Bromoxynil, Diclofop-methyl, Dicofol, Diquat, Etridiazole, et al.; Tolerance Actions, 41913-41931 [E7-14895]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41913-41931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14895]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0154; FRL-8139-5]


Bromoxynil, Diclofop-methyl, Dicofol, Diquat, Etridiazole, et 
al.; Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the herbicides 
bromoxynil, diclofop-methyl, and paraquat; the fungicide etridiazole 
(terrazole); the miticides dicofol and propargite; and the plant growth 
regulator and herbicide diquat. Also, EPA is removing duplicate 
tolerances for the herbicides bromoxynil, paraquat, and picloram; the 
fumigant phosphine; the miticide dicofol; and the insecticides 
fenbutatin-oxide and hydramethylnon. In addition, EPA is modifying 
certain tolerances for the insecticide hydramethylnon; the herbicides 
bromoxynil, paraquat, and triclopyr; the fungicides etridiazole, 
folpet, and triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH); the miticides dicofol and 
propargite; and the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat. 
Moreover, EPA is establishing new tolerances for the herbicides 
bromoxynil, paraquat, and picloram; the fungicides etridiazole, folpet, 
and TPTH; the miticides dicofol and propargite; the insecticide 
fenbutatin-oxide; and the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat. 
The regulatory actions in this document are follow-up to the Agency's 
reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and reassessment program under the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 30, 2007. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 1, 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-2004-0154. 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 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 in 
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone 
number is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and 
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail 
address: nevola.joseph@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

[[Page 41914]]

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 Food Quality 
Protection Act (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-
2004-0154 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 October 1, 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-2004-0154, 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 
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In the Federal Register of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) (FRL-7368-
7), EPA issued a proposal to revoke, remove, modify, and establish 
certain specific tolerances for residues of the insecticides 
fenbutatin-oxide and hydramethylnon; the herbicides bromoxynil, 
diclofop-methyl, paraquat, picloram, and triclopyr; the fumigant 
phosphine; the fungicides etridiazole, folpet, and TPTH; the miticides 
dicofol and propargite, and the plant growth regulator and herbicide 
diquat. Also, the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) (FRL-7368-7) 
provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for 
consideration and for support of tolerance retention under the FFDCA 
standards. In the Federal Register of October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59843) 
(FRL-7682-5), EPA extended the comment period from October 4, 2004 to 
October 18, 2004.
    In this final rule, EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and 
establishing specific tolerances for residues of bromoxynil, diclofop-
methyl, dicofol, diquat, etridiazole, fenbutatin-oxide, folpet, 
hydramethylnon, paraquat, phosphine, picloram, propargite, TPTH, and 
triclopyr in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text of this 
document. However, while EPA also proposed on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 
47051) to revoke and modify specific tolerances for iprodione, the 
Agency is not taking any action on iprodione tolerances in this 
document.
    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 these processes, EPA is required to 
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety 
standard of the FFDCA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable 
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each 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, to 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 at https://www.regulations.gov and 
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
    In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances because 
either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that 
are no longer registered under FIFRA in the United States. Those 
instances where registrations were canceled were because the registrant 
failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant 
voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of 
the pesticide active ingredient. 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 issue a final rule revoking 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 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.
    Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances 
on the grounds discussed in this Unit 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 August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051) (FRL-7368-7), EPA received comments during the 60-
day public comment period, as follows:
    1. General--comment by private citizen. A comment was received from 
a private citizen on August 15, 2004

[[Page 41915]]

which expressed a general concern for chemicals and their toxic 
effects. In addition, the private citizen stated ``I oppose and object 
to the use/approval/sale of this product'' in reference to bromoxynil 
and diclofop methyl. Also, the individual stated opposition to 
increasing any tolerances due to a concern about the sale of more 
product.
    Agency response. Section 408(g) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(g) and 
the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 178, establish procedures 
for formally challenging EPA rulemakings establishing tolerances or 
exemptions from tolerances. This formal challenge is initiated through 
the filing of ``objections'' with EPA. The procedures for filing 
objections are summarized in this final rule under the section titled 
``Objections and Hearing Requests.'' As is made clear in that section, 
all objections must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to 
EPA's Hearing Clerk within 60 days of the publication of the final 
rule.
    Because the communication of August 15, 2004 was sent to the public 
docket of the proposed rule, EPA concludes that the communication does 
not intend to initiate the formal procedures for objecting under 40 CFR 
part 178 to the tolerance actions made herein. The communication from 
the private citizen from New Jersey is considered by EPA to be a 
``comment'' rather than an ``objection.'' In order to file an 
objection, one must follow the procedures as explained in the previous 
paragraph and set forth in 40 CFR part 178.
    The comment of August 15, 2004 did not refer to any specific 
scientific studies which supported the reregistration of any active 
ingredient, or Agency decision document which supported or addressed 
the reregistration eligibility of any active ingredient.
    Section 4 of FIFRA directs EPA to make decisions about the future 
use of older pesticides. Under the pesticide reregistration program, 
EPA examines health and safety data for pesticide active ingredients 
initially registered before November 1, 1984, and determines whether 
they are eligible for reregistration to ensure that they meet current 
scientific and regulatory standards. During reregistration, EPA 
considers the human health and ecological effects of pesticides and 
addresses actions to reduce risks that are of concern.
    Of 612 cases subject to reregistration, about 40% have been 
canceled for various reasons, including request for voluntary 
cancellation by the registrant, cancellation by EPA because required 
fees were not paid, or cancellation by EPA because unacceptable risk 
existed that could not be reduced by other actions such as voluntary 
cancellation of selected uses or changes in the way the pesticide is 
used.
    Reducing pesticide risks is an important aspect of the 
reregistration program. In developing REDs, EPA works with stakeholders 
including pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, 
environmental and public health interests, as well as the States, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other Federal agencies, and 
others to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls needed to 
effectively reduce risks of concern. Such options include voluntary 
cancellation of pesticide products or deletion of uses, declaring 
certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible, restricting use of 
products to certified applicators, limiting the amount or frequency of 
use, improving use directions and precautions, adding more protective 
clothing and equipment requirements, requiring special packaging or 
engineering controls, requiring no-treatment buffer zones, employing 
environmental and ecological safeguards, and other measures.
    Also, for all pesticides with food uses, EPA is reassessing 
tolerances (pesticide residue limits in food) to ensure that they met 
the safety standard of section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as 
amended by the FQPA of 1996. Under FFDCA, EPA must make a determination 
that pesticide residues remaining in or on food are safe; that is, that 
there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate 
exposure to the pesticide residue from dietary and other sources. EPA 
has integrated reregistration and tolerance reassessment to most 
effectively accomplish the goals of both programs.
    At the end of the reregistration process, after EPA has issued a 
RED and declared a pesticide reregistration case eligible for 
reregistration, individual end-use products that contain pesticide 
active ingredients included in the case still must be reregistered. 
During this product reregistration, EPA sends registrants a DCI notice 
requesting any product specific data and specific revised labeling 
needed to complete reregistration for each of the individual pesticide 
products covered by the RED. Based on the results of EPA's review of 
these data and labeling, products found to meet FIFRA and FFDCA 
standards may be reregistered.
    2. Bromoxynil--comment by the People's Republic of China (PRC). 
After the public comment period extension had ended on October 18, 
2004, EPA received comment from the PRC, forwarded by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, on November 3, 2004. The PRC asked for information 
concerning Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) basis data for the use of 
bromoxynil on garlic and onion.
    Agency response. The Agency proposed no action on the existing 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324 for bromoxynil on garlic or onion, dry 
bulb. Information on study data which support the bromoxynil RED are 
available in the OPP public docket for the proposed rule of August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051), OPP-2004-0154, and on the reregistration status 
website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. The 
crop field trial references for garlic are MRIDs 42331002 and 42540602, 
and for onion, dry bulb are MRIDs 42350701 and 42747601. The bromoxynil 
residues of concern on garlic and onion, dry bulb were below the limit 
of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.02 parts per million (ppm), which support 
their current tolerance levels at 0.1 ppm.
    Because flax straw is no longer a regulated feed item, the 
tolerance for bromoxynil residue is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is 
revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for ``flax, straw.'' 
Also, EPA is removing the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) 
for residues of bromoxynil in or on ``corn, stover'' which was 
previously termed corn, fodder (dry) in the RED; ``corn, fodder 
(green);'' and ``corn, grain'' because these tolerances are no longer 
needed since their uses are covered by the existing tolerances for 
corn, field, stover and corn, grain, field. Further, based on field 
trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil as high as 0.14 ppm in 
or on corn stover, the Agency determined that the tolerance for corn, 
field, stover should be increased to 0.2 ppm and a tolerance should be 
established for corn, pop, stover at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) on ``corn, field, 
stover'' from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 ppm and establishing a tolerance for 
residues of bromoxynil in or on ``corn, pop, stover'' at 0.2 ppm.
    Since the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), EPA published a 
final rule in the Federal Register on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7044) 
(FRL-7690-6) that removed expired time-limited tolerances for emergency 
exemptions, including those for bromoxynil on timothy, hay and timothy, 
forage in 40 CFR 180.324(b) and reserved that section.

[[Page 41916]]

    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on alfalfa hay as high as 0.38 ppm and to conform tolerance 
nomenclature to current Agency practice, the Agency determined that the 
tolerance for alfalfa, seedling should be revised into alfalfa, forage 
and alfalfa, hay, and the tolerance on alfalfa, hay should be increased 
to 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity tolerance 
``alfalfa, seedling'' (shown in paragraph (a)(1) as alfalfa, seeding) 
in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) at 0.1 ppm to ``alfalfa, forage,'' and 
``alfalfa, hay'' and maintaining the tolerance on alfalfa, forage at 
0.1 ppm, while increasing the tolerance on alfalfa, hay to 0.5 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on grass forage and hay as high as 2.9 ppm and 2.4 ppm, 
respectively, the Agency determined that the tolerances for grass 
forage and hay should be increased to 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
revising the commodity terminologies ``canarygrass, annual, seed'' and 
``canarygrass, annual, hay'' (formerly grass, canary, annual, straw) in 
40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) to ``grass, forage'' and ``grass, hay,'' 
respectively, and increasing each of their tolerances from 0.1 ppm to 
3.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on barley straw as high as 3.9 ppm, and translating barley data to 
oat straw, the Agency determined that the tolerances for barley straw 
and oat straw should be increased to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of 
bromoxynil in or on ``barley, straw'' from 0.1 ppm to 4.0 ppm, and 
``oat, straw'' from 0.1 ppm to 4.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on wheat forage and straw as high as 0.6 ppm and 1.2 ppm, 
respectively, and translating wheat data to rye, the Agency determined 
that the tolerances for both rye and wheat forage should be increased 
to 1.0 ppm, and both rye and wheat straw should be increased to 2.0 
ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on ``rye, forage'' from 
0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm; ``rye, straw'' from 0.1 ppm to 2.0 ppm; ``wheat, 
forage'' from 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm; and ``wheat, straw'' from 0.1 ppm to 
2.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on barley forage, and translating barley data to oat, the Agency 
determined that the tolerance for oat forage should be increased to 0.3 
ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) 
for residues of bromoxynil in or on ``oat, forage'' from 0.1 ppm to 0.3 
ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on sorghum forage and stover as high as 0.29 and 0.14 ppm, 
respectively, the Agency determined that the tolerances for sorghum 
forage and stover should be increased to 0.5 ppm and 0.2 ppm, 
respectively. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on ``sorghum, forage'' 
from 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm and revising the commodity terminology to 
``sorghum, grain, forage;''and ``sorghum, grain, stover'' from 0.1 ppm 
to 0.2 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.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of bromoxynil in 
or on grain of barley, corn, sorghum, and wheat at <0.02 ppm and 
translating barley data to oat grain and rye grain, the Agency 
determined that the grain tolerances for barley; field corn; oat; rye; 
sorghum; and wheat should be decreased to 0.05 ppm and a tolerance 
should be established for corn, pop, grain at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA 
is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) from 0.1 ppm to 
0.05 ppm, for the following: ``barley, grain;'' ``oat, grain;'' ``rye, 
grain;'' ``sorghum, grain;'' ``wheat, grain;'' and ``corn, grain, 
field;'' and also revising the terminolgy for ``corn, grain, field'' to 
read ``corn, field, grain.'' Also in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1), EPA is 
establishing a tolerance for residues of bromoxynil in or on ``corn, 
pop, grain'' at 0.05 ppm.
    Because residues of bromoxynil are detectable in aspirated grain 
fractions of wheat (highest), corn, and sorghum, the Agency determined 
that a tolerance on the aspirated fractions of grain should be 
established at 0.3 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 
40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of bromoxynil in or on ``grain, 
aspirated fractions'' at 0.3 ppm.
    Based on residue data for hay of wheat and barley that indicate 
residues of bromoxynil as high as 3.2 ppm for wheat, but not exceeding 
9.0 ppm for barley, and translating barley data to oat hay, the Agency 
determined that tolerances should be established for wheat hay at 4.0 
ppm, barley hay at 9.0 ppm, and oat, hay at 9.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) for residues of 
bromoxynil in or on ``barley, hay'' at 9.0 ppm, ``oat, hay'' at 9.0 
ppm, and ``wheat, hay'' at 4.0 ppm.
    The 1998 Bromoxynil RED recommended that the tolerance for corn, 
forage, field (green) be revised to corn, field, forage and increased 
from 0.1 ppm to 0.3 ppm based on residue data for corn forage. However, 
at that time, no tolerance for corn, forage, field (green) existed in 
40 CFR 180.324(a)(1). Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 
CFR 180.324(a)(1) for ``corn, field, forage'' at 0.3 ppm.
    In addition, EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 
180.324 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: ``mint hay'' 
to ``peppermint, hay'' and ``spearmint, hay.''
    The Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the 
tolerance nomenclature for bromoxynil in 40 CFR 180.324(a)(1) from 
onion, dry bulb to onion, bulb, as is current Agency practice. However, 
section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that 
notice and comment is not necessary ``when the agency for good cause 
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon 
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 
Consequently, for good cause, EPA is revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.324(a)(1) from onion, dry bulb to onion, bulb. The reason for 
taking this action is because such action has no practical impact on 
the use of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, bromoxynil, 
in or on that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology 
will conform to current Agency practice.
    3. Dicofol--comment by the PRC. After the public comment period 
extension had ended on October 18, 2004, EPA received comment from the 
PRC, forwarded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, on November 3, 2004. The PRC expressed 
concern that the GAP alone is insufficient as the basis for EPA's 
determination for proposing to establish a tolerance for dicofol 
residues in milk at 22.0 ppm in the absence of risk assessment support.
    Also, the PRC was concerned about EPA's proposal to reduce the 
tolerances for residues of dicofol on nuts from 5.0 ppm to 0.1 ppm and 
the Agency's determination to translate data from pecan field trials to 
other nuts such as chestnut and walnut. In addition, the PRC cited nut 
tolerance levels for dicofol of 3.0 ppm in Canada, 1.0 ppm in Korea, 
and 5.0 ppm for almond in Australia.
    Agency response. EPA is redesignating the dicofol tolerance

[[Page 41917]]

expression for plant commodities in 40 CFR 180.163(a) to (a)(1), 
separately from the animal tolerances, and to revise the expression in 
terms of the combined residues of 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-
trichloroethanol and 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-
trichloroethanol. Because dicofol metabolites are the residues of 
concern for animals, EPA is proposing to redesignate animal tolerances 
separately from plant tolerances, from 40 CFR 180.163(a) to (a)(2) and 
for tolerances to be expressed in terms of the combined residues of 
1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol and its metabolites, 1-
(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol, 1,1-bis(4-
chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethanol, and 1-2(-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethanol.
    As stated in the proposal of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), based on 
ruminant metabolism and feeding data, the Agency determined that the 
tolerance for milk should reflect dicofol residues of 0.75 ppm in whole 
milk corrected by a factor of 30x to account for concentration in milk 
fat from whole milk such that 22.0 ppm is appropriate (tolerance is 
based on milk fat). However, the Agency acknowledges that on August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051) it proposed to establish a tolerance for ``milk'' as 
shown in the dicofol RED, but that the appropriate definition for the 
tolerance commodity should be termed ``milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm 
in whole milk).'' The appropriate level for that tolerance definition 
is 22.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.163(a)(2) for milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm in whole milk) at 22.0 
ppm.
    The Agency proposed reducing the nut tolerances based on both pecan 
and walnut field trials that showed residues of dicofol were non-
detectable and determined that 0.1 ppm is appropriate. Pecan, chestnut, 
and walnut are among commodities included in 40 CFR 180.41 under the 
tree nut crop group 14. The Agency considers pecans and almonds as 
representative commodities for that crop group. The Agency determined 
that the data translated to other nuts and that the tolerances for 
butternut, chestnut, filbert, hickory nut, macadamia nut, pecan, and 
walnut should be at 0.1 ppm. The Agency notes that there is a Codex 
maximum residue limit (MRL) for dicofol residues on pecan at 0.01 ppm 
which is at or above the limit of detection. Both the Codex MRL on 
pecan and proposed U.S. tolerance for nuts are lower than the MRLs 
cited by the PRC. Different MRLs among countries for a specific 
pesticide residue on a given commodity may be due to use patterns 
reflecting different pest and disease pressures. Therefore, EPA is 
decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) on ``nut, macadamia'' 
from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm;'' ``butternut'' from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, 
``chestnut'' from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, ``filbert'' from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, 
``nut, hickory'' from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, ``pecan'' from 5 ppm to 0.1 
ppm, and ``walnut'' from 5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, all based on available data.
    EPA is revoking the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) 
for residues of dicofol in or on ``fig'' because the registration for 
that use was canceled in October 1989 due to non-payment of annual 
registration maintenance fees. Also, EPA is removing ``hazelnuts'' 
because this tolerance is covered by the tolerance on filbert. The 
Agency did not propose in a notice for comment to revise the tolerance 
nomenclature for dicofol in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) from filbert to 
hazelnut, as is current Agency practice. However, section 553(b)(3)(B) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is 
not necessary ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates 
the findings and a brief statement of the reasons therefore in the 
rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 
Consequently, for good cause, EPA is revising the tolerance terminology 
in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) from filbert to hazelnut. The reason for taking 
this action is because such action has no practical impact on the use 
of or exposure to the pesticide active ingredient, dicofol, in or on 
that commodity and is made such that the tolerance terminology will 
conform to current Agency practice. In addition, the tolerance on 
``hay, spearmint'' in 40 CFR 180.163(a) was removed on June 29, 2007 
(72 FR 35663) (FRL-8131-3).
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as 
high as 6.7 ppm in or on apples and in one duplicate sample 10.8 ppm in 
or on pears (6.8 ppm in pears for the other duplicate sample), the 
Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 10.0 ppm is 
appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for 
``apple,'' ``crabapple,'' ``pear,'' and ``quince,'' each at 5 ppm in 40 
CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop group terminology ``fruit, pome, group 
11'' and increasing the tolerance to 10.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as 
high as 0.84 ppm in or on plums, 3.08 ppm in or on cherries, and 3.79 
ppm in or on peaches, the Agency determined that a crop group tolerance 
of 5.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity 
tolerances for ``apricot'' at 10 ppm; ``cherry'' at 5 ppm, 
``nectarine'' at 10 ppm, ``peach'' at 10 ppm, and ``plum, prune, 
fresh'' at 5 ppm, in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop group 
terminology ``fruit, stone, group 12'' and decreasing the tolerance to 
5.0 ppm.
    EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for ``blackberry,'' 
``boysenberry,'' ``dewberry,'' ``loganberry,'' and ``raspberry,'' each 
at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop subgroup terminology 
``caneberry subgroup 13A'' and maintaining the tolerance at 5 ppm, 
based on new field trials.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as 
high as 0.35 ppm in or on melons, 0.45 ppm in or on cucumbers, and 1.05 
ppm in or on summer squash, the Agency determined that a crop group 
tolerance of 2.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the 
commodity tolerances for ``cantaloupe,'' ``cucumber,'' ``melon,'' 
``muskmelon,'' ``pumpkin,'' ``squash, summer;'' ``squash, winter;'' and 
``watermelon,'' each at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) under the crop 
group terminology ``vegetable, cucurbit, group 9'' and decreasing the 
tolerance to 2.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that show that residues of dicofol were 
as high as 1.34 ppm in or on lemon, 3.55 ppm in or on oranges, and 5.26 
ppm in or on grapefruit, the Agency determined that a crop group 
tolerance of 6.0 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the 
commodity tolerances for ``grapefruit,'' ``kumquat,'' ``lemon,'' 
``lime,'' ``orange, sweet'' and ``tangerine'' in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1), 
each at 10 ppm, under the commodity terminology ``fruit, citrus, group 
10'' and decreasing the tolerance to 6.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol were as 
high as 0.46 ppm in or on tomatoes and 1.15 ppm in or on peppers, the 
Agency determined that a crop group tolerance of 2.0 ppm is 
appropriate. Therefore, EPA is combining the commodity tolerances for 
``eggplant,'' ``pepper,'' ``pimento,'' and ``tomato'' in 40 CFR 
180.163(a)(1), each at 5 ppm, under the crop group terminology 
``vegetable, fruiting, group 8'' and decreasing the tolerance to 2.0 
ppm, based on new field trials.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol as high 
as 0.46 ppm in or on dry beans and 2.09 ppm in or on succulent beans, 
the Agency has determined that the appropriate tolerances are 0.5 ppm 
for dry beans and

[[Page 41918]]

3.0 ppm for succulent beans. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) on ``bean, dry, seed'' from 5.0 ppm 
to 0.5 ppm, and combining ``bean, snap, succulent'' and ``bean, lima, 
succulent'' into ``bean, succulent'' and decreasing the tolerance from 
5.0 ppm to 3.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of dicofol as high 
as 64.3 ppm on dried hops, the Agency has determined that the tolerance 
should be for dried hops at 65.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the 
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) for ``hop'' from 30 ppm to 65.0 ppm 
and revising the commodity tolerance to ``hop, dried cones'' because 
the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) is redefined. 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.
    Because available data show that residues of dicofol were as high 
as 9.8 ppm on strawberries, the Agency determined that the tolerance 
should be at 10.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40 
CFR 180.163(a)(1) for ``strawberry'' from 5 ppm to 10.0 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.
    Based on highest average field trial (HAFT) residues of 5.54 ppm on 
apples, 3.16 ppm on oranges, 0.06 ppm on cotton, 3.02 ppm on grapes, 
17.6 ppm on mint, 29.1 ppm on plucked tea leaves, and available 
processing data showing average concentration factors of 6.6x in wet 
apple pomace, 3.7x in dried orange pulp, 62.8x in orange oil, 4.9x in 
refined cotton oil, 6.6x in raisins, 1.6x in mint oil, and 1.6x in 
dried tea, the Agency determined that tolerances for dicofol are 
warranted as follows: wet apple pomace at 38 ppm, dried citrus pulp at 
12 ppm, citrus oil at 200 ppm, refined cotton oil at 0.5 ppm, raisins 
at 20.0 ppm, peppermint oil at 30 ppm, spearmint oil at 30 ppm, tea, 
plucked tea leaves at 30.0 ppm, and dried tea at 50 ppm. Therefore, EPA 
is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) for ``tea, dried'' 
from 45 ppm to 50.0 ppm and establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163 
(a)(1) for ``apple, wet pomace'' at 38.0 ppm, ``citrus, dried pulp'' at 
12.0 ppm, ``citrus, oil'' at 200.0 ppm, ``cotton, refined oil'' at 0.5 
ppm, ``grape, raisin'' at 20.0 ppm, ``peppermint, oil'' at 30.0 ppm, 
``spearmint, oil'' at 30.0 ppm, and ``tea, plucked leaves'' at 30.0 
ppm.
    In the dicofol RED, the Agency recommended the establishment of a 
tolerance on prunes (currently termed plum, prune, dried) at 3.0 ppm. 
However, a new tolerance for the processed commodity prunes as ``plum, 
prune, dried'' at 3.0 ppm is not needed because that use is covered by 
the combination of stone fruits into a group tolerance at 5.0 ppm, as 
described above.
    Based on hen metabolism and feeding data, and residues in 
cottonseed meal (20% diet X 0.1 ppm residue), the Agency has determined 
that tolerances should be established at 0.1 ppm for poultry fat, meat, 
and meat byproducts. The tolerance for eggs should be decreased to 0.05 
ppm for compatibility with Codex. Therefore, EPA is establishing 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(2) for ``poultry, fat;'' ``poultry, 
meat;'' and ``poultry, meat byproducts;'' each at 0.1 ppm and ``egg'' 
at 0.05 ppm.
    Based on ruminant metabolism and feeding data, the Agency 
determined that tolerances for fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and 
sheep should be established at 50.0 ppm; meat and meat byproducts, 
except liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep should be 
established at 3.0 ppm; and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and 
sheep should be established at 5.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.163(a)(2) for the following: ``cattle, meat;'' 
``cattle, meat byproducts, except liver;'' ``goat, meat;'' ``goat, meat 
byproducts, except liver;'' ``hog, meat;'' ``hog, meat byproducts, 
except liver;'' ``horse, meat;'' ``horse, meat byproducts, except 
liver;'' ``sheep, meat;'' and ``sheep, meat byproducts, except liver;'' 
each at 3.0 ppm; ``cattle, liver;'' ``goat, liver;'' ``hog, liver;'' 
``horse, liver;'' and ``sheep, liver;'' each at 5.0 ppm; and ``cattle, 
fat;'' ``goat, fat;'' ``hog, fat;'' ``horse, fat;'' and ``sheep, fat;'' 
each at 50.0 ppm.
    EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.163 to conform 
to current Agency practice as follows: ``hay, peppermint'' to 
``peppermint, hay.''
    4. Iprodione. EPA will not take action on iprodione tolerances at 
this time based on comments and additional submitted data. EPA will 
respond to comments about iprodione that were received during the 
public comment period and address iprodione tolerance actions in a 
future notice to be published in the Federal Register.
    5. Paraquat--comment by Syngenta Crop Protection. On September 9, 
2004, Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. requested that the Agency consider 
the inclusion of commodities from berries group 13 in its proposed 
revision of the small fruit group tolerance for paraquat into 
individual tolerances for cranberry and grape. Syngenta stated that 
berry data was submitted years ago and berry uses appear on active 
registrations for paraquat dichloride.
    Agency response. EPA proposed to revise the crop group tolerance 
for small fruit but inadvertently proposed to revise that group into 
individual tolerances only for cranberry and grape, and maintain these 
tolerances at 0.05 ppm. However, the old terminology of ``small fruit'' 
not only includes cranberry and grape, but also blackberry, blueberry, 
boysenberry, currant, dewberry, elderberry, gooseberry, huckleberry, 
loganberry, raspberry, strawberry, and youngberry. In 40 CFR 180.41, 
berry group 13 includes blackberry (blackberry includes boysenberry, 
dewberry, and youngberry), blueberry, currant, elderberry, gooseberry, 
huckleberry, loganberry, and raspberry. Consequently, revising small 
fruit into the individual tolerances for cranberry, grape, and 
strawberry, as well as maintaining a tolerance on berry group 13, would 
cover the commodity uses under the old terminology of small fruit. The 
Agency agrees with Syngenta that berry uses have active registrations. 
Some tolerance actions proposed for paraquat on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 
47051) have already been made final or revised to different tolerance 
levels in a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 
6, 2006 (71 FR 52487)(FRL-8089-3), where EPA established and revised 
certain tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 on paraquat in response to 
multiple petition requests by Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. In the 
final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA established 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 at 0.05 ppm on berry group 13, cranberry, 
and grape. A tolerance already existed on strawberry at 0.25 ppm. 
However, the tolerance on the obsolete commodity terminology ``fruit, 
small'' was inadvertently not revoked and currently remains as a 
duplicate tolerance that is no longer needed and should be revoked. 
Consequently, EPA is following up on the proposed rule of August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051), which included a proposal to remove the small fruit 
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) by proposing to revise that crop group 
tolerance (an obsolete nomenclature) into multiple tolerance 
definitions that would cover commodity uses previously associated with 
small fruit. Because multiple tolerances (berry group 13, cranberry, 
grape, and strawberry) have

[[Page 41919]]

been established to cover the small fruit uses, EPA is following-up by 
revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on fruit, small in this 
final rule.
    Other tolerance actions proposed on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051) 
have also been made final or revised to different tolerance levels. In 
the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA increased the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, 
horses, and sheep, each from 0.3 ppm to 0.5 ppm, which harmonize with 
Codex MRLs; hop, dried cones from 0.2 ppm to 0.5 ppm; sorghum, forage, 
forage and sorghum, grain, forage from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm; soybean, 
forage from 0.05 ppm to 0.4 ppm; decreased the tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.205(a) on ``beet, sugar, tops'' from 0.5 ppm to 0.05 ppm; and 
established tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) for soybean hay at 10.0 
ppm, soybean hulls at 4.5 ppm; and soybean seed at 0.7 ppm; fruit, 
pome, group 11 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.05 ppm; barley, 
straw at 1.0 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.5 ppm; and wheat, straw at 50.0 
ppm.
    In the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), the Agency 
inadvertently did not revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.205 at 0.05 ppm on apple and pear when it established the fruit, 
pome, group 11 tolerance at 0.05 ppm; the individual tolerances at 0.05 
ppm on apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, and plum, prune, fresh when 
it established the fruit, stone, group 12 tolerance at 0.05 ppm; and 
the individual tolerances at 0.05 ppm on broccoli, cabbage, Chinese 
cabbage, cauliflower, and collards when it established the vegetable, 
brassica, leafy, group 5 tolerance at 0.05 ppm. Also, in the Federal 
Register of December 6, 2006 (71 FR 70670) (FRL-8100-3), EPA corrected 
a typographical error in the codification section on page 52494 of the 
final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487) regarding the commodity 
terminology name ``fruit, stone, group 12.'' The notice of August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051) proposed to combine specific individual tolerances 
into their respective crop groups (including fruit, pome, group 11, 
fruit, stone, group 12, and vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5), with 
the effect of removing those specific individual tolerances since their 
uses were to be covered by the group tolerances. Because these group 
tolerances were established, their respective individual tolerances are 
no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is following-up on the proposed 
rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), which included proposals to 
combine specific existing tolerances into group tolerances for fruit, 
pome, group 11, fruit, stone, group 12, and vegetable, brassica, leafy, 
group 5; and thereby remove those individual tolerances. Because these 
group tolerances have been established, EPA is following-up by revoking 
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 on apple; pear; apricot; cherry; 
nectarine; peach; plum, prune, fresh; broccoli; cabbage; cabbage, 
chinese; cauliflower; and collards in this final rule. In addition, EPA 
is correcting the commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.205 for the group 
5 tolerance from vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5 to vegetable, 
brassica, leafy, group 5, which was the group name proposed on August 
4, 2004 (69 FR 47051).
    Also, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA 
inadvertently did not revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.205 at 5.0 ppm on alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and clover, when it 
established the animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage and animal 
feed, nongrass, group 18, hay tolerances at 75.0 ppm and 210.0 ppm, 
respectively. These individual tolerances are no longer needed. 
Consequently, EPA is following up on the proposed rule of August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051), which included proposals to increase the tolerances 
for alfalfa forage, birdsfoot trefoil forage, and clover forage from 
5.0 ppm to 75.0 ppm and combine them under the terminology animal feed, 
nongrass, group 18, forage and increase alfalfa hay, birdsfoot trefoil 
hay, and clover hay from 5.0 ppm to 210.0 ppm and combine them under 
the terminology animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay. Because these 
group tolerances have been established, EPA is following-up by revoking 
the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on alfalfa, birdsfoot 
trefoil, and clover.
    In addition, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), 
EPA inadvertently established a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205 on soybean, 
seed at 0.7 ppm, but should have revised the existing tolerance on 
soybean to soybean, seed (a nomenclature change that is current Agency 
practice) and increased it from 0.05 ppm to 0.7 ppm (based on a new use 
pattern in the petition) to avoid creating a duplicate tolerance. 
Consequently, there now exists a duplicate tolerance; i.e., soybean at 
0.05 ppm, which EPA proposed to increase in the rule of August 4, 2004 
(69 FR 47051). That duplicate tolerance is not needed since the use on 
soybean should be covered by the established soybean, seed tolerance at 
the appropriate level of 0.7 ppm. Further, section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not 
necessary ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the 
finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) 
that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Consequently, for 
good cause, while EPA is maintaining the tolerance on soybean, seed at 
0.7 ppm, the Agency is revoking the tolerance on soybean at 0.05 ppm in 
40 CFR 180.205(a). The reason for taking this action is because such 
action has no practical impact on the use of or exposure to the 
pesticide active ingredient, paraquat, in or on that commodity; i.e., 
the use is covered by the existing tolerance on soybean, seed at 0.7 
ppm, which the Agency considers to be at the appropriate level.
    Also, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA 
inadvertently did not revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.205 on bean, snap, succulent at 0.05 ppm, when it established the 
tolerance on vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 0.05 ppm; 
bean, lima, succulent and pea, succulent, both at 0.05 ppm, when it 
established the tolerance on pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 
6B at 0.05 ppm; and bean, dry, seed and pea, dry, seed, both at 0.3 
ppm, when it established the tolerance on pea and bean, dried shelled, 
except soybean, subgroup 6C, except guar bean. These established 
subgroup tolerances cover the uses of the aforementioned individual 
tolerances, which are no longer needed, and therefore, which should be 
revoked. In order to provide notice and comment, the Agency intends to 
address proposing the revocation of these individual tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.205 for bean, snap, succulent; bean, lima, succulent; pea, 
succulent; bean, dry, seed; and pea, dry, seed in a future publication 
in the Federal Register.
    Moreover, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA 
established a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205 on nut, tree, group 14 at 
0.05 ppm, but should have revised the existing tolerance at 0.05 ppm on 
nut to nut, tree, group 14 (a nomenclature change that is current 
Agency practice). Also, EPA established a tolerance on vegetable, 
cucurbit, group 9 at 0.05 ppm, but should have revised the existing 
tolerance at 0.05 ppm on cucurbits to vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 (a 
nomenclature change that is current Agency practice). Consequently, 
since the uses are covered by other tolerances, the duplicate 
tolerances on cucurbits and nut are no longer needed and should be 
revoked. In order to provide notice and comment, the Agency intends to 
address proposing the

[[Page 41920]]

revocation of the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on cucurbits and nut 
in a future publication in the Federal Register.
    Finally, in the final rule of September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), EPA 
established tolerances in 40 CFR 180.205 that were not proposed on 
August 4, 2006. These include barley hay; cotton, gin byproducts; 
ginger; grain, aspirated fractions; okra; and wheat hay; and increased 
the tolerances on cotton, undelinted seed, onion, dry bulb (and revised 
it to onion, bulb); and wheat grain.
    EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on ``mint, hay, 
spent'' because it is no longer recognized as a raw agricultural 
commodity, and therefore the tolerance is no longer needed. Also, EPA 
is removing the ``(N)'' designation from all entries to conform to 
current Agency administrative practice (``N'' designation means 
negligible residues), and revising the commodity terminology ``fruit, 
citrus'' to ``fruit, citrus, group 10;'' and redefining the commodity 
terminology for ``bean, forage'' to ``cowpea, forage'' and ``bean, 
hay'' to ``cowpea, hay.'' However, EPA will not revoke the tolerance on 
mint, hay in 40 CFR 180.205 because the Agency incorrectly based its 
revocation in the paraquat RED on mint hay no longer being a raw 
agricultural commodity. While ``mint hay'' is an obsolete commodity 
terminology, it should be revised to peppermint, tops and spearmint, 
tops, which EPA will address in a future publication in the Federal 
Register.
    Based on field trial data that indicate residues of paraquat as 
high as 90 ppm in or on rangeland grass forage (which should be revised 
to grass, forage) and 40 ppm in or on pasture grass hay (which should 
be revised to grass, hay), the Agency determined that the tolerances 
should be increased to 90 ppm for grass forage and 40 ppm for grass 
hay. Therefore, EPA is revising the commodity terminologies in 40 CFR 
180.205(a) for ``grass, pasture'' to ``grass, forage'' and increasing 
the tolerance from 5 ppm to 90.0 ppm; and ``grass, range'' to ``grass, 
hay'' and increasing the tolerance from 5 ppm to 40.0 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.
    Based on a reassessed pineapple tolerance of 0.05 ppm and pineapple 
processing data that indicate an average concentration factor of 4.5x 
in dried bran, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be 
established for pineapple process residue (a wet-waste byproduct from 
the fresh cut product line, which usually contains pineapple bran) at 
0.25 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.205(a) for ``pineapple, process residue'' at 0.25 ppm.
    Based on a reassessed sugarcane tolerance of 0.5 ppm and sugarcane 
processing data that indicate an average concentration factor of 5.5x 
in blackstrap molasses, the Agency determined that a tolerance should 
be established for sugarcane molasses at 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 
establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.205(a) for ``sugarcane, 
molasses'' at 3.0 ppm.
    On September 21, 2001 (66 FR 48593) (FRL-6799-2), EPA published a 
final rule in the Federal Register which in 40 CFR 180.205(a) 
established tolerances for ``corn, field, stover'' and ``corn, pop, 
stover'' at 10.0 ppm; ``corn, field, grain'' and ``corn, pop, grain'' 
at 0.1 ppm; and ``corn, field, forage'' at 3.0 ppm; based on proposed 
tolerances in petition 5F1625 submitted by Zeneca Ag. Products and to 
harmonize corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain with the Codex MRL of 
0.1 ppm for maize. In the September 2001 final rule, EPA also stated 
that in the food additive petition 5H5088, Zeneca had proposed a food 
additive tolerance for ``corn flour'' at 0.1 ppm which was subsequently 
withdrawn since EPA determined that the tolerance for corn, field, 
grain at 0.1 ppm is adequate to cover residues in corn flour.
    EPA is revising commodity terminologies in 40 CFR 180.205(a) from 
``corn, fresh (inc. sweet corn), kernel plus cob with husks removed'' 
to ``corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed;'' and ``guar 
bean'' to ``guar.''
    In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051)(FRL-7368-7), 
EPA stated that peanut hay is no longer considered to be a significant 
livestock feed commodity. In fact, peanut hay is considered by the 
Agency to be a significant livestock feed item as shown at https://
www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_
Guidelines/Series/ in the Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 
860.1000 Table 1. Therefore, the Agency will not revoke the tolerance 
but rather will maintain the tolerance level at 0.5 ppm in 40 CFR 
180.205, which is consistent with the paraquat RED.
    6. Propargite--comment by the PRC. After the public comment period 
extension had ended on October 18, 2004, EPA received comment from the 
PRC, forwarded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, on November 3, 2004. The PRC cited an 
evaluation from a Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) 
Evaluations of Pesticide Residues in Food for 2002, and stated that it 
recommends a maximum limit of 100.0 ppm for residues of propargite on 
dry hops and quoted a GAP data under U.S. supervision GAP (1.7 
kilograms active ingredient/hectare (kg ai/ha) to the growing crop at 
an interval of 14 days). Also, the PRC commented on the tolerance 
levels for residues of propargite on garlic and nut, tree, group.
    Agency response. Since the time of the proposed rule of August 4, 
2004 (69 FR 47051), the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted an MRL 
for propargite on hops, dry at 100.0 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The 
2002 JMPR report cites a GAP for the United States with an application 
rate as 1.8 kg ai/ha (about 1.6 lb active ingredient/acre (ai/A)) and 
states that the meeting recommends a new maximum propargite residue 
level for hops (dry) at 100.0 mg/kg (100.0 ppm). The JMPR report is 
available at the website address https://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/
PesticidJMPR/JMPRreports.htm.
    In the Federal Register on December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74802) (FRL-
8064-3), the Agency finalized tolerance nomenclature changes including 
a revision of ``hop, dried cone'' to ``hop, dried cones.'' Currently in 
40 CFR 180.259, there are tolerances for propargite on both hop at 15.0 
ppm and dried hops at 30.0 ppm. On August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), the 
Agency proposed no action on the existing tolerance level for 
propargite residues on hop, dried cones at 30.0 ppm, consistent with 
the propargite RED. On September 22, 1992, Uniroyal submitted a hops 
processing study for use of propargite treated hops in typical beer 
brewing operations. Field trials on hops had used a wettable powder 
formulation where the label calls for two applications of 1.5 lb ai/A 
per year. Residues in dried hops did not exceed the existing tolerance 
of 30.0 ppm following either two applications to hops at 0.9X (1.35 lb 
ai/A) or three applications at 1.5X (2.25 lb ai/A), both with a PHI of 
14 days. Hence, no change in the tolerance level for dried hops was 
recommended by the Agency in the propargite RED.
    Moreover, the beer processing study (MRID 42486301 Ball, J. (1992) 
Omite CR on Hops: Beer Processing Study: Lab Project Number: RP-90043: 
ML91-0271UNI: IR90-747. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal 
Chemical Company, Inc. 369 p.) used hops bearing measurable residues up 
to 22.5 ppm propargite on dried hop cones from

[[Page 41921]]

1.5X treated green hops and demonstrated that propargite residues were 
not detected in beer (<0.01 ppm). However, at the time of the 
propargite RED, Codex had a value of 30 mg/kg on dried hops. EPA agrees 
with the commenter that the 100 mg/kg MRL on dried hops for propargite, 
established by Codex, is appropriate based on the data reviewed by the 
2002 JMPR. However, because EPA did not propose any action on hops, 
dried cones in 40 CFR 180.259 for propargite on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 
47051), the Agency will not take action on that tolerance in this 
document. Therefore, EPA intends to propose increasing the tolerance on 
hop, dried cones to harmonize with the Codex MRL in a future 
publication in the Federal Register.
    Also, the tolerance definition of the raw agricultural commodity 
(RAC) for hops is dried cones (PR Notice 93-12; December 23, 1993). 
Therefore, because the RAC for hops is dried hops, whose use is covered 
by the existing tolerance at 30.0 ppm, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 
40 CFR 180.259(a) on hop at 15.0 ppm.
    Also, in response to the comment, there is no tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.259 for propargite on garlic. According to 40 CFR 180.1(g), on 
tolerance definitions, a tolerance on onions or onions (dry bulb only) 
would cover garlic; however, there is also no tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.259 for propargite on onion. In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 
(69 FR 47051), the Agency did not propose any action on the existing 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.259 for propargite residues on almond and 
walnut, whose U.S. tolerance levels of 0.1 ppm harmonize with the Codex 
MRLs of 0.1 mg/kg. The representative commodities for the tree nut 
group are almond and pecan. There is no pecan tolerance and no tree nut 
group tolerance for propargite. Both the almond and almond hulls 
tolerances were recommended in the propargite RED to be maintained at 
their current tolerance levels based on available data where treated 
almonds were harvested at 28 days, because a 28-day preharvest interval 
(PHI) is specified on active product labels.
    Based on available data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable 
expectation of finite residues of propargite in poultry meat and meat 
byproducts. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 
180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is revoking the commodity tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in or on ``poultry, meat'' 
and ``poultry, meat byproducts.'' Also, EPA is revoking the tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in or on ``citrus, 
dried pulp'' because residues do not concentrate in dried pulp based on 
a citrus processing study, and therefore the tolerance is no longer 
needed. In addition, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259 
for residues of propargite in or on ``peanut, hulls'' because it is no 
longer considered to be a significant livestock feed commodity and 
therefore the tolerance is no longer needed. The tolerance for peanut 
forage, which had been proposed for revocation, was removed on December 
13, 2006 (71 FR 74802) (FRL-8064-3), when EPA finalized certain 
tolerance nomenclature changes, including the revision of the tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.259 on peanut, forage to peanut, hay, which then became a 
duplicate tolerance (covered by an existing tolerance for peanut hay).
    Based on field trial data that indicate propargite residues as high 
as 8.3 ppm in or on oranges and 3.8 ppm in or on sorghum grain, the 
Agency determined that the tolerances should be increased to 10.0 ppm 
for oranges and decreased to 5.0 ppm for sorghum grain. Therefore, EPA 
is increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) on ``orange, sweet'' 
from 5 ppm to 10.0 ppm and revising the terminology to ``orange,'' and 
decreasing the tolerance on ``sorghum, grain'' from 10 ppm to 5.0 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.
    Based on HAFT residues of 4 ppm (residue range 1.6 ppm to 8.3 ppm) 
in oranges and available processing data showing an average 
concentration factor of 7.0x in orange oil, the Agency determined that 
a tolerance should be established for propargite on citrus oil at 30 
ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.259(a) 
for residues of propargite in ``citrus, oil'' at 30.0 ppm.
    Available processing data indicate that propargite residues do not 
concentrate in aspirated grain fractions of sorghum, but do concentrate 
in aspirated grain fractions of field corn as high as 0.35 ppm. The 
Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for aspirated 
grain fractions at 0.4 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for residues of propargite in or on ``grain, 
aspirated fractions'' at 0.4 ppm.
    In order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 
180.259(a), EPA is revising ``corn, forage'' to ``corn, field, forage'' 
and ``corn, sweet, forage;'' ``corn, grain'' to ``corn, field, grain'' 
and ``corn, pop, grain;'' ``mint'' to ``peppermint, tops'' and 
``spearmint, tops;'' and ``sorghum, forage'' to ``sorghum, grain, 
forage.''
    In the proposed rule of August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47051), EPA stated 
that peanut hay is no longer considered to be a significant livestock 
feed commodity. In fact, p