2,4-D, Bensulide, DCPA, Desmedipham, Dimethoate, Fenamiphos, Phorate, Sethoxydim, Terbufos, and Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed Tolerance Actions, 6867-6879 [E8-2094]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
implemented a CAA program to attain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time or
has participated in a compact. Thus
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comments on this proposed
rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
EAC program has provided cleaner air
sooner than required under the CAA to
these communities. The public is
invited to submit or identify peerreviewed studies and data, of which the
agency may not be aware, that assessed
results of early life exposure to ozone.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
This proposed rule does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any VCS. EPA
welcomes comments on this aspect of
the proposed rulemaking and
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629;
Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. The health and
environmental risks associated with
ozone were considered in the
establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 ppm
ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to
be protective with an adequate margin
of safety.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7410;
42 U.S.C. 7501–7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
Dated: January 31, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–2187 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6867
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674; FRL–8345–2]
2,4-D, Bensulide, DCPA,
Desmedipham, Dimethoate,
Fenamiphos, Phorate, Sethoxydim,
Terbufos, and Tetrachlorvinphos;
Proposed Tolerance Actions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke
certain tolerances for the herbicide
sethoxydim and the insecticides
dimethoate, fenamiphos, terbufos, and
tetrachlorvinphos. Also, EPA is
proposing to modify certain tolerances
for the herbicides 2,4-D, DCPA,
desmedipham, and sethoxydim and the
insecticides dimethoate, fenamiphos,
phorate, and tetrachlorvinphos. In
addition, EPA is proposing to establish
new tolerances for the herbicides
bensulide and sethoxydim. The
regulatory actions proposed in this
document are in follow-up to the
Agency’s reregistration program under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance
reassessment program under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
section 408(q).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 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.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–
0674. EPA’s policy is that all comments
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6868
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
received will be included in the docket
without change and may be made
available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket
and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
in regulations.gov. 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
website to view the docket index or
access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either 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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code
111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
Unit II.A. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency
to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency
Proposes to Revoke?
This proposed rule provides a
comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining
a tolerance proposed for revocation. If
EPA receives a comment within the 60–
day period to that effect, EPA will not
proceed to revoke the tolerance
immediately. However, EPA will take
steps to ensure the submission of any
needed supporting data and will issue
an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The
order would specify data needed and
the timeframes for its submission, and
would require that within 90 days some
person or persons notify EPA that they
will submit the data. If the data are not
submitted as required in the order, EPA
will take appropriate action under
FFDCA.
EPA issues a final rule after
considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed
rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal,
you may also submit an objection at the
time of the final rule. If you fail to file
an objection to the final rule within the
time period specified, you will have
waived the right to raise any issues
resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
final rule cannot be raised again in any
subsequent proceedings.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA is proposing to revoke, modify,
and establish specific tolerances for
residues of the herbicides 2,4-D,
bensulide, DCPA, desmedipham, and
sethoxydim and the insecticides
fenamiphos, phorate, dimethoate,
terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos in or on
commodities listed in the regulatory
text.
EPA is proposing these tolerance
actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the
reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including
follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these
processes, EPA is required to determine
whether each of the amended tolerances
meets the safety standard of 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, 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 number: 1–
800–490–9198; fax number: 1–513–489–
8695; Internet at https://www.epa.gov/
ncepihom and from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA
22161; telephone number: 1–800–553–
6847 or (703) 605–6000; Internet at
https://www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of
REDs, TREDs, and IREDs are available
on the Internet at https://www. epa.gov/
pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
The selection of an individual
tolerance level is based on crop field
residue studies designed to produce the
maximum residues under the existing or
proposed product label. Generally, the
level selected for a tolerance is a value
slightly above the maximum residue
found in such studies, provided that the
tolerance is safe. The evaluation of
whether a tolerance is safe is a separate
inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of
a tolerance when data show that:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
1. Lawful use (sometimes through a
label change) may result in a higher
residue level on the commodity.
2. The tolerance remains safe,
notwithstanding increased residue level
allowed under the tolerance.
In REDs, Chapter IV on ‘‘Risk
management, Reregistration, and
Tolerance Reassessment’’ typically
describes the regulatory position, FQPA
assessment, cumulative safety
determination, determination of safety
for U.S. general population, and safety
for infants and children. In particular,
the human health risk assessment
document which supports the RED
describes risk exposure estimates and
whether the Agency has concerns. In
TREDs, the Agency discusses its
evaluation of the dietary risk associated
with the active ingredient and whether
it can determine that there is a
reasonable certainty (with appropriate
mitigation) that no harm to any
population subgroup will result from
aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to
harmonize tolerances with international
standards set by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, as described in Unit III.
Explanations for proposed
modifications in tolerances can be
found in the RED and TRED document
and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which
supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter
documents are found in the
Administrative Record electronically.
Electronic copies are available through
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, regulations.gov at
https://www.regulations.gov. You may
search for docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0674 and/or 2,4-D (EPA–
HQ–OPP–2004–0167), Bensulide (EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0674 and EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0151), DCPA (EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0097), Desmedipham (EPA–
HQ–OPP–2004–0261), Dimethoate
(EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0084),
Fenamiphos (EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674
and EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0151), Phorate
(EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 and EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0151), Sethoxydim
(EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0323), Terbufos
(EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 and EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0151), and
Tetrachlorvinphos (EPA–HQ–OPP–
2007–0674 and EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–
0151) then click on that docket ID
number to view its contents.
EPA has determined that the aggregate
exposures and risks are not of concern
for the above-mentioned pesticide active
ingredients based upon the data
identified in the RED or TRED which
lists the submitted studies that the
Agency found acceptable.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6869
EPA has found that the tolerances that
are proposed in this document to be
modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residues, in accordance with
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that
changes to tolerance nomenclature do
not constitute modifications of
tolerances). These findings are
discussed in detail in each RED or
TRED. The references are available for
inspection as described in this
document under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
revoke certain specific tolerances
because either they are no longer
needed or are associated with food uses
that are no longer registered under
FIFRA. Those instances where
registrations were canceled were
because the registrant failed to pay the
required maintenance fee and/or the
registrant voluntarily requested
cancellation of one or more registered
uses of the pesticide. It is EPA’s general
practice to propose revocation of those
tolerances for residues of pesticide
active ingredients on crop uses for
which there are no active registrations
under FIFRA, unless any person in
comments on the proposal indicates a
need for the tolerance to cover residues
in or on imported commodities or
legally treated domestic commodities.
1. 2,4-D. In the Federal Register
notices published on June 6, 2007 (72
FR 31221) (FRL–8122–7) and September
12, 2007 (72 FR 52013) (FRL–8142–2),
the Agency determined in error that the
tolerances in/on grapes, stone fruits, and
pome fruits should be decreased to 0.1
ppm rather than 0.05 ppm. In that same
proposal, the tolerance for strawberries
was increased to 0.1 ppm in error,
when, in fact, it should have remained
unchanged at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA
proposes correcting the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.142(a) for the combined 2,4-D
residues of concern in/on grape from 0.1
to 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 from
0.1 to 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome group 11
from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm, and strawberry
from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm.
2. Bensulide. In order to account for
the instability of bensulide in/on
cucurbits and leafy vegetables as
evidenced in a non-concurrent storage
stability study, the Agency has
determined the tolerances should be
increased from 0.1 to 0.15 ppm in/on
vegetable, cucurbit group 9 and
vegetable, leafy, except brassica group 4.
The Agency is also revising commodity
terminology to conform to current
practice including removing the
negligible residue designation (N)
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6870
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
associated with the tolerances.
Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and
revising the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.241(a) for the combined bensulide
residues of concern in/on cucurbits at
0.10 (N) ppm to vegetable, cucurbit
group 9 at 0.15; and vegetable, leafy at
0.1 (N) ppm to vegetable, leafy, except
brassica group 4 at 0.15 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.
Because the use of bensulide is
limited to Texas, the Agency has
determined that the carrot tolerance
should be a regional tolerance.
Therefore, EPA proposes transferring
the carrot, root at 0.1 ppm tolerance in
40 CFR 180.241(a) to 40 CFR 180.241(c).
Based on available field trial data that
indicate bensulide residues of concern
are less than 0.15 ppm in/on the
representative commodities (broccoli,
cabbage, and Brussels sprouts) of the
vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5, the
Agency determined that the tolerance
should be established for vegetable,
brassica, leafy group 5 at 0.15 ppm.
Therefore, EPA proposes establishing a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.241(a) for
combined bensulide residues of concern
in/on vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5
at 0.15 ppm.
The Agency is revising commodity
terminology to conform to current
practice. Therefore, EPA proposes
revising the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.241 from onion, dry bulb to onion,
bulb; and vegetable, fruiting to
vegetable, fruiting, group 8.
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs
(maximum residue levels) in place for
bensulide.
3. DCPA. In the Federal Register
proposal and final rule published on
June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL–8122–
7), and September 12, 2007 (72 FR
52013) (FRL–8142–2), the permanent
tolerance on vegetable, brassica, leafy,
group 5 at 5 ppm was transferred to
inadvertent tolerance because there
were no uses on brassica vegetables.
Since then, it has been determined that
there are direct uses of DCPA on
brassica vegetables and a permanent
tolerance in/on vegetable, brassica,
leafy, group 5 at 5 ppm is appropriate.
Therefore, EPA proposes transferring
the tolerance vegetable, brassica, leafy,
group 5 at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.185(d)
to 40 CFR 180.185(a) for the combined
residues of the herbicide DCPA and its
metabolites MTP and TCP (calculated as
DCPA).
4. Desmedipham. Based on field trial
data received subsequent to the TRED
that indicate residues of desmedipham
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
as high as 0.05 ppm in/on sugar beet
roots and an average of 1.38 ppm
(standard deviation 2.88 ppm) in/on
sugar beet tops, the Agency determined
that the tolerance should be decreased
from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in/on sugar
beet roots and increased from 0.2 ppm
to 5.0 ppm in/on sugar beet tops.
Therefore, EPA proposes revising the
tolerance on sugar beet (roots and tops)
from 0.2 ppm to sugar, beet, roots at 0.1
ppm and sugar, beet, tops at 5.0 ppm in
40 CFR 180.353(a) for residues of the
herbicide desmedipham (ethyl-mhydroxycarbanilate carbanilate). 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.
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs
in place for desmedipham.
5. Dimethoate. The uses on apples,
cabbage, collards, head lettuce, spinach,
and grapes were canceled due to
revisions of the human health risk
assessment for tolerance reassessment as
published in Federal Register Notices
dated Sept 10, 2003 (69 FR 53371)
(FRL–7321–2), January 28, 2004 (69 FR
4135) (FRL–7340–1), and May 12, 2004
(69 FR 26384) (FRL–7354–3). Although
the use on head lettuce has been
canceled, the use on leaf lettuce
remains. There are no active
registrations with the use on
blueberries; however, the blueberry
tolerance is for the purpose of imports
and for this reason will not be revoked.
Lentils are covered by the existing pea,
dry tolerance in accordance with 40
CFR 180.1(g). Therefore, EPA proposes
revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate
residues of concern in/on apple at 2
ppm; cabbage at 2 ppm; collards at 2
ppm; grape at 1 ppm; lentil, seed at 2
ppm; and spinach at 2 ppm; and revise
lettuce to lettuce, leaf.
Based on field trial residue data
serving as the basis of the tolerance on
potatoes at 0.2 ppm and translating
those data to turnip roots, the Agency
has determined that the tolerance in/on
turnip roots should be decreased to 0.2
ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes
decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate
residues of concern in/on turnip, roots
from 2 ppm to 0.2 ppm.
Based on available field trial data that
indicate dimethoate residues of concern
less than 0.1 ppm in/on sorghum grain
and forage, the Agency determined that
the tolerance should be decreased to 0.1
ppm in/on sorghum, grain, forage and a
tolerance should be established for
sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm. EPA
is also revising the commodity
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
terminology to conform to current
Agency practice. Therefore, EPA
proposes decreasing and revising the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for the
combined dimethoate residues of
concern from sorghum, forage at 0.2
ppm to sorghum, grain, forage at 0.1
ppm and establishing a tolerance on
sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm.
EPA is revising the commodity
terminology to conform to current
Agency practice. Also, when the
tolerance reassessment was conducted
for reregistration on dimethoate, the
tolerance on ‘‘wheat, green fodder’’
existed. The correct terminology for
‘‘wheat, green fodder’’ is ‘‘wheat, hay’’
and ‘‘wheat, forage.’’ Recently, 40 CFR
180.204 has been revised to align
commodity terminology to current
standards. At that time, the ‘‘wheat,
green fodder’’ tolerance was revised to
‘‘wheat, hay’’ and the tolerance for
‘‘wheat, forage’’ was inadvertently
omitted; therefore, the wheat, forage
tolerance should be established. Lastly,
the Agency is correcting the reference to
180.1(n) to 180.1(m) in 40 CFR
180.204(c). Therefore, EPA proposes
revising the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate
residues of concern in/on alfalfa to
alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay; from
corn, forage to corn, field, forage and
corn, sweet, forage; corn, grain to corn,
field, grain and corn, pop, grain; corn,
stover to corn, field, stover and corn,
pop, stover; sorghum, grain to sorghum,
grain, grain; soybean to soybean, seed;
and turnip, greens to turnip, tops;
proposes establishing a tolerance in/on
wheat, forage at 2.0 ppm and proposes
revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204(c)
from cherry to cherry, sweet and cherry,
tart and revising the reference of
180.1(n) to 180.1(m).
The Codex Alimentarius Commission
has established separate maximum
residue limits (MRLs) for dimethoate
per se and omethoate per se in/on
various commodities resulting from
application of the insecticides
dimethoate, formothion, and omethoate.
By contrast, the U.S. tolerance
expression is in terms of the combined
residues of dimethoate and omethoate,
as a metabolite. Formothion and
omethoate are not currently registered
for use in the U.S. Therefore, the Codex
MRLs and U.S. tolerances are not
harmonized with respect to MRL/
tolerance expression.
6. Fenamiphos. Based on the available
field trial data that indicate fenamiphos
residues of concern are up to 1.0 ppm
in/on peanuts, the Agency determined
that the tolerance should be increased to
1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes
increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of
concern in/on peanut from 0.02 ppm to
1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that
the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result form aggregate exposure to
the pesticide chemical residue.
Based on the available field trial data
that indicate fenamiphos residues of
concern are less than 0.05 ppm in/on
eggplant and Brussels sprouts, the
Agency determined that the tolerances
should be decreased to 0.05 ppm. The
Agency is also decreasing the Brussels
sprouts tolerance to harmonize with
Codex. Therefore, EPA proposes
decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of
concern in/on eggplant from 0.10 ppm
to 0.05 ppm and Brussels sprouts from
0.10 ppm to 0.05 ppm.
Pineapple bran is no longer regulated
as a commodity in accordance with
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; consequently,
the Agency has determined that a
pineapple bran tolerance is no longer
needed. There are no active registrations
for the use of fenamiphos on cotton,
consequently the Agency has
determined the cotton undelinted seed
tolerance should be revoked. Therefore,
EPA proposes removing the tolerance
in/on pineapple, bran and revoking the
tolerance in/on cotton, undelinted seed
in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos
residues of concern.
There are currently individual
tolerances for grapefruit, lemon, lime,
orange, and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm.
Because there are established tolerances
for the representative commodities for
the fruit, citrus, group 10 and the use
patterns on these commodities are the
same, the Agency determined that the
individual tolerances should be
replaced with the fruit, citrus, group 10
tolerance. Further, in order to
harmonize with the Codex MRLs, the
Agency has determined the tolerances
associated with these commodities
should be decreased from 0.60 to 0.50
ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes removing
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1)
for fenamiphos residues of concern in/
on grapefruit; lemon; lime; orange,
sweet; and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm
and establishing a tolerance for fruit,
citrus, group 10 at 0.50 ppm.
Based on revisions of the OPPTS
Harmonized Test Guidelines--Series 860
Residue Chemistry Guidelines (August
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
1996) Table 1 available at https://
www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/
OPPTS Harmonized/860 Residue
Chemistry Test Guidelines/Series
eliminating several animal feed items
used to estimate secondary residues in
livestock commodities, the Agency
determined there is no expectation of
finite residues in animal commodities in
accordance with Category 40 CFR
180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA proposes
revoking all of the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.349(a)(2) for fenamiphos residues of
concern in 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 each at 0.05 ppm;
remove 40 CFR 180.349(a)(2); and
designate 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) as 40
CFR 180.349(a).
The Agency is revising commodity
terminology to correspond to current
Agency practice. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising tolerances in 40 CFR
180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of
concern in/on grape, raisins to grape,
raisin and cherry to cherry, sweet and
cherry, tart.
In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of
FIFRA, the Agency issued a cancellation
order published on December 10, 2003
(68 FR 68901) (FRL–7332–5). The order
reflects the voluntary cancellations
submitted by Bayer CropScience for
product registrations containing
fenamiphos effective May 31, 2007. The
order requires the registrant to cease
sale/distribution of products (by persons
other that Bayer CropScience)
containing fenamiphos by May 31, 2008.
Bayer CropScience anticipates that
commodities treated with fenamiphos
may continue to be imported into the
U.S. after the final effective dates and
therefore supports import tolerances for
banana; fruit, citrus, group 10; garlic;
grape; and pineapple. In order to permit
the use of existing stocks of products to
clear the channels of trade and for
tolerances to cover subsequent
fenamiphos residues of concern on
commodities, the Agency determined
the tolerances should expire on
December 31, 2009 except for those
tolerances for import commodities
(banana; fruit, citrus, group 10; citrus,
dried pulp; citrus, oil; garlic; grape; and
pineapple). The tolerances for banana;
fruit, citrus, group 10; garlic; grape; and
pineapple will not have a U.S.
registration as of December 31, 2009,
and will be designated as such by a
footnote. Therefore, EPA proposes
establishing an expiration/revocation
date of December 31, 2009, on
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349 for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6871
fenamiphos residues of concern in/on
apple; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cherry,
sweet; cherry, tart; eggplant; okra;
peach; peanut; raspberry; strawberry;
asparagus; beet, garden, roots; beet,
garden, tops; Bok choy; kiwifruit; and
pepper, nonbell and add the footnote ‘‘1
There are no U.S. registrations as of
December 31, 2009.’’
7. Phorate. Based on available field
trial data that indicate phorate residues
of concern do not exceed 0.05 ppm in
or on beans, field and sweet corn;
sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane,
cane; the Agency determined that the
tolerance should be decreased to 0.05
ppm in/on field and sweet corn,
sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane,
cane. Based on available field trial data
that indicate phorate residues of
concern do not exceed 0.2 ppm in/on
potato and in order to harmonize with
CODEX, the Agency has determined the
tolerance should be decreased to 0.2
ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes
decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.206(a) for phorate residues of
concern in/on bean; corn, sweet, kernel
plus cob with husks removed; corn,
grain; sorghum, grain; soybean; and
sugarcane, cane from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm;
and potato from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm.
Based on available field trial data that
indicate phorate residues of concern are
up to 2.0 ppm in or on hops, the Agency
determined that the tolerance should be
increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to increase the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.206(a) for phorate residues
of concern in/on hop from 0.5 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 current tolerances in 40 CFR
180.206 are expressed in terms of
phorate and its cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolites. The Agency has
determined that the tolerance
expression should be revised to
harmonize with CODEX by regulating
phorate, phorate sulfoxide, phorate
sulfone, phorate oxygen analog, phorate
oxygen analog sulfoxide, and the
phorate oxygen analog sulfone,
specifically. Therefore, EPA proposes
revising the tolerance expression in 40
CFR 180.206(a) to regulate the combined
residues of the insecticide phorate (O,Odiethyl S[(ethylthio)
methyl]phosphorodithioate), phorate
sulfoxide, phorate sulfone, phorate
oxygen analog, phorate oxygen analog
sulfoxide, and phorate oxygen analog
sulfone.
When the tolerance reassessment was
conducted for reregistration on phorate,
the tolerance on ‘‘wheat, green fodder’’
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6872
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
existed. The correct terminology for
‘‘wheat, green fodder’’ is ‘‘wheat, hay’’
and ‘‘wheat, forage.’’ Recently, 40 CFR
part 180 has been revised to align
commodity terminology to current
standards. At that time, the ‘‘wheat,
green fodder’’ tolerance was revised to
‘‘wheat, hay’’ and the tolerance for
‘‘wheat, forage’’ was inadvertently
omitted. Therefore, the Agency has
determined a tolerance in/on wheat,
forage at 1.5 ppm should be established.
Therefore, EPA proposes establishing a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for the
combined residues of phorate and its
cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in/
on wheat, forage at 1.5 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.
EPA is revising commodity
terminology to conform to current
Agency practice. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.206(a) for the combined
residues of phorate and its
cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites
from bean to bean, dry, seed and bean,
succulent; coffee, bean, green to coffee,
green bean; corn, forage to corn, field,
forage and corn, sweet, forage; corn,
grain to corn, field, grain; hop to hop,
dried cones; sorghum, grain to sorghum,
grain, grain; and soybean to soybean,
seed; and revise the footnote to ‘‘There
are no U.S. registrations as of September
1, 1993, for the use of phorate on the
growing crop, coffee.’’
The proposed tolerance actions herein
for phorate, to implement the
recommendations of the phorate IRED,
reflect use patterns in the U.S. which
support a different tolerance than the
Codex level on beans, beets, coffee
beans, because of differences in good
agricultural practices. However,
compatibility currently exists between
U.S. tolerances and Codex MRLs for
cottonseed and will exist (upon
completion of this action) for phorate
residues in or on potato, sorghum grain,
soybean seed, field and sweet corn/
maize.
8. Sethoxydim. Based on available
field trial data that indicate residues of
sethoxydim as high as 50.7 ppm in or
on clover hay and 2.2 ppm in/on
cranberry, the Agency determined that
the tolerance should be increased to 55
ppm in/on clover, hay and 2.5 ppm in/
on cranberry. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to increase the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.412 for sethoxydim residues
of concern in/on clover, hay from 50 to
55 ppm and cranberry from 2.0 to 2.5
ppm. The Agency determined that the
increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to
the pesticide chemical residue.
EPA is revising commodity
terminology to conform to current
Agency practice. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.412(a) for sethoxydim residues
of concern in/on bean, forage to cowpea,
forage; bean, hay to cowpea, hay;
canola/rapeseed to rapeseed, seed and
canola, seed; canola/rapeseed, meal to
rapeseed, meal and canola, meal;
coriander to coriander, leaves; corn,
fodder to corn, field, fodder; corn, forage
to corn, field, stover; fruit, citrus to fruit,
citrus, group 10; fruit, pome to fruit,
pome, group 11; peppermint, tops
(stems and leaves) to peppermint, tops;
potato flakes and potato granules to
potato granules/flakes; potato waste,
processed (wet and dry) to potato waste,
processed; safflower to safflower, seed;
soybean to soybean, seed; spearmint,
tops (stems and leaves) to spearmint,
tops; turnip, greens to turnip, tops; and
vegetable, fruiting to vegetable, fruiting,
group 8.
As part of improving sethoxydim
tolerance harmonization between the
U.S. and Canada, the Agency has
reexamined the residue data and
tolerance levels for bean, dry, seed at 20
ppm; lentil, seed at 30 ppm; and pea,
dry, seed 40 ppm. Using the tolerance/
MRL calculator developed under the
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the dry peas, lentil, and
dry bean field trial data which reflect
similar use patterns, the Agency has
determined the tolerances on the dry
pea, lentil seed, and dry bean
commodities can be revised to the pea
and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C at 25 ppm, which covers
these commodities. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.412(a) for sethoxydim residues
of concern from bean, dry seed at 20
ppm; lentil, seed at 30 ppm; and pea,
dry, seed at 40 ppm to pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C at 25 ppm.
Because apple dry pomace, citrus
molasses, cotton seed soapstock, flax
straw, peanut soapstock, tomato
concentrated products, and tomato dry
pomace are no longer recognized as raw
agricultural commodities and are no
longer considered to be significant food/
feed items, the associated tolerances are
no longer needed. The tolerance for flax
seed currently covers the commodity
flax, meal, therefore the flax, meal
tolerance is no longer needed.
Therefore, EPA is removing the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.412(a) in/on
apple, dry pomace at 0.8 ppm; citrus,
molasses at 1.5 ppm; cotton, seed,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
soapstock at 15 ppm; flax, straw at 2.0
ppm; flax, meal at 7 ppm; peanut,
soapstock at 75.0 ppm; tomato,
concentrated products at 24 ppm; and
tomato, dry pomace at 12.0 ppm.
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs
in place for sethoxydim.
9. Terbufos. The current tolerance
expression in 40 CFR 180.352 regulates
the insecticide terbufos (S-[[1,1dimethyl)thio]methyl]O,O-diethyl
phosphorodithioate) and its
cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites.
The Agency has determined that the
chemical name for terbufos should be
corrected and the tolerance expression
should be more specific for the five
phosphorylated (cholinesteraseinhibiting) metabolites. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising the tolerance
expression in 40 CFR 180.352(a) to
regulate the combined residues of the
insecticide terbufos (phosphorodithioic
acid, S-(t-butylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl
ester) and its phosphorylated
(cholinesterase-inhibiting) metabolites
(phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
and phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester).
The Agency has determined that the
coffee bean, green tolerance should be
established for import purposes. The
Agency is also revising the section to
conform to current standards and
configurations. Therefore, EPA proposes
transferring the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.352(b) for the combined residues of
terbufos and its cholinesteraseinhibiting metabolites in/on coffee bean,
green at 0.05 ppm to 40 CFR 180.352(a);
redesignate 40 CFR 180.352(b) as
Section 18 emergency exemptions–
reserved; establish 40 CFR 180.352(c) as
tolerances with regional registrations–
reserved and establish 40 CFR
180.352(d) as indirect or inadvertent
residues – reserved.
EPA is revising commodity
terminology to conform to current
Agency practice and removing ‘‘(N)’’negligible residue designation
associated with some of the tolerances
because the term is no longer
applicable. Because tolerances on corn,
pop, forage and corn, pop, stover refer
to the same commodity (i.e. duplicative)
and because corn, pop, stover is the
most current terminology, the Agency
has determined the tolerance on corn,
pop, forage should be removed.
Therefore, EPA proposes revising the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.352(a) for the
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
combined residues of terbufos and its
cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites
from corn, grain to corn, field, grain and
corn, pop, grain; sorghum, forage to
sorghum, grain, forage; and sorghum,
grain to sorghum, grain, grain and
removing corn, pop, forage.
The proposed tolerance actions herein
for terbufos, to implement the
recommendations of the terbufos RED,
reflect different method levels of
detection (LOD) where the LOD under
the CODEX system is 0.01 ppm and the
LOD under the U.S. system is 0.05 ppm
which result in differing Codex levels
on banana, corn/maize, popcorn, sugar
beets, and sweet corn than the U.S.
tolerances. Other differences in MRLs
and tolerances between CODEX and the
U.S. exist for cereal grain straw, fodder
and stover because some are measured
on a dry weight basis versus a wet
weight basis. Lastly, the CODEX levels
have changed since the tolerance
reassessment such that, currently none
of the U.S. tolerances and CODEX
tolerances are harmonized.
10. Tetrachlorvinphos. Currently, the
residue of concern in 40 CFR
180.252(a)(1) is tetrachlorvinphos (2chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl
dimethyl phosphate). The chemical
name of tetrachlorvinphos as specified
in 40 CFR 180.252 should be replaced
with the CAS chemical name: (Z)-2chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl
dimethyl phosphate. The Agency has
also determined that the metabolites, 1(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and
conjugated forms), 2,4,5trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol are also of
toxicological concern and should be
regulated. Therefore, EPA proposes
revising the tolerance expression in 40
CFR 180.252(a)(1) to regulate the
residues of the insecticide
tetrachlorvinphos ((Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl
phosphate) and its metabolites, 1-(2,4,5trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and
conjugated forms), 2,4,5trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol.
Currently, EPA has insufficient data
to establish permanent tolerances for
milk, cattle, hog and poultry
commodities; however, EPA has been
able to estimate tolerances for these
livestock commodities using existing
animal metabolism data on an interim
basis of 18 months to permit time for the
submission of additional data to support
permanent tolerances. The tolerances
are also being revised to address the
additional tetrachlorvinphos
metabolites of concern. Based on the
metabolism data which indicate the
tetrachlorvinphos residues of concern as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
high as 0.18 ppm in/on cattle and hog
fat; 0.50 ppm in/on cattle and hog
kidney; 0.38 ppm in/on cattle and hog
liver; 1.86 ppm in/on cattle and hog
meat; 0.50 ppm in/on cattle and hog
meat byproducts except kidney and
liver; 0.02 ppm in milk; 0.19 ppm in/on
eggs; 6.1 ppm in/on poultry fat; 2.32
ppm in/on poultry meat; 1.27 ppm in/
on poultry liver and 1.27 ppm in/on
meat byproducts except liver, the
Agency determined that interim
tolerances should be established for 18
months at the decreased levels of 0.2
ppm (of which no more than 0.1 ppm
is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle
and hog fat; and 0.05 ppm (of which no
more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on milk, fat.
The Agency also determined that
interim tolerances should be established
for 18 months at 1.0 ppm (of which no
more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle
and hog kidney; 0.5 ppm (of which no
more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle
and hog liver; 2.0 ppm (of which no
more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) cattle and hog meat; 1.0 ppm in/
on cattle and hog meat byproducts
except liver and kidney; 3.0 ppm (of
which no more than 3.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on poultry
meat; 2.0 ppm (of which no more than
0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
in/on poultry liver; and 2.0 ppm in/on
poultry meat byproducts except liver.
The Agency determined that interim
tolerances should be established for 18
months at the increased level of 0.2 ppm
(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on eggs;
and 7.0 ppm (of which no more than 7.0
ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on
poultry fat. Therefore, EPA proposes
revising and establishing 18–month
time-limited tolerances in newly
proposed 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for
residues of the insecticide
tetrachlorvinphos and its metabolites
in/on cattle, fat and hog, fat from 1.5
ppm to 0.2 ppm (of which no more than
0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se);
cattle, kidney and hog, kidney at 1.0
ppm (of which no more than 0.05 ppm
is tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, liver
and hog, liver at 0.5 ppm (of which no
more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, meat
and hog, meat at 2.0 ppm (of which no
more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se); cattle, meat byproducts except
kidney and liver and hog, meat
byproducts except kidney and liver at
1.0 ppm; milk, fat at 0.05 ppm reflecting
negligible residues in whole milk (of
which no more than 0.05 ppm is
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6873
tetrachlorvinphos per se); eggs from 0.1
to 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.05
ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se);
poultry, fat from 0.7 to 7.0 ppm (of
which no more than 7.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); poultry, meat
at 3.0 ppm (of which no more than 3.0
ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se);
poultry, liver at 2.0 ppm (of which no
more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); and poultry,
meat byproducts except liver at 2.0 ppm
all of which expire on [18 months from
the date of final publication]. 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.
Because the Agency is taking action to
establish the time-limited tolerances in/
on cattle, hog and poultry commodities
(above), the Agency has determined that
the exception that permits ‘‘the safe use
of tetrachlorvinphos as an additive to
beef cattle, dairy cattle, horse and swine
feed at the rates of 0.00015 lb per 100
lb body weight per day for cattle and
horses, and 0.00011 lb per 100 lb body
weight per day for swine’’ is no longer
necessary. In addition, any uses of
tetrachlorvinphos in/on horses destined
for slaughter are prohibited. Therefore,
EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for residues of the
insecticide tetrachlorvinphos in/on goat,
fat at 0.5 ppm; horse, fat at 0.5 ppm;
removing 40 CFR 180.252(a)(2); and
changing the designation of 40 CFR
180.252(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.252(a).
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs
in place for tetrachlorvinphos.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the
maximum level for residues of pesticide
chemicals legally allowed in or on raw
agricultural commodities and processed
foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, as amended by FQPA of 1996,
Public Law 104–170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and
revocation of tolerances for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on raw
agricultural commodities and processed
foods. Without a tolerance or
exemption, food containing pesticide
residues is considered to be unsafe and
therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under section
402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such
food may not be distributed in interstate
commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a fooduse pesticide to be sold and distributed,
the pesticide must not only have
appropriate tolerances under the
FFDCA, but also must be registered
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6874
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
Food-use pesticides not registered in the
United States must have tolerances in
order for commodities treated with
those pesticides to be imported into the
United States.
EPA is proposing these tolerance
actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the
reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including
follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these
processes, EPA is required to determine
whether each of the amended tolerances
meets the safety standard of FQPA. The
safety finding determination is
discussed in detail in each post-FQPA
RED and TRED for the active ingredient.
REDs and TREDs recommend the
implementation of certain tolerance
actions, including modifications to
reflect current use patterns, to meet
safety findings, and change commodity
names and groupings in accordance
with new EPA policy. Printed and
electronic copies of the REDs and
TREDs are available as provided in Unit
II.A.
EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs (and
Interim REDs) for 2,4-D, bensulide,
DCPA, desmedipham, dimethoate,
fenamiphos, phorate, sethoxydim,
terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos, whose
REDs were completed prior to FQPA.
Also, EPA issued a RED prior to FQPA
for tetrachlorvinphos and made a safety
finding which reassessed its tolerances
according to the FFDCA standard,
maintaining them when new tolerances
were established as noted in Unit II.A.
REDs and TREDs contain the Agency’s
evaluation of the database for these
pesticides, including requirements for
additional data on the active ingredients
to confirm the potential human health
and environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses,
and in REDs state conditions under
which these uses and products will be
eligible for reregistration. The REDs and
TREDs recommended the establishment,
modification, and/or revocation of
specific tolerances. RED and TRED
recommendations such as establishing
or modifying tolerances, and in some
cases revoking tolerances, are the result
of assessment under the FFDCA
standard of ‘‘reasonable certainty of no
harm.’’ However, tolerance revocations
recommended in REDs and TREDs that
are proposed in this document do not
need such assessment when the
tolerances are no longer necessary.
EPA’s general practice is to propose
revocation of tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crops for
which FIFRA registrations no longer
exist and on which the pesticide may
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
therefore no longer be used in the
United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances
that are not necessary to cover residues
in or on legally treated foods may
encourage misuse of pesticides within
the United States. Nonetheless, EPA
will establish and maintain tolerances
even when corresponding domestic uses
are canceled if the tolerances, which
EPA refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ are
necessary to allow importation into the
United States of food containing such
pesticide residues. However, where
there are no imported commodities that
require these import tolerances, the
Agency believes it is appropriate to
revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential
misuse.
Furthermore, as a general matter, the
Agency believes that retention of import
tolerances not needed to cover any
imported food may result in
unnecessary restriction on trade of
pesticides and foods. Under section 408
of FFDCA, a tolerance may only be
established or maintained if EPA
determines that the tolerance is safe
based on a number of factors, including
an assessment of the aggregate exposure
to the pesticide and an assessment of
the cumulative effects of such pesticide
and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity. In
doing so, EPA must consider potential
contributions to such exposure from all
tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such
that the tolerances in aggregate are not
safe, then every one of these tolerances
is potentially vulnerable to revocation.
Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are
included in the aggregate and
cumulative risk assessments, the
estimated exposure to the pesticide
would be inflated. Consequently, it may
be more difficult for others to obtain
needed tolerances or to register needed
new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to
revoke tolerances for residues on crops
for uses for which FIFRA registrations
no longer exist, unless someone
expresses a need for such tolerances.
Through this proposed rule, the Agency
is inviting individuals who need these
import tolerances to identify themselves
and the tolerances that are needed to
cover imported commodities.
Parties interested in retention of the
tolerances should be aware that
additional data may be needed to
support retention. These parties should
be aware that, under FFDCA section
408(f), if the Agency determines that
additional information is reasonably
required to support the continuation of
a tolerance, EPA may require that
parties interested in maintaining the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information
is not submitted, EPA may issue an
order revoking the tolerance at issue.
When EPA establishes tolerances for
pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, consideration
must be given to the possible residues
of those chemicals in meat, milk,
poultry, and/or eggs produced by
animals that are fed agricultural
products (for example, grain or hay)
containing pesticides residues (40 CFR
180.6). When considering this
possibility, EPA can conclude that:
1. Finite residues will exist in meat,
milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
2. There is a reasonable expectation
that finite residues will exist.
3. There is a reasonable expectation
that finite residues will not exist. If
there is no reasonable expectation of
finite pesticide residues in or on meat,
milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not
need to be established for these
commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
EPA has evaluated certain specific
meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances
proposed for revocation in this
document and has concluded that there
is no reasonable expectation of finite
pesticide residues of concern in or on
those commodities.
C. When Do These Actions Become
Effective?
EPA is proposing that the tolerance
actions herein become effective on the
date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. The tolerances
proposed for revocation in this
document are associated with uses that
have been canceled for several years and
none of the other tolerance actions
proposed herein are expected to result
in adulterated commodities. The
Agency believes that treated
commodities have had sufficient time
for passage through the channels of
trade. However, if EPA is presented
with information that existing stocks
would still be available and that
information is verified, the Agency will
consider revising the expiration date of
the tolerance in the final rule. If you
have comments regarding existing
stocks and whether the effective date
allows sufficient time for treated
commodities to clear the channels of
trade, please submit comments as
described under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Any commodities listed in this
proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the
channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to
FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established
by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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:
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 a tolerance. Evidence to show that
food was lawfully treated may include
records that verify the dates when the
pesticide was applied to such food.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
III. Are the Proposed Actions
Consistent with International
Obligations?
The tolerance actions in this proposal
are not discriminatory and are designed
to ensure that both domestically
produced and imported foods meet the
food safety standards established by
FFDCA. The same food safety standards
apply to domestically produced and
imported foods.
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 Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) established by 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,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) 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
Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in
this proposed rule and how they
compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are
discussed in Unit II.A.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to establish tolerances under
FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify
and revoke specific tolerances
established under FFDCA section 408.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted these types of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
actions (e.g., 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 proposed
rule has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866 due to its
lack of significance, this proposed 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 proposed rule does not
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) (Public
Law 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), Public Law 104–113, 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) (FRL–5753–1),
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 proposed rule, the Agency
hereby certifies that this proposed rule
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6875
will not have a significant negative
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
pesticide named in this proposed rule,
the Agency knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the
present proposal that would change
EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments
about the Agency’s determination
should be submitted to EPA along with
comments on the proposal, and will be
addressed prior to issuing a final rule.
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 proposed
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
proposed 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
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
6876
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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
proposed 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 proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 22, 2008.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.142 is amended by
revising the entries for ‘‘Grape,’’ ‘‘Fruit,
pome, group 11,’’ ‘‘Fruit, stone, group
12,’’ and ‘‘Strawberry’’ in the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 180.142
2,4-D; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Grape ........................................
*
*
*
*
Fruit, pome, group 11 ...............
Fruit, stone, group 12 ...............
*
*
*
*
Strawberry ................................
*
*
*
*
Parts per
million
*
0.05
*
0.05
0.05
*
0.05
*
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 180.185 is amended by
removing the entry for ‘‘Vegetable,
brassica, leafy, group 5’’ from the table
in paragraph (d) and adding it
alphabetically to the table in paragraph
(a) to read as follows.
§ 180.185
DCPA; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, brassica, leafy,
group 5 ..................................
*
*
*
*
0.05
*
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 180.204 is amended by
revising the table in paragraphs (a) and
(c) to read as follows:
(a) General. * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
Alfalfa, forage ...........................
Alfalfa, hay ................................
Bean, dry, seed ........................
Bean, lima .................................
Bean, snap, succulent ..............
Blueberry1 .................................
Broccoli .....................................
Cattle, meat byproducts ...........
Cauliflower ................................
Celery .......................................
Citrus, dried pulp ......................
Corn, field, forage .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, field, stover .....................
Corn, pop, grain ........................
Corn, pop, stover ......................
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
Egg ...........................................
Endive .......................................
Goat, meat byproducts .............
Grapefruit ..................................
Hog, meat byproducts ..............
Horse, meat byproducts ...........
Kale ...........................................
Lemon .......................................
Lettuce, leaf ..............................
Melon ........................................
Milk ...........................................
Mustard greens .........................
Orange, sweet ..........................
Pear ..........................................
Pea ...........................................
Pecan ........................................
Pepper ......................................
Potato .......................................
Poultry, meat byproducts ..........
Safflower, seed .........................
Sheep, meat byproducts ..........
Sorghum, grain, forage .............
Sorghum, grain, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover .............
Soybean, seed ..........................
Soybean, forage .......................
Soybean, hay ............................
Swiss chard ..............................
Tangerine ..................................
Tomato ......................................
Turnip, tops ...............................
Turnip, roots .............................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
1There
PO 00000
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Commodity
Parts per
million
0.15
5.0
2.0
2.0
*
*
*
*
5. Section 180.206 is amended by
2.0 revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.02
2.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.02
2.0
0.02
2.0
0.02
0.02
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.002
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
2.0
0.2
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.2
2.0
0.04
2.0
2.0
are U.S. registrations as of August
Frm 00020
*
*
*
*
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. Tolerances with regional
registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are
established for total residues of
dimethoate including its oxygen analog
in or on the following food
commodities:
Asparagus .................................
Brussels sprouts .......................
Cherry, sweet ...........................
Cherry, tart ................................
§ 180.204 Dimethoate; tolerances for
residues.
16, 1996.
Jkt 214001
*
*
*
§ 180.206
residues.
Phorate; tolerances for
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the insecticide phorate (O,O-diethyl
S[(ethylthio)
methyl]phosphorodithioate), phorate
sulfoxide, phorate sulfone, phorate
oxygen analog, phorate oxygen analog
sulfoxide, and phorate oxygen analog
sulfone in or on the following food
commodities:
Commodity
Parts per
million
Bean, dry, seed ........................
Bean, succulent ........................
Beet, sugar, roots .....................
Beet, sugar, tops ......................
Coffee, green bean1 .................
Corn, field, forage .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed ..............
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
Hop, dried cones ......................
Peanut ......................................
Potato .......................................
Sorghum, grain, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover .............
Soybean, seed ..........................
Sugarcane, cane ......................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
0.05
0.05
0.3
3.0
0.02
0.5
0.05
0.5
0.05
0.05
2.0
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
1.5
0.05
1.5
0.05
1There are no U.S. registrations as of September 1, 1993, for the use of phorate on the
growing crop, coffee.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 180.241 is amended by
revising the heading and paragraphs (a)
and (c) to read as follows:
§ 180.241
residues.
Bensulide; tolerances for
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the residues of S-(O,Odiisopropyl phosphorodithioate) of N-
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(2-mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide
including its oxygen analog S-(O,Odiisopropylphosphorodithioate) of N-(2mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide in
or on the following food commodities:
Parts per
million
Commodity
Onion, bulb ...............................
Vegetable, brassica, leafy
group 5 ..................................
Vegetable, cucurbits group 9 ...
Vegetable, fruiting group 8 .......
Vegetable, leafy except brassica group 4 ..........................
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.15
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. Tolerances with regional
registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are
established for the residues of S-(O,Odiisopropyl phosphorodithioate) of N(2-mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide
including its oxygen analog S-(O,Odiisopropylphosphorodithioate) of N-(2mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide in
or on the following food commodities:
Parts per
million
Commodity
Carrot, roots ..............................
Commodity
*
*
*
*
8. Section 180.349 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and the table in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Jkt 214001
§180.252 Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances
for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos ((Z)-2chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) vinyl
dimethyl phosphate) and its
metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)ethanol (free and conjugated forms),
2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol in/on
the following food commodities:
§ 180.349
residues.
Expiration/Revocation Date
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
1.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
0.5
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
2.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
1.0
0.2
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
0.2
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
1.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
0.5
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
2.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
1.0
0.05
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
7.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
2.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
3.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
2.0
[date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication]
Fenamiphos; tolerances for
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the nematocide fenaminphos, (ethyl 3methyl-4-(methylthio) phenyl (1methylethyl) phosphoramidate, and its
Parts per
million
Apple .............................................................................................
Banana1 ........................................................................................
Brussels sprouts ...........................................................................
Cabbage .......................................................................................
Cherry, sweet ................................................................................
Cherry, tart ....................................................................................
Citrus, dried pulp ..........................................................................
Citrus, oil .......................................................................................
Eggplant ........................................................................................
Fruit, citrus, group 101 ..................................................................
Garlic1 ...........................................................................................
Grape1 ..........................................................................................
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
*
*
*
*
7. Section 180.252 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
0.2
Commodity
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
Parts per million
Cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Cattle, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Cattle, meat by products except kidney and liver
Egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se)
Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se)
Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Hog, meat byproducts except kidney and liver
Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of
which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Poultry, meat (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se)
Poultry, meat byproducts except liver
*
0.10
PO 00000
6877
Frm 00021
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.25
2.5
25.0
0.05
0.50
0.50
0.10
Fmt 4702
cholinesterase inhibiting metabolites
ethyl 3-methyl-4-(methylsulfinyl)
phenyl (1-methylethyl)
phosphoramidate and ethyl 3-methyl-4(methylsulfonyl) phenyl (1-methylethyl)
phosporamidate in or on the following
food commodities:
Expiration/Revocation Date
December
None
December
December
December
December
None
None
December
None
None
None
Sfmt 4702
31, 2009
31,
31,
31,
31,
2009
2009
2009
2009
31, 2009
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
6878
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Parts per
million
Commodity
Grape, raisin .................................................................................
Okra ..............................................................................................
Peach ............................................................................................
Peanut ...........................................................................................
Pineapple1 ....................................................................................
Raspberry .....................................................................................
Strawberry .....................................................................................
1There
None
December
December
December
None
December
December
31, 2009
31, 2009
31, 2009
31, 2009
31, 2009
are no U.S. registrations as of December 31, 2009.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrants. * * *
Commodity
Parts per
million
Asparagus .....
0.02
Beet, garden
roots.
Beet, garden,
tops.
Bok choy .......
1.5
0.50
Kiwifruit ..........
0.10
Pepper,
nonbell.
0.60
1.0
Expiration/
Revocation
Date
December
2009
December
2009
December
2009
December
2009
December
2009
December
2009
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
31,
Corn, sweet, stover ..................
Sorghum, grain, forage .............
Sorghum, grain, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover .............
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
10. Section 180.353 is amended by
revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 180.353
residues.
§ 180.352 Terbufos; tolerances for
residues.
*
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the insecticide terbufos
(phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl ester) and
its phosphorylated (cholinesteraseinhibiting) metabolites (phosphorothioic
acid, S-(t-butylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl
ester; phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester;
and phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester)
in or on food commodities:
Banana .....................................
Beet, sugar, roots .....................
Beet, sugar, tops ......................
Coffee, green bean1 .................
Corn, field, forage .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, field, stover .....................
Corn, pop, grain ........................
Corn, pop, stover ......................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed ..............
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Parts per
million
0.025
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.5
Jkt 214001
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.5
1There are no U. S. registrations as of August 2, 1995, for the use of terbufos on the
growing crop, coffee.
*
*
*
*
9. Section 180.352 is revised to read
as follows:
Commodity
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
0.30
0.30
0.25
1.0
0.30
0.10
0.60
Expiration/Revocation Date
Desmedipham; tolerances for
(a) General.
*
*
*
*
Parts per
million
Commodity
Beet, garden, roots ...................
Beet, garden, tops ....................
Beet, sugar, roots .....................
Beet, sugar, tops ......................
Spinach .....................................
0.05
1.0
0.1
5.0
6.0
*
*
*
*
*
11. Section 180.412 is amended by
revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 180.412
residues.
Sethoxydim; tolerances for
(a) General. *
*
*
Parts per
million
Commodity
Alfalfa, forage ...........................
Alfalfa, hay ................................
Almond, hulls ............................
Apricot .......................................
Apple, wet pomace ...................
Asparagus .................................
Bean, succulent ........................
Beet, sugar, molasses ..............
Beet, sugar, tops ......................
Blueberry ..................................
Borage, meal ............................
Borage, seed ............................
Buckwheat, flour .......................
Buckwheat, grain ......................
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40
40
2.0
0.2
0.8
4.0
15
10
3.0
4.0
10
6.0
25
19
Commodity
Caneberry subgroup 13 A ........
Canola, meal ............................
Canola, seed ............................
Cattle, fat ..................................
Cattle, meat ..............................
Cattle, meat byproducts ...........
Cherry, sweet ...........................
Cherry, tart ................................
Citrus, dried pulp ......................
Clover, forage ...........................
Clover, hay ...............................
Coriander, leaves .....................
Corn, field, fodder .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, field, stover .....................
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husk removed ................
Corn, sweet, stover ..................
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
Cowpea, forage ........................
Cowpea, hay .............................
Cranberry ..................................
Dillweed, fresh leaves ..............
Egg ...........................................
Flax, seed .................................
Fruit, citrus, group 10 ...............
Fruit, pome, group 11 ...............
Goat, fat ....................................
Goat, meat ................................
Goat, meat byproducts .............
Grape ........................................
Grape, raisin .............................
Hog, fat .....................................
Hog, meat .................................
Hog, meat byproducts ..............
Horse, fat ..................................
Horse, meat ..............................
Horse, meat byproducts ...........
Juneberry ..................................
Lingonberry ...............................
Milk ...........................................
Nectarine ..................................
Nut, tree, group 14 ...................
Okra ..........................................
Pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup
6C ..........................................
Pea, field, hay ...........................
Pea, field, vines ........................
Pea, succulent ..........................
Peach ........................................
Peanut ......................................
Peppermint, tops ......................
Pistachio ...................................
Potato granules/flakes ..............
Potato waste, processed ..........
Poultry, fat ................................
Poultry, meat ............................
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Parts per
million
5.0
40
35
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
1.5
35
55
4.0
2.5
0.5
2.0
3.0
0.4
3.5
5.0
15
50
2.5
10
2.0
5.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.5
25
40
20
10
0.2
25
30
0.2
8.0
8.0
0.2
0.2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Parts per
million
Commodity
Poultry, meat byproducts ..........
Radish, tops ..............................
Rapeseed, meal .......................
Rapeseed, seed .......................
Safflower, seed .........................
Salal ..........................................
Sheep, fat .................................
Sheep, meat .............................
Sheep, meat byproducts ..........
Soybean, hay ............................
Soybean, seed ..........................
Spearmint, tops ........................
Strawberry ................................
Sunflower, meal ........................
Sunflower, seed ........................
Turnip, tops ...............................
Vegetable, brassica, leafy,
group 5 ..................................
Vegetable, bulb, group 3 ..........
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ....
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 ......
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 .........................
Vegetable, root and tuber,
group 1 ..................................
*
*
*
*
2.0
4.5
40
35
15
5.0
0.2
0.2
1.0
10
16
30
10
20
7.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
*
[FR Doc. E8–2094 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WC Docket No. 07–245; FCC 07–187]
Implementation of Section 224 of the
Act; Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules and Policies Governing Pole
Attachments
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to amend its rules governing pole
attachments, which are designed to
ensure the attachment of facilities of
cable television systems and
telecommunications carriers to utility
poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way
(collectively, ‘‘pole attachments’’) at just
and reasonable rates, terms and
conditions. The Commission has
received petitions for rulemaking from
Fibertech Networks, LLC and United
States Telecom Association seeking
review of the current pole attachment
rules, which petitioners and
commenters claim are inadequate in
scope or no longer accord with
developing technology and business
models. The Commission seeks to
resolve questions regarding appropriate
regulation of pole attachment rates,
terms, and conditions of access.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:31 Feb 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Comments are due March 7,
2008 and Reply Comments are due
March 24, 2008. Written comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before
April 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 07–245, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include
the following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Include the docket number in the
subject line of the message.
• Mail: Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. In addition to
filing comments with the Secretary, a
copy of any comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained
herein should be submitted to the
Federal Communications Commission
via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and to
Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, via e-mail to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Reel, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418–1580. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, contact Jerry R. Cowden at
(202) 418–0447, or via the Internet at
PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and
1.419, interested parties may file
Comments on or before March 7, 2008
and Reply Comments on or before
March 24, 2008. Comments may be filed
using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6879
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the
Federal Government’s eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6867-6879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2094]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674; FRL-8345-2]
2,4-D, Bensulide, DCPA, Desmedipham, Dimethoate, Fenamiphos,
Phorate, Sethoxydim, Terbufos, and Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed
Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the
herbicide sethoxydim and the insecticides dimethoate, fenamiphos,
terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos. Also, EPA is proposing to modify
certain tolerances for the herbicides 2,4-D, DCPA, desmedipham, and
sethoxydim and the insecticides dimethoate, fenamiphos, phorate, and
tetrachlorvinphos. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new
tolerances for the herbicides bensulide and sethoxydim. The regulatory
actions proposed in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's
reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment program under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674 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.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0674. EPA's policy is that all comments
[[Page 6868]]
received will be included in the docket without change and may be made
available on-line at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. 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
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either 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 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).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the
Agency Proposes to Revoke?
This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately.
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The order would specify data needed
and the timeframes for its submission, and would require that within 90
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data.
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take
appropriate action under FFDCA.
EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection
at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the
final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the
right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the
[[Page 6869]]
final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA is proposing to revoke, modify, and establish specific
tolerances for residues of the herbicides 2,4-D, bensulide, DCPA,
desmedipham, and sethoxydim and the insecticides fenamiphos, phorate,
dimethoate, terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos in or on commodities listed
in the regulatory text.
EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of 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, 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 number: 1-800-490-
9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet at https://www.epa.gov/
ncepihom and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; telephone number: 1-800-
553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; Internet at https://www.ntis.gov. Electronic
copies of REDs, TREDs, and IREDs are available on the Internet at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop
field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under
the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected
for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in
such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. The evaluation of
whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the
raising of a tolerance when data show that:
1. Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a
higher residue level on the commodity.
2. The tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue
level allowed under the tolerance.
In REDs, Chapter IV on ``Risk management, Reregistration, and Tolerance
Reassessment'' typically describes the regulatory position, FQPA
assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of safety
for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and children. In
particular, the human health risk assessment document which supports
the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether the Agency has
concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation of the dietary
risk associated with the active ingredient and whether it can determine
that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that
no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure.
EPA also seeks to harmonize tolerances with international standards set
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as described in Unit III.
Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative
Record electronically. Electronic copies are available through EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, regulations.gov at https://
www.regulations.gov. You may search for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0674 and/or 2,4-D (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167), Bensulide (EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0674 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0151), DCPA (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097),
Desmedipham (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0261), Dimethoate (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0084),
Fenamiphos (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0151), Phorate
(EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0151), Sethoxydim (EPA-HQ-
OPP-2005-0323), Terbufos (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0151), and Tetrachlorvinphos (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0151) then click on that docket ID number to view its contents.
EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not
of concern for the above-mentioned pesticide active ingredients based
upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted
studies that the Agency found acceptable.
EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this
document to be modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance
with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance
nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These
findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references
are available for inspection as described in this document under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances
because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food
uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where
registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay
the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily
requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide.
It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances
for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which
there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in
comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover
residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic
commodities.
1. 2,4-D. In the Federal Register notices published on June 6, 2007
(72 FR 31221) (FRL-8122-7) and September 12, 2007 (72 FR 52013) (FRL-
8142-2), the Agency determined in error that the tolerances in/on
grapes, stone fruits, and pome fruits should be decreased to 0.1 ppm
rather than 0.05 ppm. In that same proposal, the tolerance for
strawberries was increased to 0.1 ppm in error, when, in fact, it
should have remained unchanged at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes
correcting the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.142(a) for the combined 2,4-D
residues of concern in/on grape from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12 from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome group 11 from 0.1 to 0.05
ppm, and strawberry from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm.
2. Bensulide. In order to account for the instability of bensulide
in/on cucurbits and leafy vegetables as evidenced in a non-concurrent
storage stability study, the Agency has determined the tolerances
should be increased from 0.1 to 0.15 ppm in/on vegetable, cucurbit
group 9 and vegetable, leafy, except brassica group 4. The Agency is
also revising commodity terminology to conform to current practice
including removing the negligible residue designation (N)
[[Page 6870]]
associated with the tolerances. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and
revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.241(a) for the combined bensulide
residues of concern in/on cucurbits at 0.10 (N) ppm to vegetable,
cucurbit group 9 at 0.15; and vegetable, leafy at 0.1 (N) ppm to
vegetable, leafy, except brassica group 4 at 0.15 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.
Because the use of bensulide is limited to Texas, the Agency has
determined that the carrot tolerance should be a regional tolerance.
Therefore, EPA proposes transferring the carrot, root at 0.1 ppm
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.241(a) to 40 CFR 180.241(c).
Based on available field trial data that indicate bensulide
residues of concern are less than 0.15 ppm in/on the representative
commodities (broccoli, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts) of the vegetable,
brassica, leafy group 5, the Agency determined that the tolerance
should be established for vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5 at 0.15
ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR
180.241(a) for combined bensulide residues of concern in/on vegetable,
brassica, leafy group 5 at 0.15 ppm.
The Agency is revising commodity terminology to conform to current
practice. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.241 from onion, dry bulb to onion, bulb; and vegetable, fruiting to
vegetable, fruiting, group 8.
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs (maximum residue levels) in
place for bensulide.
3. DCPA. In the Federal Register proposal and final rule published
on June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL-8122-7), and September 12, 2007 (72
FR 52013) (FRL-8142-2), the permanent tolerance on vegetable, brassica,
leafy, group 5 at 5 ppm was transferred to inadvertent tolerance
because there were no uses on brassica vegetables. Since then, it has
been determined that there are direct uses of DCPA on brassica
vegetables and a permanent tolerance in/on vegetable, brassica, leafy,
group 5 at 5 ppm is appropriate. Therefore, EPA proposes transferring
the tolerance vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 at 5 ppm in 40 CFR
180.185(d) to 40 CFR 180.185(a) for the combined residues of the
herbicide DCPA and its metabolites MTP and TCP (calculated as DCPA).
4. Desmedipham. Based on field trial data received subsequent to
the TRED that indicate residues of desmedipham as high as 0.05 ppm in/
on sugar beet roots and an average of 1.38 ppm (standard deviation 2.88
ppm) in/on sugar beet tops, the Agency determined that the tolerance
should be decreased from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in/on sugar beet roots and
increased from 0.2 ppm to 5.0 ppm in/on sugar beet tops. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising the tolerance on sugar beet (roots and tops) from 0.2
ppm to sugar, beet, roots at 0.1 ppm and sugar, beet, tops at 5.0 ppm
in 40 CFR 180.353(a) for residues of the herbicide desmedipham (ethyl-
m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate). 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.
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for desmedipham.
5. Dimethoate. The uses on apples, cabbage, collards, head lettuce,
spinach, and grapes were canceled due to revisions of the human health
risk assessment for tolerance reassessment as published in Federal
Register Notices dated Sept 10, 2003 (69 FR 53371) (FRL-7321-2),
January 28, 2004 (69 FR 4135) (FRL-7340-1), and May 12, 2004 (69 FR
26384) (FRL-7354-3). Although the use on head lettuce has been
canceled, the use on leaf lettuce remains. There are no active
registrations with the use on blueberries; however, the blueberry
tolerance is for the purpose of imports and for this reason will not be
revoked. Lentils are covered by the existing pea, dry tolerance in
accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(g). Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate residues of
concern in/on apple at 2 ppm; cabbage at 2 ppm; collards at 2 ppm;
grape at 1 ppm; lentil, seed at 2 ppm; and spinach at 2 ppm; and revise
lettuce to lettuce, leaf.
Based on field trial residue data serving as the basis of the
tolerance on potatoes at 0.2 ppm and translating those data to turnip
roots, the Agency has determined that the tolerance in/on turnip roots
should be decreased to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate residues of
concern in/on turnip, roots from 2 ppm to 0.2 ppm.
Based on available field trial data that indicate dimethoate
residues of concern less than 0.1 ppm in/on sorghum grain and forage,
the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.1 ppm
in/on sorghum, grain, forage and a tolerance should be established for
sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm. EPA is also revising the commodity
terminology to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA
proposes decreasing and revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for
the combined dimethoate residues of concern from sorghum, forage at 0.2
ppm to sorghum, grain, forage at 0.1 ppm and establishing a tolerance
on sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm.
EPA is revising the commodity terminology to conform to current
Agency practice. Also, when the tolerance reassessment was conducted
for reregistration on dimethoate, the tolerance on ``wheat, green
fodder'' existed. The correct terminology for ``wheat, green fodder''
is ``wheat, hay'' and ``wheat, forage.'' Recently, 40 CFR 180.204 has
been revised to align commodity terminology to current standards. At
that time, the ``wheat, green fodder'' tolerance was revised to
``wheat, hay'' and the tolerance for ``wheat, forage'' was
inadvertently omitted; therefore, the wheat, forage tolerance should be
established. Lastly, the Agency is correcting the reference to 180.1(n)
to 180.1(m) in 40 CFR 180.204(c). Therefore, EPA proposes revising the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate residues of
concern in/on alfalfa to alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay; from corn,
forage to corn, field, forage and corn, sweet, forage; corn, grain to
corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain; corn, stover to corn, field,
stover and corn, pop, stover; sorghum, grain to sorghum, grain, grain;
soybean to soybean, seed; and turnip, greens to turnip, tops; proposes
establishing a tolerance in/on wheat, forage at 2.0 ppm and proposes
revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204(c) from cherry to cherry, sweet
and cherry, tart and revising the reference of 180.1(n) to 180.1(m).
The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established separate maximum
residue limits (MRLs) for dimethoate per se and omethoate per se in/on
various commodities resulting from application of the insecticides
dimethoate, formothion, and omethoate. By contrast, the U.S. tolerance
expression is in terms of the combined residues of dimethoate and
omethoate, as a metabolite. Formothion and omethoate are not currently
registered for use in the U.S. Therefore, the Codex MRLs and U.S.
tolerances are not harmonized with respect to MRL/tolerance expression.
6. Fenamiphos. Based on the available field trial data that
indicate fenamiphos residues of concern are up to 1.0 ppm in/on
peanuts, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be increased
to 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR
[[Page 6871]]
180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of concern in/on peanut from 0.02
ppm to 1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is
safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
form aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
Based on the available field trial data that indicate fenamiphos
residues of concern are less than 0.05 ppm in/on eggplant and Brussels
sprouts, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be decreased
to 0.05 ppm. The Agency is also decreasing the Brussels sprouts
tolerance to harmonize with Codex. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of
concern in/on eggplant from 0.10 ppm to 0.05 ppm and Brussels sprouts
from 0.10 ppm to 0.05 ppm.
Pineapple bran is no longer regulated as a commodity in accordance
with 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; consequently, the Agency has
determined that a pineapple bran tolerance is no longer needed. There
are no active registrations for the use of fenamiphos on cotton,
consequently the Agency has determined the cotton undelinted seed
tolerance should be revoked. Therefore, EPA proposes removing the
tolerance in/on pineapple, bran and revoking the tolerance in/on
cotton, undelinted seed in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues
of concern.
There are currently individual tolerances for grapefruit, lemon,
lime, orange, and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm. Because there are
established tolerances for the representative commodities for the
fruit, citrus, group 10 and the use patterns on these commodities are
the same, the Agency determined that the individual tolerances should
be replaced with the fruit, citrus, group 10 tolerance. Further, in
order to harmonize with the Codex MRLs, the Agency has determined the
tolerances associated with these commodities should be decreased from
0.60 to 0.50 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes removing the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of concern in/on grapefruit;
lemon; lime; orange, sweet; and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm and
establishing a tolerance for fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.50 ppm.
Based on revisions of the OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines--Series
860 Residue Chemistry Guidelines (August 1996) Table 1 available at
https://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS Harmonized/860 Residue
Chemistry Test Guidelines/Series eliminating several animal feed items
used to estimate secondary residues in livestock commodities, the
Agency determined there is no expectation of finite residues in animal
commodities in accordance with Category 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore,
EPA proposes revoking all of the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(2) for
fenamiphos residues of concern in 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
each at 0.05 ppm; remove 40 CFR 180.349(a)(2); and designate 40 CFR
180.349(a)(1) as 40 CFR 180.349(a).
The Agency is revising commodity terminology to correspond to
current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA proposes revising tolerances in
40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of concern in/on grape,
raisins to grape, raisin and cherry to cherry, sweet and cherry, tart.
In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA, the Agency issued a
cancellation order published on December 10, 2003 (68 FR 68901) (FRL-
7332-5). The order reflects the voluntary cancellations submitted by
Bayer CropScience for product registrations containing fenamiphos
effective May 31, 2007. The order requires the registrant to cease
sale/distribution of products (by persons other that Bayer CropScience)
containing fenamiphos by May 31, 2008. Bayer CropScience anticipates
that commodities treated with fenamiphos may continue to be imported
into the U.S. after the final effective dates and therefore supports
import tolerances for banana; fruit, citrus, group 10; garlic; grape;
and pineapple. In order to permit the use of existing stocks of
products to clear the channels of trade and for tolerances to cover
subsequent fenamiphos residues of concern on commodities, the Agency
determined the tolerances should expire on December 31, 2009 except for
those tolerances for import commodities (banana; fruit, citrus, group
10; citrus, dried pulp; citrus, oil; garlic; grape; and pineapple). The
tolerances for banana; fruit, citrus, group 10; garlic; grape; and
pineapple will not have a U.S. registration as of December 31, 2009,
and will be designated as such by a footnote. Therefore, EPA proposes
establishing an expiration/revocation date of December 31, 2009, on
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349 for fenamiphos residues of concern in/on
apple; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cherry, sweet; cherry, tart;
eggplant; okra; peach; peanut; raspberry; strawberry; asparagus; beet,
garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; Bok choy; kiwifruit; and pepper,
nonbell and add the footnote ``1 There are no U.S. registrations as of
December 31, 2009.''
7. Phorate. Based on available field trial data that indicate
phorate residues of concern do not exceed 0.05 ppm in or on beans,
field and sweet corn; sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane, cane; the
Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.05 ppm
in/on field and sweet corn, sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane,
cane. Based on available field trial data that indicate phorate
residues of concern do not exceed 0.2 ppm in/on potato and in order to
harmonize with CODEX, the Agency has determined the tolerance should be
decreased to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing the tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for phorate residues of concern in/on bean; corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; corn, grain; sorghum, grain;
soybean; and sugarcane, cane from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm; and potato from 0.5
to 0.2 ppm.
Based on available field trial data that indicate phorate residues
of concern are up to 2.0 ppm in or on hops, the Agency determined that
the tolerance should be increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for phorate
residues of concern in/on hop from 0.5 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 current tolerances in 40 CFR 180.206 are expressed in terms of
phorate and its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites. The Agency has
determined that the tolerance expression should be revised to harmonize
with CODEX by regulating phorate, phorate sulfoxide, phorate sulfone,
phorate oxygen analog, phorate oxygen analog sulfoxide, and the phorate
oxygen analog sulfone, specifically. Therefore, EPA proposes revising
the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.206(a) to regulate the combined
residues of the insecticide phorate (O,O-diethyl S[(ethylthio)
methyl]phosphorodithioate), phorate sulfoxide, phorate sulfone, phorate
oxygen analog, phorate oxygen analog sulfoxide, and phorate oxygen
analog sulfone.
When the tolerance reassessment was conducted for reregistration on
phorate, the tolerance on ``wheat, green fodder''
[[Page 6872]]
existed. The correct terminology for ``wheat, green fodder'' is
``wheat, hay'' and ``wheat, forage.'' Recently, 40 CFR part 180 has
been revised to align commodity terminology to current standards. At
that time, the ``wheat, green fodder'' tolerance was revised to
``wheat, hay'' and the tolerance for ``wheat, forage'' was
inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the Agency has determined a tolerance
in/on wheat, forage at 1.5 ppm should be established. Therefore, EPA
proposes establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for the combined
residues of phorate and its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in/on
wheat, forage at 1.5 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.
EPA is revising commodity terminology to conform to current Agency
practice. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.206(a) for the combined residues of phorate and its cholinesterase-
inhibiting metabolites from bean to bean, dry, seed and bean,
succulent; coffee, bean, green to coffee, green bean; corn, forage to
corn, field, forage and corn, sweet, forage; corn, grain to corn,
field, grain; hop to hop, dried cones; sorghum, grain to sorghum,
grain, grain; and soybean to soybean, seed; and revise the footnote to
``There are no U.S. registrations as of September 1, 1993, for the use
of phorate on the growing crop, coffee.''
The proposed tolerance actions herein for phorate, to implement the
recommendations of the phorate IRED, reflect use patterns in the U.S.
which support a different tolerance than the Codex level on beans,
beets, coffee beans, because of differences in good agricultural
practices. However, compatibility currently exists between U.S.
tolerances and Codex MRLs for cottonseed and will exist (upon
completion of this action) for phorate residues in or on potato,
sorghum grain, soybean seed, field and sweet corn/maize.
8. Sethoxydim. Based on available field trial data that indicate
residues of sethoxydim as high as 50.7 ppm in or on clover hay and 2.2
ppm in/on cranberry, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be
increased to 55 ppm in/on clover, hay and 2.5 ppm in/on cranberry.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.412 for sethoxydim residues of concern in/on clover, hay from 50 to
55 ppm and cranberry from 2.0 to 2.5 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.
EPA is revising commodity terminology to conform to current Agency
practice. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.412(a) for sethoxydim residues of concern in/on bean, forage to
cowpea, forage; bean, hay to cowpea, hay; canola/rapeseed to rapeseed,
seed and canola, seed; canola/rapeseed, meal to rapeseed, meal and
canola, meal; coriander to coriander, leaves; corn, fodder to corn,
field, fodder; corn, forage to corn, field, stover; fruit, citrus to
fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome to fruit, pome, group 11;
peppermint, tops (stems and leaves) to peppermint, tops; potato flakes
and potato granules to potato granules/flakes; potato waste, processed
(wet and dry) to potato waste, processed; safflower to safflower, seed;
soybean to soybean, seed; spearmint, tops (stems and leaves) to
spearmint, tops; turnip, greens to turnip, tops; and vegetable,
fruiting to vegetable, fruiting, group 8.
As part of improving sethoxydim tolerance harmonization between the
U.S. and Canada, the Agency has reexamined the residue data and
tolerance levels for bean, dry, seed at 20 ppm; lentil, seed at 30 ppm;
and pea, dry, seed 40 ppm. Using the tolerance/MRL calculator developed
under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the dry peas,
lentil, and dry bean field trial data which reflect similar use
patterns, the Agency has determined the tolerances on the dry pea,
lentil seed, and dry bean commodities can be revised to the pea and
bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 25 ppm, which
covers these commodities. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.412(a) for sethoxydim residues of concern from
bean, dry seed at 20 ppm; lentil, seed at 30 ppm; and pea, dry, seed at
40 ppm to pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at
25 ppm.
Because apple dry pomace, citrus molasses, cotton seed soapstock,
flax straw, peanut soapstock, tomato concentrated products, and tomato
dry pomace are no longer recognized as raw agricultural commodities and
are no longer considered to be significant food/feed items, the
associated tolerances are no longer needed. The tolerance for flax seed
currently covers the commodity flax, meal, therefore the flax, meal
tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is removing the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.412(a) in/on apple, dry pomace at 0.8 ppm;
citrus, molasses at 1.5 ppm; cotton, seed, soapstock at 15 ppm; flax,
straw at 2.0 ppm; flax, meal at 7 ppm; peanut, soapstock at 75.0 ppm;
tomato, concentrated products at 24 ppm; and tomato, dry pomace at 12.0
ppm.
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for sethoxydim.
9. Terbufos. The current tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.352
regulates the insecticide terbufos (S-[[1,1-dimethyl)thio]methyl]O,O-
diethyl phosphorodithioate) and its cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolites. The Agency has determined that the chemical name for
terbufos should be corrected and the tolerance expression should be
more specific for the five phosphorylated (cholinesterase-inhibiting)
metabolites. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerance expression
in 40 CFR 180.352(a) to regulate the combined residues of the
insecticide terbufos (phosphorodithioic acid, S-(t-butylthio)methyl
O,O-diethyl ester) and its phosphorylated (cholinesterase-inhibiting)
metabolites (phosphorothioic acid, S-(t-butylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl
ester; phosphorothioic acid, S-(t-butylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl
ester; phosphorothioic acid, S-(t-butylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl
ester; phosphorodithioic acid, S-(t-butylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl
ester; and phosphorodithioic acid, S-(t-butylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-
diethyl ester).
The Agency has determined that the coffee bean, green tolerance
should be established for import purposes. The Agency is also revising
the section to conform to current standards and configurations.
Therefore, EPA proposes transferring the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.352(b)
for the combined residues of terbufos and its cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolites in/on coffee bean, green at 0.05 ppm to 40 CFR 180.352(a);
redesignate 40 CFR 180.352(b) as Section 18 emergency exemptions-
reserved; establish 40 CFR 180.352(c) as tolerances with regional
registrations-reserved and establish 40 CFR 180.352(d) as indirect or
inadvertent residues - reserved.
EPA is revising commodity terminology to conform to current Agency
practice and removing ``(N)''- negligible residue designation
associated with some of the tolerances because the term is no longer
applicable. Because tolerances on corn, pop, forage and corn, pop,
stover refer to the same commodity (i.e. duplicative) and because corn,
pop, stover is the most current terminology, the Agency has determined
the tolerance on corn, pop, forage should be removed. Therefore, EPA
proposes revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.352(a) for the
[[Page 6873]]
combined residues of terbufos and its cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolites from corn, grain to corn, field, grain and corn, pop,
grain; sorghum, forage to sorghum, grain, forage; and sorghum, grain to
sorghum, grain, grain and removing corn, pop, forage.
The proposed tolerance actions herein for terbufos, to implement
the recommendations of the terbufos RED, reflect different method
levels of detection (LOD) where the LOD under the CODEX system is 0.01
ppm and the LOD under the U.S. system is 0.05 ppm which result in
differing Codex levels on banana, corn/maize, popcorn, sugar beets, and
sweet corn than the U.S. tolerances. Other differences in MRLs and
tolerances between CODEX and the U.S. exist for cereal grain straw,
fodder and stover because some are measured on a dry weight basis
versus a wet weight basis. Lastly, the CODEX levels have changed since
the tolerance reassessment such that, currently none of the U.S.
tolerances and CODEX tolerances are harmonized.
10. Tetrachlorvinphos. Currently, the residue of concern in 40 CFR
180.252(a)(1) is tetrachlorvinphos (2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-
trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl phosphate). The chemical name of
tetrachlorvinphos as specified in 40 CFR 180.252 should be replaced
with the CAS chemical name: (Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl
dimethyl phosphate. The Agency has also determined that the
metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and conjugated
forms), 2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-
ethanediol are also of toxicological concern and should be regulated.
Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.252(a)(1) to regulate the residues of the insecticide
tetrachlorvinphos ((Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl
phosphate) and its metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free
and conjugated forms), 2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5-
trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol.
Currently, EPA has insufficient data to establish permanent
tolerances for milk, cattle, hog and poultry commodities; however, EPA
has been able to estimate tolerances for these livestock commodities
using existing animal metabolism data on an interim basis of 18 months
to permit time for the submission of additional data to support
permanent tolerances. The tolerances are also being revised to address
the additional tetrachlorvinphos metabolites of concern. Based on the
metabolism data which indicate the tetrachlorvinphos residues of
concern as high as 0.18 ppm in/on cattle and hog fat; 0.50 ppm in/on
cattle and hog kidney; 0.38 ppm in/on cattle and hog liver; 1.86 ppm
in/on cattle and hog meat; 0.50 ppm in/on cattle and hog meat
byproducts except kidney and liver; 0.02 ppm in milk; 0.19 ppm in/on
eggs; 6.1 ppm in/on poultry fat; 2.32 ppm in/on poultry meat; 1.27 ppm
in/on poultry liver and 1.27 ppm in/on meat byproducts except liver,
the Agency determined that interim tolerances should be established for
18 months at the decreased levels of 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.1
ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle and hog fat; and 0.05 ppm
(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on
milk, fat. The Agency also determined that interim tolerances should be
established for 18 months at 1.0 ppm (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle and hog kidney; 0.5 ppm (of
which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle
and hog liver; 2.0 ppm (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) cattle and hog meat; 1.0 ppm in/on cattle and
hog meat byproducts except liver and kidney; 3.0 ppm (of which no more
than 3.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on poultry meat; 2.0 ppm
(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on
poultry liver; and 2.0 ppm in/on poultry meat byproducts except liver.
The Agency determined that interim tolerances should be established for
18 months at the increased level of 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.05
ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on eggs; and 7.0 ppm (of which no
more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on poultry fat.
Therefore, EPA proposes revising and establishing 18-month time-limited
tolerances in newly proposed 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for residues of the
insecticide tetrachlorvinphos and its metabolites in/on cattle, fat and
hog, fat from 1.5 ppm to 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, kidney and hog, kidney at 1.0 ppm
(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle,
liver and hog, liver at 0.5 ppm (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, meat and hog, meat at 2.0 ppm (of
which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, meat
byproducts except kidney and liver and hog, meat byproducts except
kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm; milk, fat at 0.05 ppm reflecting
negligible residues in whole milk (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); eggs from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm (of which no more
than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); poultry, fat from 0.7 to
7.0 ppm (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se);
poultry, meat at 3.0 ppm (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); poultry, liver at 2.0 ppm (of which no more
than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); and poultry, meat
byproducts except liver at 2.0 ppm all of which expire on [18 months
from the date of final publication]. 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.
Because the Agency is taking action to establish the time-limited
tolerances in/on cattle, hog and poultry commodities (above), the
Agency has determined that the exception that permits ``the safe use of
tetrachlorvinphos as an additive to beef cattle, dairy cattle, horse
and swine feed at the rates of 0.00015 lb per 100 lb body weight per
day for cattle and horses, and 0.00011 lb per 100 lb body weight per
day for swine'' is no longer necessary. In addition, any uses of
tetrachlorvinphos in/on horses destined for slaughter are prohibited.
Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1)
for residues of the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos in/on goat, fat at
0.5 ppm; horse, fat at 0.5 ppm; removing 40 CFR 180.252(a)(2); and
changing the designation of 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.252(a).
Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for tetrachlorvinphos.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such
food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)).
For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must
not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be
registered
[[Page 6874]]
under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered
in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities
treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States.
EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in
detail in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs
and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions,
including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety
findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with
new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are
available as provided in Unit II.A.
EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs (and Interim REDs) for 2,4-D,
bensulide, DCPA, desmedipham, dimethoate, fenamiphos, phorate,
sethoxydim, terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos, whose REDs were completed
prior to FQPA. Also, EPA issued a RED prior to FQPA for
tetrachlorvinphos and made a safety finding which reassessed its
tolerances according to the FFDCA standard, maintaining them when new
tolerances were established as noted in Unit II.A. REDs and TREDs
contain the Agency's evaluation of the database for these pesticides,
including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to
confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions
under which these uses and products will be eligible for
reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment,
modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED
recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in
some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the
FFDCA standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' However,
tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed
in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no
longer necessary.
EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to
the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues
on crops for uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to
cover imported commodities.
Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible
residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs
produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example,
grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When
considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:
1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will
exist.
3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not
exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide
residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need
to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg
tolerances proposed for revocation in this document and has concluded
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of
concern in or on those commodities.
C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?
EPA is proposing that the tolerance actions herein become effective
on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
The tolerances proposed for revocation in this document are associated
with uses that have been canceled for several years and none of the
other tolerance actions proposed herein are expected to result in
adulterated commodities. The Agency believes that treated commodities
have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade.
However, if EPA is presented with information that existing stocks
would still be available and that information is verified, the Agency
will consider revising the expiration date of the tolerance in the
final rule. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether
the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to
clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues
[[Page 6875]]
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:
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 a tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the
pesticide was applied to such food.
III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International
Obligations?
The tolerance actions in this proposal are not discriminatory and
are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standards established by FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
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 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established
by 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, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) 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 Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in this proposed
rule and how they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit
II.A.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific
tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (e.g.,
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 proposed rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this proposed 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 proposed
rule does not 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) (Public Law 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), Public Law
104-113, 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) (FRL-5753-1),
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
proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant negative 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 pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present
proposal that would change EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about
the Agency's determination should be submitted to EPA along with
comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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
[[Page 6876]]
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 proposed 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 proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 22, 2008.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.142 is amended by revising the entries for
``Grape,'' ``Fruit, pome, group 11,'' ``Fruit, stone, group 12,'' and
``Strawberry'' in the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Grape...................................................... 0.05
* * * * *
Fruit, pome, group 11...................................... 0.05
Fruit, stone, group 12..................................... 0.05
* * * * *
Strawberry.................................................