Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate, and MCPA; Tolerance Actions, 28881-28889 [E7-9912]
Download as PDF
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this rule has
been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) 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 6, 2000) do not apply
to this rule. In addition, This 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)
(Pub. L. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
(NTTAA), Pub. L. 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. 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 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
28881
fungicide famoxadone, 3-anilino-5methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on the raw
agricultural commodities:
Commodity
Parts per million
Grape ..............................
*
*
*
*
2.5
*
[FR Doc. E7–9823 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0586; FRL–8126–6]
Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate,
and MCPA; Tolerance Actions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain
tolerances for the herbicides propanil,
triallate, and MCPA. EPA is modifying
certain tolerances for the herbicides
propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and
MCPA. In addition, EPA is establishing
I Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
tolerances for the herbicides propanil,
amended as follows:
phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA.
The regulatory actions in this document
PART 180—AMENDED
are part of the Agency’s reregistration
program under the Federal Food, Drug,
I 1. The authority citation for part 180
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section
continues to read as follows:
408(q), as amended by the Food Quality
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
I 2. Section 180.587 is amended by
DATES: This regulation is effective May
revising the section heading; by
23, 2007. Objections and requests for
alphabetically adding caneberry,
hearings must be received on or before
Subgroup 13A and hop, dried cone to
July 23, 2007, and must be filed in
the table in paragraph (a) and removing
accordance with the instructions
grape from the table in paragraph (a);
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
and adding text to paragraph (c) to read
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
as follows:
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
§ 180.587 Famoxadone; tolerance for
docket for this action under docket
residues.
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
(a) * * *
OPP–2006–0586. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://
Commodity
Parts per million
www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced
Caneberry, Subgroup
Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert
13A ..............................
10 the docket ID number where indicated
*
*
*
*
*
and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow
the instructions on the regulations.gov
Hop, dried cone ..............
80
web site to view the docket index or
*
*
*
*
*
access available documents. All
documents in the docket are listed in
1There are no U.S. registrations as of May
the docket index available in
15,2003.
regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly
*
*
*
*
*
available, e.g., Confidential Business
(c) Tolerances with a regional
registrations. Tolerances with a regional Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
registration as defined in Sec. 180.1(n)
Certain other material, such as
are established for the residues of the
Dated: May 15, 2007.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
28882
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket
at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory
Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jane
Smith, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (703) 308–
0048; e-mail address: smith.janescott@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
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),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document?
In addition to accessing an electronic
copy of this Federal Register document
through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this ‘‘Federal Register’’ document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as
amended by the FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0586 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk
on or before July 23, 2007.
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket that is described in
ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your
copies, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0586, 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 (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’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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
In the Federal Register of September
27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL–8089–5),
EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke,
modify and establish specific tolerances
for residues of the herbicides propanil,
phenmedipham, triallate and MCPA.
Also, the proposal of September 27,
2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL–8089–5)
provided a 60–day comment period
which invited public comment for
consideration and for support of
tolerance retention under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
standards.
EPA is revoking, removing,
modifying, and establishing specific
tolerances for residues of the the
herbicides propanil, phenmedipham,
triallate and MCPA in or on
commodities listed in the regulatory
text.
EPA is finalizing these tolerance
actions in order 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
reregistration and when taking action on
tolerances and exemptions EPA is
required to determine whether each of
the amended tolerances meets the safety
standards under the FQPA. The safety
finding determination of ‘‘reasonable
certainty of no harm’’ is found in detail
in each Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) and Report on FQPA
Tolerance Reassessment Progress and
Interim Risk Management Decision
(TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs
and TREDs recommend certain
tolerance actions to be implemented to
reflect current use patterns, to meet
safety findings and change commodity
names and groupings in accordance
with new EPA policy. Printed copies of
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 at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/
status.htm. and in public dockets EPA–
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
HQ–OPP–2003–0348 and EPA–HQ–
OPP–2002–0033 (propanil); EPA–HQ–
OPP–2004–0384 (phenmedipham); and
EPA–HQ–OPP–2004–0156 and EPA–
HQ–OPP–2004–0239 (MCPA) at https://
www.regulations.gov.
In this final rule, EPA is revoking
certain tolerances and tolerance
exemptions because these specific
tolerances and exemptions correspond
to uses no longer current or registered
under FIFRA in the United States. The
tolerances revoked by this final rule are
no longer necessary to cover residues of
the relevant pesticides in or on
domestically treated commodities or
commodities treated outside but
imported into the United States. It is
EPA’s general practice to revoke those
tolerances and tolerance exemptions 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 or tolerance exemption to
cover residues in or on imported
commodities or domestic commodities
legally treated.
EPA’s policy is to issue a final rule
revoking those tolerances for residues of
pesticide chemicals for which there are
no active registrations under FIFRA,
unless any person commenting on the
proposal demonstrates a need for the
tolerance to cover residues in or on
imported commodities or domestic
commodities legally treated.
Generally, EPA will proceed with the
revocation of these tolerances on the
grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of
the following conditions applies:
1. Prior to EPA’s issuance of a section
408(f) order requesting additional data
or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e)
order revoking the tolerances on other
grounds, commenters retract the
comment identifying a need for the
tolerance to be retained.
2. EPA independently verifies that the
tolerance is no longer needed.
3. The tolerance is not supported by
data that demonstrate that the tolerance
meets the requirements under FQPA.
This final rule does not revoke those
tolerances for which EPA received
comments stating a need for the
tolerance to be retained. In response to
the proposal published in the Federal
Register of September 27, 2006 (71 FR
56425) (FRL–8089–5), EPA received
three comments during the 60–day
public comment period, as follows:
Comment. The MCPA Task Force
Three submitted a comment requesting
the published tolerance for ‘‘cattle, meat
and meat byproducts’’ be changed from
the proposed 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm. The
Task force has conducted a new
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
Magnitude of the Residues in Meat and
Milk Study, according to the Agency
guidelines, that supports a 0.5 ppm
tolerance. The new study will be
submitted to the Agency as soon as it is
issued which, according to the MCPA
Task Force Three, is well in advance of
the due date requested by the Agency in
the Data Call-In. The task force did not
take issue with any of the proposed
tolerances for revocation.
Agency response. The Agency
acknowledges the cooperation and effort
the MCPA Task Force Three has put
forth to fulfill the requirements of the
reregistration Data Call-In Notice. When
the Magnitude of the Meat and Milk
Study is received, reviewed, a risk
assessment conducted and safety
finding is made, EPA will make a
determination as to the whether the
current tolerance of 0.1 ppm is still
appropriate or should be changed.
Comment. A comment was received
from a private citizen that expressed
concern with pesticide residues in
general and that pesticide residue levels
should be zero. Concern was also
expressed for the number of chemicals
found in the bodies of adults and
children.
Agency response. The private citizen’s
comment did not take issue with the
Agency’s conclusion that specific
tolerances in this action should be
revoked, established and/or modified.
The Agency conducts a detailed risk
assessment to determine whether
establishing and/or increasing
tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. Also, it is
EPA’s general practice to propose
revocation of tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crop uses
for which FIFRA registrations no longer
exist.
Comment. A comment was received
from the California Rice Commission
(CRC). CRC expressed concern that the
increased U.S. tolerance for propanil in/
on rice grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm
could result in a trade irritant with
Japan, a major importer of California
rice whose Maximum Residue Limit
(MRL) on rice grain is 2 ppm. According
to the CRC propanil is the most
important herbicide to the California
rice industry; a significant percentage of
the rice grown in California is exported
to Japan; propanil residues on California
grown rice are non-detectable for
propanil; and the tolerance level of 10
ppm is based on an outlier residue level
of 8.7 ppm.
Agency response. The CRC brought
this important issue to the attention of
the Agency when the RED Amendment
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28883
was released in 2006. The U.S. tolerance
is a national level based on uses and
residue data generated on rice grown in
Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and
Texas showing multiple residue
detections above 2 parts per million
(ppm) up to 8.7 ppm supporting a
tolerance level of 10 ppm. Avoiding
potential trade irritants is of paramount
interest, unfortunately, no new data
have been generated or submitted to the
Agency to change the basis of the
tolerance level. If additional propanil
field trial residue data on rice were
generated and provided to the Agency,
the tolerance level on rice grain would
be reconsidered.
1. Propanil. Currently, in 40 CFR
180.274(a)(1) and (2), tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
propanil and its metabolites (calculated
as propanil) in or on both raw
agricultural commodities (RACs) and
processed foods and feeds. EPA is
revising the tolerance expression to
specify the residues of concern and
combine the RACs and processed foods
and feed tolerances in accordance with
FFDCA 408 as amended by FQPA (1996)
in 40 CFR 180.274(a) to read as follows:
Tolerances are established for the
combined residues of the herbicide
propanil (3’, 4’-dichloropropionanilide)
and its metabolites convertible to 3, 4dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA).
Tolerances currently exist for rice
milling fractions and rice polishings.
Rice milling fractions are no longer
considered significant animal feed items
as delineated in ‘‘Table 1. – Raw
Agricultural and Processed
Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived
from Crops’’ which is found in Residue
Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS
860.1000 dated August 1996, available
at https://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/
publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_
Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/
Series/. Therefore, EPA is removing the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the
combined residues of propanil in/on
rice milling fractions and rice,
polishings at 10 ppm.
The registered uses on barley, oat, and
wheat (small grains) have been
voluntarily cancelled December 10,
2003; 68 FR 68901, FRL–7332–5, June
27, 2003; 68 FR 38328, FRL 7310–6. In
the absence of registered uses, the
tolerances associated with the small
grains should be revoked. Therefore,
EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.274(a) for the combined
propanil residues of concern in/on
barley, straw; oat, straw; and wheat,
straw at 0.75 ppm; barley, grain at 0.2
ppm; oat, grain at 0.2 ppm; and wheat,
grain at 0.2 ppm.
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28884
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Two studies depicting the magnitude
of regulated propanil residues in/on rice
grain exceeded the established tolerance
of 2 ppm in/on treated rice grain
samples demonstrating residues ranging
from 0.03 ppm to 8.7 ppm. Based on
these data, the EPA determined the
tolerance should be 10 ppm on rice
grain. Therefore, EPA is increasing the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the
combined propanil residues of concern
in/on rice, grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm.
The Agency determined that the
increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue.
A rice processing study showed no
concentration of residues in polished
rice and average concentration factors of
3.5x for rice hulls and 4.6x for rice bran.
The highest average field trial (HAFT)
propanil residues found in rice were 8.7
ppm. Based on this HAFT and the
observed concentration factors, the
maximum expected residues are 30.45
ppm in/on rice hulls (8.7 ppm x 3.5)
and 40.02 ppm in/on rice bran (8.7 ppm
x 4.6). These expected residues are
higher in the processed commodities
than the reassessed tolerance of 10 ppm
for rice, grain. Based on these data, EPA
has determined that the tolerances
should be 30 ppm on rice, hulls and 40
ppm on rice, bran. Therefore, EPA is
increasing tolerances in 40 CFR
180.274(a) for the combined propanil
residues of concern in or on rice, hulls
from 10 to 30 ppm and rice, bran from
10 to 40 ppm. The Agency determined
that the increased tolerances are safe;
i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue.
The potential for secondary transfer of
propanil residues to animal
commodities exists because the
herbicide is registered for use on rice,
which may be used as animal feed.
Based on a maximum theoretical dietary
burden (x) and using the residue levels
found in dairy cattle and milk fed 15
ppm (0.75x) resulted in residues of:
0.035 ppm in milk, 0.31 ppm in liver,
0.77 ppm in kidney, <0.05 ppm (nondetectable) in muscle, and 0.10 ppm in
fat. Based on these data, the Agency
determined the tolerances should be
0.05 ppm in cattle, meat; goat, meat;
hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat
and 1.0 ppm in cattle, meat byproducts;
goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat
byproducts; horse, meat byproducts;
and sheep, meat byproducts. In
addition, the term ‘‘negligible residue’’
and its designation, ‘‘(N)’’ associated
with the milk and animal tissue
tolerances is being removed to conform
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
to current Agency policy and practice.
Therefore, EPA is maintaining and
revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a)
for the combined propanil residues of
concern in/on milk from 0.05(N) ppm to
0.05 ppm and cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog,
fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.1(N)
ppm to 0.10 ppm; decreasing and
revising the tolerances in/on cattle,
meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat;
and sheep, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.05
ppm; and increasing and revising the
tolerances in/on cattle, meat
byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog,
meat byproducts; horse, meat
byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts
from 0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm. The Agency
determined that the increased tolerances
are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue.
Maximum propanil residues were
0.212, and 0.372 ppm, respectively, in
eggs from hens dosed with propanil 15
ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x). Residues
in liver from hens in the 15 ppm (0.9x),
and 50 ppm (3.1x) dose groups were
0.183 - 0.236, and 0.824 - 1.755 ppm,
respectively. Residues in muscle were
<0.050 - 0.076 and 0.087 - 0.161 ppm
from the 0.9x and 3.1x dose groups,
respectively. In fat, propanil residues of
concern were <0.05 ppm (2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
maximum residues of 0.14 ppm in root,
0.30 ppm in dried pulp and <0.03 ppm
in sugar and molasses. Therefore, EPA
is maintaining the tolerances and
correcting the terminology for sugar
beets to include roots in 40 CFR
180.314(c) for the combined triallate
residues of concern in or on beet, sugar,
dried pulp at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots
at 0.1 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 0.5
ppm.
The available data, reflecting the
maximum registered use patterns,
indicate that the maximum combined
triallate residues of concern were <0.02
ppm in/on the seed and pods of dry
peas; and 0.94 ppm on wheat straw.
Because of similar cultural practices and
identical use rates, wheat straw data are
used to support tolerances for barley
hay and wheat hay. Based on these data,
the Agency determined the tolerances
should be 0.2 ppm for pea, dry and 1.0
ppm for barley, hay and wheat, hay by
translating the data from wheat straw.
Therefore, EPA is establishing
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the
combined triallate residues of concern
in/on barley, hay at 1.0 ppm; pea, dry
at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, hay at 1.0 ppm.
The Agency determined that the
establishment of these tolerances is safe;
i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue.
4. MCPA. The current tolerance
expression in 40 CFR 180.339(a)
regulates residues of the herbicide 2methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid
(MCPA) from application of the
herbicide in acid form or in the form of
its sodium, ethanolamine,
diethanolamine, triethanolamine,
isopropanolamine, diisopropanolamine,
triisopropanolamine, or dimethylamine
salts or isooctyl or butoxyethyl esters
and in 40 CFR 180.339(b) tolerances are
established for combined negligible
residues (N) of the herbicide 2-methyl4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its
metabolite 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol.
Based on toxicity data for 2-methyl-4chlorophenol, a currently regulated
livestock metabolite, EPA determined
that it is of significantly less concern
than the parent compound and therefore
can be excluded from the tolerance
expression. Although the chemical
name for MCPA has been presented as
‘‘(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)acetic
acid’’, under current chemical naming
conventions the ‘‘(4-chloro-2methylphenoxy)acetic acid’’ designation
is preferred. EPA determined the
residues to be regulated in plant
commodities (40 CFR 180.339(a)) are
parent, free and conjugated MCPA.
When MCPA is applied in various forms
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28885
(e.g. ethanolamine and other salts and
esters), a single common moiety is
released that is the pesticidally active
component and serves as the basis for
tolerance regulation. Therefore, EPA is
changing the tolerance expression in 40
CFR 180.339(a) to read as follows:
Tolerances are established for residues
of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2methylphenoxy)acetic acid)], both free
and conjugated, resulting from the
direct application of MCPA or its
sodium or dimethylamine salts or its 2ethylhexyl ester and in 40 CFR
180.339(b) to read as follows:
Tolerances are established for residues
of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2methylphenoxy)acetic acid)] resulting
from the direct application of MCPA or
its sodium or dimethylamine salts or its
2-ethylhexyl ester. EPA is revising 40
CFR 180.339(a) and (b) to 180.339 (a)(1)
and (2) for consistency. Lastly, the term
‘‘negligible residue’’ and its designation,
‘‘(N)’’, associated with some tolerances
is being removed to conform to current
Agency policy and practice.
Currently, tolerances exist reflecting
uses of MCPA on rice, sorghum, flax
(straw) and canarygrass. The uses on
rice, sorghum, and canarygrass are no
longer registered uses June 30, 2004; 69
FR 39467; FRL 7363–4, April 26, 2006;
71 FR 24687; FRL 8059–2. EPA policy
no longer requires tolerances be
established for flax straw. Therefore,
EPA is revoking tolerances in 40 CFR
180.339(a)(1) for the combined MCPA
residues of concern in or on flax, straw
at 2 ppm; grass, canary, annual, hay at
0.1 ppm; grass, canary, annual, seed at
0.1 ppm; rice, grain at 0.1(N) ppm; rice,
straw at 2 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.1
ppm; sorghum, forage at 20 ppm; and
sorghum, grain, stover at 20 ppm.
The crop field trial data indicate that
the maximum combined residues of
MCPA and its metabolites are <0.29
ppm in or on alfalfa forage and <1.07
ppm in or on alfalfa hay. Alfalfa forage
and alfalfa hay data will also be used to
satisfy crop field trial requirements for
the clover, forage; clover, hay;
lespedeza, clover; lespedeza, hay;
trefoil, forage; trefoil, hay; vetch, forage;
and vetch, hay. Ordinarily, the Agency
would not translate data from alfalfa to
support uses on clover, lespedeza,
trefoil, and vetch; however, because the
only supported use of MCPA on these
crops is to the crops underseeded to
small grains it is reasonable to use
alfalfa forage and alfalfa hay data to
support these uses. Based on these data,
EPA has determined the tolerance
should be 0.5 ppm in or on alfalfa,
forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage;
trefoil, forage; and vetch, forage and 2.0
ppm in or on alfalfa, hay; clover, hay;
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28886
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch,
hay. Therefore, EPA is increasing and
revising tolerances in 40 CFR
180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/
on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage;
lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage; and
vetch, forage from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and
alfalfa, hay; clover, hay; lespedeza, hay;
trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay from 0.1 to
2.0 ppm. The Agency determined that
the increased tolerances are safe; i.e.
there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue.
The crop field trial data indicate that
the maximum combined residues of
MCPA and its metabolites are 0.72 ppm
in or on wheat grain and 21.4 ppm in
or on wheat straw. Based on the HAFT
residue of 0.08 ppm for wheat grain,
expected MCPA residues of concern in/
on wheat bran and germ will not exceed
the established tolerance of 0.1 ppm for
wheat grain and for wheat processed
commodities. Because of similar
cultural practices and identical use
rates, wheat residue field trial data are
used to support tolerances for barley,
oat and rye. Based on these data, EPA
has determined the tolerance should be
1.0 ppm in/on barley, grain; oat, grain;
rye, grain and wheat, grain and 25 ppm
in or on barley, straw; oat, straw; rye,
straw; and wheat, straw. Therefore, EPA
is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.33(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/on
barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain; and
wheat, grain from 0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm and
barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and
wheat, straw from 2 to 25 ppm. The
Agency determined that these increased
tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue.
The crop field trial data indicate that
the maximum combined residues of
MCPA and its metabolites are 19.4 ppm
(7 day PHI) in or on wheat forage, 39.5
ppm and 111 ppm (7 and14 day PHIs,
respectively) in or on wheat hay. Also
these data are translated to support
tolerances for barley, hay; oat, hay; oat,
forage; and rye, forage. Based on these
data, EPA determined the tolerances
should be 20 ppm on oat, forage; rye,
forage; and wheat, forage; 40 ppm on
barley, hay; and 115 ppm in/on oat, hay;
and wheat hay. EPA is establishing
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for
residues of MCPA in/on wheat, forage at
20 ppm; barley, hay at 40 ppm and oat,
hay; and wheat, hay at 115 ppm. The
Agency determined that these newly
established tolerances are safe; i.e. there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to
the pesticide chemicals residue.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
In addition, EPA is revising
commodity terminology and tolerances
to conform to current Agency practice in
40 CFR 180.339 as follows: ‘‘grass,
pasture and grass, rangeland at 300 ppm
to grass, forage at 300 ppm:’’ ‘‘peavines
at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, field, vines at 0.1
ppm;’’ ‘‘peavines, hay at 0.1(N) ppm to
pea, field, hay at 0.1 ppm;’’ ‘‘vegetable,
seed and pod at 0.1 ppm to pea, dry at
0.1 ppm and pea, succulent at 0.1 ppm;’’
flax seed at 0.1(N) to 0.1 ppm; ‘‘cattle,
fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and
sheep, fat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat,
meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts;
horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,
meat byproducts; and cattle, meat; goat,
meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep,
meat at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm;’’ and
milk at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
EPA may issue a regulation
establishing, modifying, or revoking a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e).
In this final rule, EPA is establishing,
modifying, and revoking tolerances to
implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the
reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes, and as followup on canceled uses of pesticides. As
part of these processes, EPA is required
to determine whether each of the
amended tolerances meets the safety
standards under the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA). The safety
finding determination is found in detail
in each Reregistration Eligibility
Document (RED) and Tolerance
Reassessment Document (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
propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and
MCPA, and a TRED for propanil. REDs
and TREDs contain the Agency’s
evaluation of the data base for these
pesticides, including statements
regarding additional data on the active
ingredients that may be needed to
confirm the potential human health and
environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses,
and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 made final in this document do not
need such assessment when the
tolerances are no longer necessary.
EPA’s general practice is to revoke
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.
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.
When EPA establishes tolerances for
pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, the Agency
gives consideration to possible pesticide
residues 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). If there is no reasonable
expectation of finite pesticide residues
in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs,
then tolerances do not need to be
established for these commodities (40
CFR 180.6(b) and 180.6 (c)).
C. When Do These Actions Become
Effective?
These actions become effective on the
date of publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register because their
associated uses have been canceled for
several years. The Agency believes that
treated commodities have had sufficient
time for passage through the channels of
trade.
Any commodities listed in the
regulatory text of this document that are
treated with the pesticides subject to
this final rule, and that are in the
channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to
FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established
by the FQPA. Under this section, any
residues of these pesticides in or on
such food shall not render the food
adulterated so long as it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that:
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
1. The residue is present as the result
of an application or use of the pesticide
at a time and in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and
2. The residue does not exceed the
level that was authorized at the time of
the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption
from tolerance. Evidence to show that
food was lawfully treated may include
records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
III. Are There Any International Trade
Issues Raised by this Final Action?
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international MRLs established by the
Codex Alimentarius Commission, as
required by section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA.
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N.
food and agriculture Organization/
World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized
as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States
is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance
that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA
requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level in a
notice published for public comment.
EPA’s effort to harmonize with Codex
MRLs is summarized in the tolerance
reassessment section of individual REDs
and TREDs, and in the Residue
Chemistry document which supports
the RED and TRED, as mentioned in the
proposed rule cited in Unit II.A.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In this final rule, EPA establishes
tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e),
and also modifies and revokes specific
tolerances established under FFDCA
section 408. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions (i.e., establishment and
modification of a tolerance and
tolerance revocation for which
extraordinary circumstances do not
exist) from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this rule has
been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This final rule does not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any
enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4). Nor does it require any special
considerations as required by Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994); or OMB review or any other
Agency action under Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Pub. L. 104–13, section 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency
previously assessed whether
establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerances, raising of tolerance
levels, expansion of exemptions, or
revocations might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter,
these actions do not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. These analyses
for tolerance establishments and
modifications, and for tolerance
revocations were published on May 4,
1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December
17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively,
and were provided to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account
this analysis, and available information
concerning the pesticides listed in this
rule, the Agency hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In a
memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA
determined that eight conditions must
all be satisfied in order for an import
tolerance or tolerance exemption
revocation to adversely affect a
significant number of small entity
importers, and that there is a negligible
joint probability of all eight conditions
holding simultaneously with respect to
any particular revocation. (This Agency
document is available in the docket of
this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the
pesticides named in this final rule, the
Agency knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28887
present revocations that would change
EPA’s previous analysis. In addition, the
Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This final rule
directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this rule
does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’
as described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
V. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
28888
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
that before a rule may take effect, the
Agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and 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 the rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—AMENDED
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.274 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 180.274 Propanil; tolerances for
residues.
Commodity
Parts per million
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Cattle, fat ........................
Cattle, meat ....................
Cattle, meat byproducts
Crayfish ...........................
Egg .................................
Goat, fat ..........................
Goat, meat ......................
Goat, meat byproducts ...
Hog, fat ...........................
Hog, meat .......................
Hog, meat byproducts ....
Horse, fat ........................
Horse, meat ....................
Horse, meat byproducts
Milk .................................
Poultry, fat ......................
Poultry, meat ..................
Poultry, meat byproducts
Rice, bran .......................
Rice, grain ......................
Rice, hulls .......................
Rice, straw ......................
Sheep, fat .......................
Sheep, meat ...................
Commodity
Parts per million
Beet, garden, roots .........
Beet, garden, tops ..........
Beet, sugar, dried pulp ...
Beet, sugar, molasses ....
Beet, sugar, roots ...........
Beet, sugar, tops ............
Spinach ...........................
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
4.0
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
I 4. Section 180.314 is revised to read
as follows:
§180.314
Triallate; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. [Reserved]
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. Tolerances with a regional
registration, as defined in 180.1(m),are
established for residues of the herbicide
(S-2, 3, 4-trichloroallyl
diisopropylthiocarbamate) and its
Parts per million
metabolite 2, 3, 3-trichloroprop-20.10 enesulfonic acid (TCPSA) in or on the
0.05 following food commodities:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
1.0
0.05
0.30
0.10
0.05
1.0
0.10
0.05
1.0
0.10
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.50
40
10
30
75
0.10
0.05
Jkt 211001
MCPA; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are
Sheep, meat byproducts
1.0 established for residues of the herbicide
MCPA ((4-chloro-2*
*
*
*
*
methylphenoxy)acetic acid), both free
I 3. Section 180.278 is revised to read
and conjugated, resulting from the
as follows:
direct application of MCPA or its
sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2§180.278 Phenmedipham; tolerances for
ethylhexyl ester in or on the following
residues.
food commodities:
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
Commodity
Parts per million
the herbicide phenmedipham (3Alfalfa, forage .................
0.5
methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′Alfalfa, hay ......................
2.0
methylcarbanilate) in or on the
Barley, grain ...................
1.0
following food commodities:
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the herbicide propanil (3′, 4′dichloropropionanilide) and its
metabolites convertible to 3, 4dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA) in or on the
following food commodities:
Commodity
§180.339
Commodity
0.05
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.05
1.0
1.0
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
I 5. Section 180.339 is revised to read
as follows:
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40
25
0.5
2.0
0.1
300
20
0.5
2.0
20
1.0
115
25
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
20
1.0
25
0.5
2.0
0.5
2.0
20
1.0
115
25
(2) Tolerances are established for
residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid)
resulting from the direct application of
MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine
salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on
the following food commodities:
Commodity
Parts per million
Barley, grain ...................
Barley, hay ......................
Barley, straw ...................
Beet, sugar, dried pulp ...
Beet, sugar, roots ...........
Beet, sugar, tops ............
Pea, dry ..........................
Pea, field, hay .................
Pea, field, vines ..............
Pea, succulent ................
Wheat, grain ...................
Wheat, hay .....................
Wheat, straw ...................
PO 00000
Barley, hay ......................
Barley, straw ...................
Clover, forage .................
Clover, hay .....................
Flax, seed .......................
Grass, forage ..................
Grass, hay ......................
Lespedeza, forage ..........
Lespedeza, hay ..............
Oat, forage ......................
Oat, grain ........................
Oat, hay ..........................
Oat, straw .......................
Pea, dry ..........................
Pea, field, hay .................
Pea, succulent ................
Pea, field, vines ..............
Rye, forage .....................
Rye, grain .......................
Rye, straw .......................
Trefoil, forage .................
Trefoil, hay ......................
Vetch, forage ..................
Vetch, hay .......................
Wheat, forage .................
Wheat, grain ...................
Wheat, hay .....................
Wheat, straw ...................
Cattle, fat ........................
Cattle, meat ....................
Cattle, meat byproducts
Goat, fat ..........................
Goat, meat ......................
Goat, meat byproducts ...
Hog, fat ...........................
Hog, meat .......................
Hog, meat byproducts ....
Horse, fat ........................
Horse, meat ....................
Horse, meat byproducts
Milk .................................
Sheep, fat .......................
Sheep meat ....................
Sheep meat byproducts
Parts per million
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The full text of this document also may
be purchased from the Commission’s
duplication contractor, Best Copy and
Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St.,
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554; telephone (202) 488–5300; fax
(202) 488–5563; e-mail
FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. E7–9912 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Summary of the Report and Order
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 03–201; FCC 07–56]
Unlicensed Devices and Equipment
Approval
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document amends the
Commission’s rules to provide for more
efficient equipment authorization of
both existing modular transmitter
devices and emerging partitioned (or
‘‘split’’) modular transmitter devices.
These rule changes will benefit
manufacturers by allowing greater
flexibility in certifying equipment and
providing relief from the need to obtain
a new equipment authorization each
time the same transmitter is installed in
a different final product. The rule
changes will also enable manufacturers
to develop more flexible and more
advanced unlicensed transmitter
technologies. The Commission further
finds that modular transmitter devices
authorized in accordance with the
revised equipment authorization
procedures will not pose any increased
risk of interference to other radio
operations.
DATES: Effective June 22, 2007, except
for § 15.212, which contains information
collection requirements that have not
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget. The Federal
Communications Commission will
publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date
of this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418–7506, e-mail
Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Report and Order, ET Docket No. 03–
201, FCC 07–56, adopted April 20, 2007,
and released April 25, 2007. The full
text of this document is available on the
Commission’s Internet site at https://
www.fcc.gov. It is also available for
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
1. In the Second Report and Order the
Commission codified the Public Notice,
DA 00–1407, June 26, 2000,
requirements for approving modular
transmitters, with certain modifications.
It also adopted requirements for the
approval of split modular transmitters,
including a requirement that only parts
of a split module that have been
approved in a single application for
equipment authorization may operate
together. Further, it allows
manufacturers the flexibility to
demonstrate alternative methods in the
application for equipment authorization
to ensure that a modular transmitter will
meet all the applicable part 15
requirements under the operating
conditions in which it will be used. The
Commission finds that the increased
flexibility adopted will facilitate the
approval process for modular
transmitters and provide relief from the
need to obtain a new equipment
authorization each time the same
transmitter is installed in a different
final product, and will promote an
increase in the development of part 15
devices without increasing the potential
for interference to authorized radio
services.
Single Unit Modular Transmitters
2. The Commission codified the
proposed requirements for approving
single modular transmitters into the
rules. This action will ensure that all
equipment manufacturers are provided
with adequate notice of the
Commission’s requirements for
obtaining modular transmitter
approvals. The Commission adopted a
definition for a modular transmitter.
Specifically, a modular transmitter will
be defined as a completely selfcontained radio-frequency transmitter
device that is typically incorporated
into another product, host or device.
However, the Commission will not
require ‘‘module-like devices’’ that
contain part 15 transmitters to be
approved as modular transmitters.
Consistent with current Commission
policy, it will continue to permit such
devices to be approved as stand-alone
transmitters under the present
authorization procedures, although
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28889
manufacturers may obtain approval for
them as modules if they desire.
3. The Commission recognizes that
there may be circumstances where there
are alternative means that will enable a
modular transmitter to meet all
applicable part 15 requirements under
the operating conditions in which the
transmitter will be used. Therefore, the
Commission adopted a rule that states
that modular transmitters do not have to
comply with all of the approval
requirements if the manufacturer can
demonstrate by alternative means in the
application for equipment authorization
that the equipment complies with the
part 15 rules. Specifically, the
Commission will permit manufacturers
flexibility with respect to the
requirements such as module shielding,
buffered modulation/data inputs and
power supply regulation, because
compliance with these requirements
may not be necessary in specific module
installations. Consistent with the Public
Notice, the Commission may grant a
‘‘Limited Modular Approval’’ in
instances where the equipment does not
meet all eight criteria for modular
transmitters, but the grantee of
equipment authorization can
demonstrate that it will retain control
over the final installation of the device
such that compliance of the end product
is assured. In such cases, the grantee
must state how control of the end
product into which the module will be
installed will be maintained such that
full compliance of the end product is
always ensured. A limited modular
approval is subject to conditions such as
the device(s) into which the module can
be installed, the antenna separation
distance from persons or the locations
where it may be used (e.g. outdoor
only).
4. To provide additional flexibility to
manufacturers and to parties
incorporating modular transmitters into
other devices, the Commission will
permit electronic labeling of modular
transmitters in the same manner as it
allows for software defined radios. The
FCC identification number may be
shown on an electronic display on the
module itself if the module contains a
display that is visible to the user, or
more typically, it may be displayed on
the device into which the module is
installed, such as a laptop computer or
PDA. The information must be readily
accessible, and the user manual must
describe how to access the electronic
display. In addition to the electronic
display, the Commission requires a
simple label on the product indicating
when a module is installed inside a host
device to facilitate identification of
equipment that contains modular
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28881-28889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9912]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586; FRL-8126-6]
Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate, and MCPA; Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the herbicides
propanil, triallate, and MCPA. EPA is modifying certain tolerances for
the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. In
addition, EPA is establishing tolerances for the herbicides propanil,
phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. The regulatory actions in this
document are part of the Agency's reregistration program under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended
by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 2007, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in 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
[[Page 28882]]
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0048; e-mail
address: smith.jane-scott@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), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?
In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before July 23, 2007.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586, 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 (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'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
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
In the Federal Register of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL-
8089-5), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, modify and establish
specific tolerances for residues of the herbicides propanil,
phenmedipham, triallate and MCPA. Also, the proposal of September 27,
2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL-8089-5) provided a 60-day comment period which
invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance
retention under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
standards.
EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific
tolerances for residues of the the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham,
triallate and MCPA in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text.
EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order 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 reregistration and when taking action
on tolerances and exemptions EPA is required to determine whether each
of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under the FQPA.
The safety finding determination of ``reasonable certainty of no harm''
is found in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
and Report on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk
Management Decision (TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs
recommend certain tolerance actions to be implemented to reflect
current use patterns, to meet safety findings and change commodity
names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies
of 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 at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
and in public dockets EPA-
[[Page 28883]]
HQ-OPP-2003-0348 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0033 (propanil); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-
0384 (phenmedipham); and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0156 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0239
(MCPA) at https://www.regulations.gov.
In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and
tolerance exemptions because these specific tolerances and exemptions
correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the
United States. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer
necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on
domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but
imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke
those tolerances and tolerance exemptions 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 or tolerance exemption to
cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities
legally treated.
EPA's policy is to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for
residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal
demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances
on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following
conditions applies:
1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting
additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking
the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment
identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer
needed.
3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the
tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA.
This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA
received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In
response to the proposal published in the Federal Register of September
27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL-8089-5), EPA received three comments during
the 60-day public comment period, as follows:
Comment. The MCPA Task Force Three submitted a comment requesting
the published tolerance for ``cattle, meat and meat byproducts'' be
changed from the proposed 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm. The Task force has
conducted a new Magnitude of the Residues in Meat and Milk Study,
according to the Agency guidelines, that supports a 0.5 ppm tolerance.
The new study will be submitted to the Agency as soon as it is issued
which, according to the MCPA Task Force Three, is well in advance of
the due date requested by the Agency in the Data Call-In. The task
force did not take issue with any of the proposed tolerances for
revocation.
Agency response. The Agency acknowledges the cooperation and effort
the MCPA Task Force Three has put forth to fulfill the requirements of
the reregistration Data Call-In Notice. When the Magnitude of the Meat
and Milk Study is received, reviewed, a risk assessment conducted and
safety finding is made, EPA will make a determination as to the whether
the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm is still appropriate or should be
changed.
Comment. A comment was received from a private citizen that
expressed concern with pesticide residues in general and that pesticide
residue levels should be zero. Concern was also expressed for the
number of chemicals found in the bodies of adults and children.
Agency response. The private citizen's comment did not take issue
with the Agency's conclusion that specific tolerances in this action
should be revoked, established and/or modified. The Agency conducts a
detailed risk assessment to determine whether establishing and/or
increasing tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. Also, it is EPA's general practice to propose
revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients
on crop uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist.
Comment. A comment was received from the California Rice Commission
(CRC). CRC expressed concern that the increased U.S. tolerance for
propanil in/on rice grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm could result in a trade
irritant with Japan, a major importer of California rice whose Maximum
Residue Limit (MRL) on rice grain is 2 ppm. According to the CRC
propanil is the most important herbicide to the California rice
industry; a significant percentage of the rice grown in California is
exported to Japan; propanil residues on California grown rice are non-
detectable for propanil; and the tolerance level of 10 ppm is based on
an outlier residue level of 8.7 ppm.
Agency response. The CRC brought this important issue to the
attention of the Agency when the RED Amendment was released in 2006.
The U.S. tolerance is a national level based on uses and residue data
generated on rice grown in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Texas
showing multiple residue detections above 2 parts per million (ppm) up
to 8.7 ppm supporting a tolerance level of 10 ppm. Avoiding potential
trade irritants is of paramount interest, unfortunately, no new data
have been generated or submitted to the Agency to change the basis of
the tolerance level. If additional propanil field trial residue data on
rice were generated and provided to the Agency, the tolerance level on
rice grain would be reconsidered.
1. Propanil. Currently, in 40 CFR 180.274(a)(1) and (2), tolerances
are established for the combined residues of propanil and its
metabolites (calculated as propanil) in or on both raw agricultural
commodities (RACs) and processed foods and feeds. EPA is revising the
tolerance expression to specify the residues of concern and combine the
RACs and processed foods and feed tolerances in accordance with FFDCA
408 as amended by FQPA (1996) in 40 CFR 180.274(a) to read as follows:
Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide
propanil (3', 4'-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites
convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA).
Tolerances currently exist for rice milling fractions and rice
polishings. Rice milling fractions are no longer considered significant
animal feed items as delineated in ``Table 1. - Raw Agricultural and
Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived from Crops'' which is
found in Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 dated August
1996, available at https://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_
Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/.
Therefore, EPA is removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the
combined residues of propanil in/on rice milling fractions and rice,
polishings at 10 ppm.
The registered uses on barley, oat, and wheat (small grains) have
been voluntarily cancelled December 10, 2003; 68 FR 68901, FRL-7332-5,
June 27, 2003; 68 FR 38328, FRL 7310-6. In the absence of registered
uses, the tolerances associated with the small grains should be
revoked. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a)
for the combined propanil residues of concern in/on barley, straw; oat,
straw; and wheat, straw at 0.75 ppm; barley, grain at 0.2 ppm; oat,
grain at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm.
[[Page 28884]]
Two studies depicting the magnitude of regulated propanil residues
in/on rice grain exceeded the established tolerance of 2 ppm in/on
treated rice grain samples demonstrating residues ranging from 0.03 ppm
to 8.7 ppm. Based on these data, the EPA determined the tolerance
should be 10 ppm on rice grain. Therefore, EPA is increasing the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of
concern in/on rice, grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm. The Agency determined
that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue.
A rice processing study showed no concentration of residues in
polished rice and average concentration factors of 3.5x for rice hulls
and 4.6x for rice bran. The highest average field trial (HAFT) propanil
residues found in rice were 8.7 ppm. Based on this HAFT and the
observed concentration factors, the maximum expected residues are 30.45
ppm in/on rice hulls (8.7 ppm x 3.5) and 40.02 ppm in/on rice bran (8.7
ppm x 4.6). These expected residues are higher in the processed
commodities than the reassessed tolerance of 10 ppm for rice, grain.
Based on these data, EPA has determined that the tolerances should be
30 ppm on rice, hulls and 40 ppm on rice, bran. Therefore, EPA is
increasing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil
residues of concern in or on rice, hulls from 10 to 30 ppm and rice,
bran from 10 to 40 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased
tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
The potential for secondary transfer of propanil residues to animal
commodities exists because the herbicide is registered for use on rice,
which may be used as animal feed. Based on a maximum theoretical
dietary burden (x) and using the residue levels found in dairy cattle
and milk fed 15 ppm (0.75x) resulted in residues of: 0.035 ppm in milk,
0.31 ppm in liver, 0.77 ppm in kidney, <0.05 ppm (non-detectable) in
muscle, and 0.10 ppm in fat. Based on these data, the Agency determined
the tolerances should be 0.05 ppm in cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog,
meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat and 1.0 ppm in cattle, meat
byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat
byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts. In addition, the term
``negligible residue'' and its designation, ``(N)'' associated with the
milk and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform to
current Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is maintaining and
revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil
residues of concern in/on milk from 0.05(N) ppm to 0.05 ppm and cattle,
fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.1(N) ppm to
0.10 ppm; decreasing and revising the tolerances in/on cattle, meat;
goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.05
ppm; and increasing and revising the tolerances in/on cattle, meat
byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat
byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts from 0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm. The
Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue.
Maximum propanil residues were 0.212, and 0.372 ppm, respectively,
in eggs from hens dosed with propanil 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x).
Residues in liver from hens in the 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x)
dose groups were 0.183 - 0.236, and 0.824 - 1.755 ppm, respectively.
Residues in muscle were <0.050 - 0.076 and 0.087 - 0.161 ppm from the
0.9x and 3.1x dose groups, respectively. In fat, propanil residues of
concern were <0.05 ppm (