182 
to conform to current Agency practice as follows: ``Cherry'' to 
``cherry, sweet'' and ``cherry, sour''; ``pecans'' to ``pecan''; and 
``turnip, greens'' to ``turnip, tops.''
    2. Fenarimol. Because dry apple pomace, grape pomace (wet and dry), 
and raisin waste are no longer considered to be significant livestock 
feed items, the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues 
of the fungicide fenarimol in or on ``apple, dry pomace''; and in 40 
CFR 180.421(a)(2) for residues of the fungicide fenarimol and its 
metabolites in or on ``grape pomace (wet and dry)'' and ``grape, 
raisin, waste.''
    Based on available grape processing data, the Agency determined 
that combined residues of fenarimol and its metabolites marginally 
concentrated in juice and raisins. However, calculations using the 
anticipated residue for grape with the processing factors, show that 
the anticipated combined residues for the grape processed commodities 
(juice and raisin) are each less than the reassessed tolerance for 
grape (0.1 ppm). The tolerances for grape juice at 0.6 ppm and raisins 
at 0.6 ppm are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) for residues of the fungicide 
fenarimol and its metabolites in or on ``grape, juice'' and ``grape, 
raisin.''
    The Agency extrapolated data from a 28-day ruminant feeding study 
of exaggerated dietary burdens to the 1x feeding rate, and examined the 
expected impact of the average theoretical dietary burden from wet 
apple pomace (calculated using Food and Drug Administration monitoring 
data for apples). Of the currently registered uses of fenarimol, wet 
apple pomace is the only commodity considered a livestock feed item. 
For cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency concluded from 
monitoring, feeding, and metabolism data that expected fenarimol 
residues in muscle, fat, and kidney are calculated to be less than or 
near the enforcement method's limit of detection (0.003 ppm). 
Therefore, the Agency determined that for muscle, fat, and kidney of 
ruminants it is not possible to establish with certainty whether finite 
residues will be incurred, but there is a reasonable expectation of 
finite residues under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(2). For cattle, goats, horses, 
and sheep, EPA reassessed meat, kidney, and fat tolerances at 0.01 ppm, 
the method limit of quantitation. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of the 
fungicide fenarimol in or on ``cattle, fat''; ``cattle, kidney''; 
``goat, fat''; ``goat, kidney''; ``horse, fat''; ``horse, kidney''; 
``sheep, fat''; and ``sheep, kidney''; each from 0.1 to 0.01 ppm, and 
to maintain the tolerances at 0.01 ppm for ``cattle, meat''; ``goat, 
meat''; ``horse, meat''; and ``sheep, meat.''
    Based on field trial data that show residues of fenarimol per se 
were non-detectable (less than 0.002 ppm, the method limit of 
detection) in pecan nut leat samples from six trials and in one trial 
were detected at 0.02 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance 
should be decreased from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of 
fenarimol in or on ``pecan'' from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm.
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitoring data for apples 
during the period 1996-1999 showed nondetectable (less than 0.003 ppm, 
the method limit of detection) residues of fenarimol per se on apples. 
Based on the highest average field trial (HAFT) residue of 0.059 ppm 
for apples and a concentration factor of 3.7-fold for wet pomace, the 
maximum expected residue in wet pomace is 0.22 ppm and the Agency 
determined that a tolerance of 0.3 ppm on wet apple pomace is 
appropriate. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in 
40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) for residues of fenarimol in or on ``apple, wet 
pomace'' from 2.0 to 0.3 ppm.
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitoring data for grapes 
during the period 1996-1999 showed nondetectable (less than 0.003 ppm, 
the method limit of detection) residues of fenarimol per se on grapes. 
Based on field trial data that indicate residues as high as 0.042 ppm 
for fenarimol and 0.073 for its metabolites in or on grapes harvested 
after 30 days following the last of four applications, the Agency 
determined that a tolerance of 0.1 ppm on grapes is appropriate. 
However, since the August 2002 fenarimol TRED, the registrant Gowan 
Company has requested that the Agency shorten the pre-harvest interval 
(PHI) from 30 days to 21 days on grapes. Based on the grape residue 
data submitted reflecting the 21-day PHI, the decrease in the tolerance 
reflected in the August 2002 TRED is appropriate at 0.1 ppm in or on 
grapes with a PHI of 21 days. However, EPA concluded that residues be 
expressed as fenarimol parent only, rather than the combined residues 
of fenarimol and its metabolites because parent only would be an 
adequate indicator of misuse and would harmonize with the CODEX MRLs. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to recodify from 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) to 
(a)(1) the tolerance for residues of fenarimol and its metabolites in 
or on ``grape'' at 0.2 ppm and to decrease the tolerance from 0.2 to 
0.1 ppm.
    Currently, a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) for combined 
residues of fenarimol and its metabolites in or on

[[Page 24620]]

banana exists at 0.5 ppm where not more than 0.25 ppm shall be present 
in the pulp after peel is removed. Fenarimol is presently not 
registered for use on banana in the United States. Based on foreign 
field trial data that indicate residues of fenarimol as high as 0.19 
ppm and 0.075 ppm for its metabolites, the Agency determined that a 
tolerance of 0.25 ppm is appropriate for whole banana. It is current 
Agency practice to establish a tolerance on the whole commodity 
(including peel after removing and discarding crown tissue and stalk). 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance commodity 
terminology in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) from ``banana (Not more than 0.25 
ppm shall be present in the pulp after peel is removed)'' to ``banana'' 
and decrease the tolerance from 0.5 to 0.25 ppm.
    Currently, tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421(a)(1) are expressed in 
terms of residues of fenarimol, while tolerances in (a)(2) are 
expressed in terms of combined residues of fenarimol and specific 
metabolites (calculated as fenarimol). As stated in the October 2001 
Fenarimol Product and Residue Chemistry Chapter, EPA concluded that for 
enforcement purposes, the tolerances for plant commodities should be 
expressed in terms of parent only; i.e., residues of fenarimol per se 
would be an adequate indicator of misuse. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to revise the tolerance expression to residues of fenarimol for the 
tolerances on ``banana'' and ``cherry,'' recodify these tolerances from 
40 CFR 180.421(a)(2) to (a), and recodify all tolerances from 
180.421(a)(1) to (a).
    3. Imazalil. Tolerances for residues in livestock commodities are 
currently expressed as the combined residues of imazalil, 1-[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-2-(2-propenyloxy)ethyl]-1H-imidazole, and its 
metabolite, 1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(1H-imidazole-1-yl)-1-ethanol. 
Metabolites, with their parent compound, should serve as marker 
compounds which should be used to determine residue values for the 
dietary risk assessment. EPA has found that any metabolite containing 
the 2,4-dichlorophenyl moiety is of toxicological concern and must be 
included in the tolerance expression along with the parent compound 
imazalil. In order to account for the 2,4-dichlorophenyl group moiety 
toxicological concerns, the total toxic residues for imazalil will be 
adjusted using the ratios of imazalil and the marker metabolites (FK772 
and FK284) that were found to account for a high percentage of the 
total toxic residues in the livestock metabolism studies. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing to amend the tolerance expression for livestock 
commodities for imazalil in 40 CFR 180.413 (a)(2) to regulate imazalil, 
3-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(2,3-dihydroxypropoxy)ethyl]-2,4-
imidazolidinedione (FK772), and 3-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(hydroxy)]-
2,4-imidazolidinedione (FK284).
    Because a tolerance exists for combined imazalil residues of 
concern on whole banana at 3.0 ppm and whole bananas are defined as the 
peel and the pulp after discarding the crown tissue and stalk, the 
tolerance on banana pulp at 0.2 ppm is no longer necessary. Therefore, 
the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a) 
for the combined imazalil residues of concern in or on ``banana, pulp'' 
and revise the tolerance commodity terminology from ``banana (whole)'' 
to ``banana.''
    Because dried citrus is no longer considered to be a significant 
feed item for hogs, and because there are no other hog feeding 
commodities associated with existing imazalil tolerances, there is no 
reasonable expectation of finite residues of imazalil in hog tissues. 
Therefore, the Agency believes that tolerances on hog fat, hog liver, 
hog meat, and hog meat byproduct are no longer needed. Hence, EPA is 
proposing to revoke, in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2), tolerances for combined 
imazalil residues of concern in or on the following: ``Hog, fat''; 
``hog, liver''; ``hog, meat''; and ``hog, meat byproducts.''
    In Tolerance Summary table for both the Imazalil TRED and Residue 
Chemistry Chapter, the recommendation to revoke horse fat was an 
inadvertent entry. There is no basis for revocation of horse fat listed 
in either document. Consequently, the Agency has revised the Imazalil 
Residue Chemistry Chapter accordingly and the ``horse, fat'' tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) will be maintained.
    Cattle feeding data show that combined imazalil residues of concern 
ranged as high as just slightly greater than 0.05 ppm in milk at an 
exaggerated 5x feeding level, and therefore, the tolerance on milk 
should be increased from 0.01 to 0.02 ppm. Consequently, EPA is 
proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) for 
combined imazalil residues of concern in milk to 0.02 ppm.
    Also, the cattle feeding data show that combined imazalil residues 
of concern ranged as high as 14.7 ppm in liver at an exaggerated 70x 
feeding level, and therefore, the liver tolerances of cattle, goats, 
horse, and sheep should be decreased from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm. In addition, 
because exaggerated feeding data show combined imazalil regulated 
residues were highest in liver and the tolerance for meat byproducts 
should be equivalent to the level which is highest for either meat or 
any individual organ for which residues were measured, tolerances for 
the meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should each be 
increased from 0.01 to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase 
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.413(a)(2) for ``cattle, meat byproducts''; 
``goat, meat byproducts''; ``horse, meat byproducts''; and ``sheep, 
meat byproducts'' from 0.01 to 0.2 ppm. However, because increasing 
these meat byproduct tolerances to 0.2 ppm would cover their respective 
animal liver commodities, separate tolerances at 0.2 ppm in 40 CFR 
180.413(a)(2) for ``cattle, liver''; ``goat, liver''; ``horse, liver''; 
and ``sheep, liver'' are not needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 
CFR 180.413(a)(2) to remove current tolerances for ``cattle, liver''; 
``goat, liver''; ``horse, liver''; and ``sheep, liver'' rather than 
modify them because these commodities would be covered.
    Based on grain data that indicate the regulated residues of 
imazalil in or on barley grain and wheat grain are above the limit of 
quantitation (LOQ) of 0.08 ppm, the Agency determined to increase the 
tolerances for barley grain and wheat grain, each to 0.1 ppm. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase, in 40 CFR 180.413(a), 
tolerances for residues of imazalil in or on ``barley, grain'' and 
``wheat, grain'' from 0.05 to 0.1 ppm.
    Based on residue data that indicate levels of imazalil and its 
metabolite in citrus oil as high as 187 ppm, the Agency determined that 
a tolerance of 200 ppm is warranted for citrus oil. Citrus oils are not 
considered ready-to-eat and are used primarily as a minor ingredient in 
chewing gums, baked goods, gelatins, and puddings. The dilution factor 
for citrus oil (238X) in its conversion to ready-to-eat form exceeds 
the average concentration factor (28X based on oranges) from the raw 
agricultural commodity to the oil by a factor of 8.5. As consumed, the 
concentration of imazalil and its metabolite, expressed as imazalil 
equivalents, are expected to be less than the concentration in the raw 
agricultural commodity (whole fruit). Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.413(a), for residues of imazalil 
in ``citrus oil'' from 25.0 to 200.0 ppm.
    Because the Agency now considers barley hay and wheat hay to be raw 
agricultural commodities (RACs), tolerances are warranted. Based on 
residue data for forage and straw of barley and wheat that indicate 
residues of concern as high as 0.12 ppm for

[[Page 24621]]

spring barley straw and 0.24 ppm for winter wheat straw (each after a 
2x correction factor for storage stability), and by translating 
available data for barley forage and straw to barley hay and available 
data for wheat forage and straw to wheat hay, EPA determined that 
tolerances on hay should be established at 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to establish separate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.413(a) for 
residues of imazalil in or on ``barley, hay'' and ``wheat, hay'' at 0.5 
ppm each.
    4. Oryzalin. In order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is 
proposing in 40 CFR 180.304(a) to revise the commodity terminology 
``small fruit'' at 0.05 ppm into individual tolerances for ``berry, 
group 13''; ``cranberry''; ``grape''; and ``strawberry'' each at 0.05 
ppm. Also, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to conform 
to current Agency practice as follows: ``Fruit, citrus'' to ``fruit, 
citrus, group 10''; ``fruit, pome'' to ``fruit, pome, group 11'' and 
``fruit, stone'' to ``fruit, stone, group 12.''
    In addition, in order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is 
proposing to recodify the regional tolerances for guava and papaya from 
40 CFR 180.304(b) to (c), and establish and reserve sections for 
emergency exemptions in 40 CFR 180.304(b) and indirect or inadvertent 
residues in 40 CFR 180.304(d).
    5. Sodium acifluorfen. Tolerances for sodium acifluorfen are 
currently expressed as the combined residues of the herbicide sodium 
salt of acifluorfen (sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-
nitrobenzoic acid) and its metabolites (the corresponding acid, methyl 
ester, and amino analogues). Typically, the salt form of an acid is 
expressed with the suffix ``ate,'' and therefore a salt of nitrobenzoic 
acid should be termed a ``nitrobenzoate.'' While the tolerance 
expression for sodium acifluorfen in 40 CFR 180.383 is appropriate, EPA 
is proposing to revise only the name of the sodium salt of acifluorfen 
in the tolerance expression from ``sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid'' to ``sodium 5-[2-
chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate.''
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of sodium 
acifluorfen in or on rice straw as high as 0.124 ppm, the Agency 
determined that the tolerance for rice straw should be increased to 0.2 
ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance for ``rice, 
straw'' in 40 CFR 180.383 from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm.
    In order to conform to current Agency practice in 40 CFR 180.383, 
EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology for ``soybean'' to 
``soybean, seed.''
    6. Trifluralin. Because there have been no active registered uses 
for trifluralin on mung bean sprouts or upland cress since 1989, and 
therefore the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is proposing to 
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in 
or on ``bean, mung, sprouts'' and ``cress, upland.''
    Because adequate residue data exists for field corn grain and data 
may be bridged from wheat and sorghum processing studies to barley, 
sorghum, and wheat, the Agency has determined that the commodity group 
for grain, crops, except corn, sweet and rice is inappropriate and 
should be revoked concomitant with the establishment of individual 
tolerances for barley grain and sorghum grain. No active registrations 
have existed on oats since cancellation of a soil treatment for oats in 
May 2001, and therefore an oat grain tolerance is not needed. Separate 
tolerances already exist for corn and wheat grain. Based on translating 
available residue data from wheat and sorghum processing studies which 
showed that trifluralin residues were non-detectable (<0.01 ppm) in or 
on wheat grain and sorghum grain, the Agency determined that the 
tolerances for barley grain and sorghum grain should each be 
established at 0.05 ppm (the enforcement method LOQ). Therefore, EPA is 
proposing in 40 CFR 180.207 to revoke the group tolerance ``grain, 
crop, except corn, sweet and rice grain'' and establish individual 
tolerances for ``barley, grain'' and ``sorghum, grain, grain;'' each at 
0.05 ppm.
    In order to conform to current Agency practice, the obsolete 
commodity definition for ``legume, forage'' should be revised to 
``vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7'' and ``alfalfa, forage.'' 
Based on field residue data that indicate residues of trifluralin as 
high as 2.2 ppm on alfalfa forage, the Agency determined that the 
appropriate tolerance should be increased from 0.05 to 3.0 ppm. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the commodity tolerance for 
``legume, forage'' in 40 CFR 180.207 at 0.05 ppm into ``vegetable, 
foliage of legume, group 7'' at 0.05 ppm and an individual tolerance 
for ``alfalfa, forage,'' increasing the tolerance for ``alfalfa, 
forage'' from 0.05 to 3.0 ppm.
    Because celery data will be translated to endive, and because 
residue data are not available on all of the representative commodities 
from Crop Group 4, the Agency determined that the commodity group for 
``vegetable, leafy'' should be revised to ``vegetable, leaves of root 
and tuber, group 2'' and ``vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5'' with 
separate tolerances for ``celery'' and ``endive.'' Therefore, EPA is 
proposing in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin to remove the 
commodity group ``vegetable, leafy, except brassica'' and replace it 
with separate tolerances for ``celery''; ``endive''; ``vegetable, 
leaves of root and tuber, group 2''; and ``vegetable, brassica, leafy 
group 5'' at 0.05 ppm.
    In order to conform to current Agency practice, the obsolete 
commodity definition for ``vegetables, root (exc. carrots)'' should be 
revised to ``vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot'' and 
``vegetable, bulb, group 3.'' Based on available trifluralin residue 
data for the representative commodities from each group (residues on 
radishes as high as 0.026 ppm; residues on green onions as high as 
0.016 ppm), EPA determined that a tolerance of 0.05 ppm is appropriate 
for each group. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the commodity 
tolerance for ``vegetable, root (exc. carrot)'' in 40 CFR 180.207 at 
0.05 ppm to ``vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot'' and 
``vegetable, bulb, group 3,'' each at 0.05 ppm.
    In addition, the obsolete commodity definition for ``seed and pod 
vegetables'' group should be revised to ``vegetable, legume, group 6'' 
and separate tolerances for ``okra'' and ``dill.'' However, because 
there have been no active registrations for dill since October 1995 and 
the tolerance is no longer needed, the Agency does not believe there is 
reason to maintain a dill tolerance, and EPA is not proposing to 
establish one. Based on the available data for okra and selected 
members of crop group 6, a tolerance of 0.05 ppm would be appropriate 
for each. Therefore, EPA is proposing, in 40 CFR 180. 207, for resides 
of trifluralin to revise the commodity tolerance for ``vegetables, seed 
and pod'' in 40 CFR 180.207 at 0.05 ppm to ``vegetable, legume, group 
6'' and ``okra,'' each at 0.05 ppm.
    Based on data that indicate residues of trifluralin in or on 
alfalfa hay as high as 1.6 ppm, the Agency determined that the alfalfa 
hay tolerance should be increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of 
trifluralin in or on ``alfalfa, hay'' from 0.2 to 2.0 ppm.
    Based on data that indicate residues of trifluralin in or on peanut 
hay, as high as 0.014 ppm, the Agency determined that a tolerance 
should be established for peanut hay at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for

[[Page 24622]]

residues of trifluralin in or on ``peanut, hay'' at 0.05 ppm.
    Based on available mustard seed data that indicate residues of 
trifluralin are non-detectable (<0.01 ppm), tree nut field trial data, 
and weight of evidence for trifluralin residues in tree crops that 
indicate residues of trifluralin in or on almond hulls are expected to 
be non-detectable (<0.01 ppm), the Agency determined that tolerances 
should be established for mustard seed and almond hulls, each at 0.05 
ppm (the enforcement method LOQ). Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin in 
or on ``mustard, seed'' and ``almond, hulls;'' each at 0.05 ppm.
    Available data show that residues of trifluralin in or on cotton 
gin byproducts are warranted at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.207 for residues of trifluralin 
in or on ``cotton, gin byproducts'' at 0.05 ppm.
    EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.207 
to conform to current Agency practice as follows: ``Hop'' is proposed 
to be changed to read ``hop, dried cones'' and ``sorghum, forage'' is 
proposed to be changed to read ``sorghum, grain, forage.''
    7. Ziram. Currently, tolerances for the fungicide ziram in 40 CFR 
180.116 are expressed in terms of residues of ziram (zinc 
dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as zineb (zinc 
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate). However, the tolerances for ziram and 
other dithiocarbamates are enforced by a common moiety method that 
determines carbon disulfide. (Decomposition or acid digestion of 
dithiocarbamates generates carbon disulfide). Also, the CODEX residue 
definition for dithiocarbamates is expressed as carbon disulfide. 
Consequently, the Agency believes that the tolerance expression for 
ziram should be expressed in terms of carbon disulfide. Such a change 
in tolerance expression allows harmonization of U.S. tolerances with 
Codex MRLs and should also apply to the other dithiocarbamate 
fungicides that are determined by the carbon disulfide common moiety 
method and have current tolerances. Nevertheless, according to 40 CFR 
180.3(d)(5), total dithiocarbamate residue on the same raw agricultural 
commodity shall not exceed that permitted by the highest tolerance for 
any one member of the class, calculated as zineb (zinc 
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate). Consequently, in the interim, until all 
dithiocarbamate tolerance expressions can be changed simultaneously and 
40 CFR section 180.3(d)(5) revised, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.116 
to amend the tolerance expression for residues of ziram (zinc 
dimethyldithiocarbamate), from calculated as zineb (zinc 
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) to calculated as zineb (zinc 
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) and carbon disulfide.
    Because the associated commodity registrations have not been active 
since 1991 and the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is proposing to 
revoke, in 40 CFR 180. 116, tolerances for residues of ziram in or on 
the following: ``Broccoli''; ``Brussel sprouts''; ``carrot, root''; 
``collards''; ``gooseberry''; ``kale''; ``kohlrabi''; ``lettuce''; 
``loganberry''; ``onion''; ``peanut''; ``pea''; ``radish, roots''; 
``radish, tops''; ``raspberry''; ``rutabaga, roots''; ``rutabaga, 
tops''; ``spinach''; ``turnip, greens''; and ``turnip, roots.''
    Because registrations for ziram use on eggplant and pepper have not 
been active since 1994, and the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is 
proposing to revoke, in 40 CFR 180.116, tolerances for residues of 
ziram in or on the following: ``eggplant'' and ``pepper.''
    Because registrations for ziram use on bean, celery, cranberry, 
cucumber, melon, pumpkin, and squash have not been active since 1995, 
and the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is proposing to revoke, in 
40 CFR 180.116, tolerances for residues of ziram in or on the 
following: ``Bean''; ``celery''; ``cranberry''; ``cucumber''; 
``melon''; ``pumpkin''; ``squash''; and ``squash, summer.''
    Because the last food-use U.S. registration for ziram use on quince 
was cancelled in 1996, and the tolerance is no longer needed, EPA is 
proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180. 116 for ziram residues 
in or on ``quince.''
    The last U.S. registration for ``beet, garden, roots''; ``beet, 
garden, tops''; ``cabbage''; and ``cauliflower;'' was canceled due to 
non-payment of the year 2005 maintenance fee as announced in a Federal 
Register Notice published on August 3, 2005 (70 FR 44637) (FRL-7726-4). 
The Agency permitted the sale and distribution of existing stocks until 
January 15, 2006. The Agency believes that there is sufficient time for 
end users to exhaust those existing stocks and treated commodities to 
clear the channels of trade by January 15, 2007. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.116 for ziram residues 
in or on ``beet, garden, roots''; ``beet, garden, tops''; ``cabbage''; 
and ``cauliflower'' each with an expiration/revocation date of January 
15, 2007.
    Active ziram registrations currently exist for blackberries. 
However, ziram tolerances at 7.0 ppm on ``boysenberry''; ``dewberry''; 
and ``youngberry''; are no longer needed because their uses are covered 
by the existing tolerance at 7.0 ppm on blackberry. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.116 for 
``boysenberry''; ``dewberry''; and ``youngberry.''
    In accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(h) which indicates that the 
tolerance for peach also covers the use in or on nectarines, the 
tolerance on nectarine is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to remove the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.116 for residues of ziram in or 
on ``nectarine.''
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of ziram in or on 
almond hulls as high as 18.6 ppm, the Agency has determined that a 
tolerance should be established on almond hulls at 20 ppm. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.116 for 
``almond, hulls'' at 20.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of ziram in or on 
apricots as high as 18.5 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance 
for apricot should be increased to 20 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 
proposing to increase the tolerance for ``apricot'' in 40 CFR 180.116 
from 7.0 to 20.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of ziram in or on 
apple, pear, and cherry at 5.6, and 5.7, and 5.5 ppm, respectively, the 
Agency determined that tolerances for apple, pear, and cherry should be 
decreased to 6.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.116 from 7.0 to 6.0 ppm for the following: 
``Apple''; ``pear''; and ``cherry.''
    Based on field trial data that indicates residues of ziram in or on 
tomatoes at less than 7.0 ppm, the Agency determined that the tomato 
tolerance should be decreased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to decrease the tolerance for ``tomato'' in 40 CFR 180.116 from 7.0 to 
2.0 ppm.
    Also, while the ziram RED recommends revocation for the tolerance 
on ``strawberry,'' active registrations associated with that commodity 
use currently exist, and therefore the tolerance will not be proposed 
for revocation at this time. However, the Agency intends to follow-up 
with the registrants and expects to propose revocation in a future 
Federal Register Notice.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of 
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural 
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.

[[Page 24623]]

346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes 
the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance 
requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances 
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural 
commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food 
containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore 
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). 
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 
331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the 
pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, 
but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-
use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances 
in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported 
into the United States.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance 
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to 
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety 
standard of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The safety finding 
determination is discussed in detail in each Post-FQPA RED and TRED for 
the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of 
certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current 
use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and 
groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic 
copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A.
    EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for endosulfan, sodium acifluorfen, 
and ziram; and TREDs for fenarimol, imazalil, oryzalin, and 
trifluralin. (REDs for oryzalin and trifluralin were both completed 
prior to FQPA. The imazalil RED followed the TRED and because fenarimol 
was registered after November 1, 1984, it did not need to undergo 
reregistration, and therefore a RED was not needed). REDs and TREDs 
contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, 
including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to 
confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments 
associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions 
under which these uses and products will be eligible for 
reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, 
modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED 
recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in 
some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the 
FQPA standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' However, 
tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed 
in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no 
longer necessary.
    EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for 
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA 
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore 
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been 
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover 
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of 
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish 
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are 
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import 
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States 
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no 
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency 
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered 
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that 
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food 
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. 
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or 
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a 
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to 
the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such 
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of 
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to 
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that 
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these 
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if 
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk 
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. 
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed 
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade 
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues 
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless 
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed 
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import 
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to 
cover imported commodities.
    Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware 
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties 
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency 
determines that additional information is reasonably required to 
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties 
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary 
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may 
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
    When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw 
agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible 
residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs 
produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, 
grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When 
considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:
    1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
    2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will 
exist.
    3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not 
exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide 
residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need 
to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
    EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg 
tolerances proposed for revocation in this rule and has concluded that 
there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of 
concern in or on those commodities.

C. When do These Actions Become Effective?

    With the exception of certain tolerances for ziram for which EPA is 
proposing specific expiration/revocation dates, the Agency is proposing 
that tolerance revocations, modifications, establishments, and 
commodity terminology revisions become effective on the date of 
public