Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30481 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

1057–1496. Chapter 4. (Quigley, T.M., 

tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project: 

scientific assessment). 

Lewis, J. 1998. Evaluating the Impacts of 

Logging Activities on Erosion and 

Suspended Sediment Transport in the 

Caspar Creek Watersheds. In: Ziemer, 

Robert R., technical coordinator. 

Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal 

Watersheds: the Caspar Creek story, 6 

May 1998; Ukiah, California. General 

Tech. Rep. PSW GTR–168. Albany, CA. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Service. 55–69. 

Lisle, T.E. 1982. Effects of Aggradation and 

Degradation on Riffle-Pool Morphology 

in Natural Gravel Channels, 

Northwestern California. Water 

Resources Research. 18(6): 1643–1651. 

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment 

Production from Forest Roads in Western 

Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vo. 

35, No. 8 p. 2561–2570. 

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of 

Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest 

Road Sediment Production. V64–V74, 

Proceedings of the Seventh Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 

25–29 March 2001, Reno, NV. 

MacDonald, L.H.; Smart, A.W.; Wissmar, R.C. 

1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate 

Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams 

in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. 

USEPA 910/9–91–001. Seattle, WA, 

USEPA, Region 10. 

Madej, M. A. 1982. Sediment Transport and 

Channel Changes in an Aggrading 

Stream in the Puget Lowland, 

Washington. In Sediment Budgets and 

Routing in Forested Drainage Basins. 

Swanson, et al. Editors. USDA. Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. General Technical Report PNW– 

141. 

Megahan, W. F. 1972. Subsurface Flow 

Interception by a Logging Road in 

Mountains of Central Idaho. pp. 350–356 

in Watersheds in Transition. Proceedings 

of a symposium Watersheds in 

Transition. Fort Collins, Colorado, June 

19–22, 1972. AWRA. Urbana, IL. 

Megahan, W.F. and W.J. Kidd. 1972. Effect of 

Logging Roads on Sediment Production 

Rates in the Idaho Batholith. Res. Pap. 

INT–123. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 

Megahan, W.F., J.P. Potyondy, and K.A. 

Seyedbagheri. 1992 . Best Management 

Practices and Cumulative Effects from 

Sedimentation in the South Fork Salmon 

River: an Idaho Case Study. Pages 401– 

414 in R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed 

Management: Balancing Sustainability 

and Environmental Change. New York, 

NY, Springer-Verlag. 

Mills, K., L. Dent and J. Robben., 2003. 

Oregon Department of Forestry Wet 

Season Road Use Monitoring Project 

Final Report. Oregon Department of 

Forestry Forest Practices Monitoring 

Program Technical Report # 17. June, 

2003. 

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road Surface 

Drainage, Channel Initiation, and Slope 

Instability. Water Resources Research. 

30(6): 1925–1932. 

NCASI. 2001. Forest Roads and Aquatic 

Ecosystems: A Review of Causes, Effects 

and Management Practices. Pages 70. 

National Committee for Air and Stream 

Improvement, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Neary, D.G., G.G. Ice, C.R. Jackson. 2009. 

Linkages Between Forest Soils and Water 

Quality and Quantity. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258(10):2269–2281. 

Nelson, N., Cissel, R., Black, T., Luce, C. 

2011. Monitoring Road 

Decommissioning in the Mann Creek 

Watershed: Post-storm Report Payette 

National Forest. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 33 pp. 

Norris, L.A.; Lorz, H.W.; Gregory, S.V. 1991. 

Forest Chemicals. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. 

Influences of Forest and Rangeland 

Management on Salmonid Fishes and 

their Habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, 

MD: American Fisheries Society: 207– 

296. 

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern 

Forest. Journal of Forestry. 74(10): 671– 

677. 

Rehder, K.J. and J.D. Stednick, 2007. 

Effectiveness of Erosion and Sediment 

Control Practices for Forest Roads. 

Report to San Dimas Development and 

Technology Laboratory, USDA Forest 

Service, San Dimas, CA. 

Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment 

Production from Forest Road Surfaces. 

Water Resources Research 20: 1753– 

1761. 

Rhodes, J.J.; McCullough, D.A.; Espinosa, 

F.A., Jr. 1994. A Coarse Screening 

Process for Evaluation of the Effects of 

Land Management Activities on Salmon 

Spawning and Rearing Habitat in ESA 

Consultations. Tech. Rep. 94–4. 

Portland, OR: Columbia River Intertribal 

Fish Commission. 

Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and Sediment 

Control at Road-Stream Crossings. 

Forestry Chronicle 23: 62–66. 

Trautman, M.B. 1933. The General Effects of 

Pollution on Ohio Fish Life. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society. 63:69–72. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water & the 

Forest Service. USDA Forest Service, 

Washington, DC. FS–660. January 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Who Owns 

America’s Forests? NRS–INF–06–08, 

May 2008. p. 2. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed 

Condition Framework. FS–977, May 

2011. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/ 

watershed/ (visited April 2012). 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. The US Forest 

Service—An Overview. http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/documents/ 

USFS_An_Overview_0106MJS.pdf 

(visited April 2012). 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best 

Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System 

Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP 

Technical Guide, FS–990a. Washington, 

DC: USDA Forest Service. April 2012. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/ 

pubs/watershed/index.html (visited 

April 2012). 

USEPA. 2005. National Management 

Measures to Control Nonpoint Pollution 

from Forestry. EPA–841–B–05–001. 

Washington, DC: USEPA Office of Water. 

April 2005. 

USEPA. 2012. The Assessment, TMDL, 

Tracking And ImplementatioN System 

(ATTAINS). http://iaspub.epa.gov/ 

waters10/attains_nation_cy.control 

(visited April 2012). 

Van Lear, D.H.; Taylor, G.B.; Hansen, W.F. 

1995. Sedimentation in the Chattooga 

River Watershed. Tech. Pap. 19. 

Clemson, SC. Clemson University, 

Department of Forest Resources. 

Wemple, B.C.; Jones, J.A.; Grant, G.E. 1996. 

Channel Network Extension by Logging 

Roads in Two Basins, Western Cascades, 

Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(6): 

1195–1207. 

Williams, C.D. 1999. Current Status of Roads 

on National Forest System Lands. Pacific 

Rivers Council. January, 1999. 

Williams, T.M.; Hook, D.D.; Limpscomb, D.J. 

1999. Effectiveness of Best Management 

Practices to Protect Water Quality in the 

South Carolina Piedmont. In: Haywood, 

James D., ed. Proceedings of the Tenth 

Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research 

Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–30. 

Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 271–276. 

Dated: May 18, 2012. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12524 Filed 5–21–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0001; FRL–9347–8] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

contact person, with telephone number 

and email address, is listed at the end 

of each pesticide petition summary. You 

may also reach each contact person by 

mail at Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 

111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed at the end of the 

pesticide petition summary of interest. 

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 email. 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. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticides 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What action is the agency taking? 

EPA is announcing its receipt of 

several pesticide petitions filed under 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a, requesting the establishment or 

modification of regulations in 40 CFR 

part 174 or part 180 for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on various 

food commodities. The Agency is taking 

public comment on the requests before 

responding to the petitioners. EPA is not 

proposing any particular action at this 

time. EPA has determined that the 

pesticide petitions described in this 

document contain the data or 

information prescribed in FFDCA 

section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not 

fully evaluated the sufficiency of the 

submitted data at this time or whether 

the data support granting of the 

pesticide petitions. After considering 

the public comments, EPA intends to 

evaluate whether and what action may 

be warranted. Additional data may be 

needed before EPA can make a final 

determination on these pesticide 

petitions. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a 

summary of each of the petitions that 

are the subject of this document, 

prepared by the petitioner, is included 

in a docket EPA has created for each 

rulemaking. The docket for each of the 

petitions is available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

As specified in FFDCA section 

408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is 

publishing notice of the petition so that 

the public has an opportunity to 

comment on this request for the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticides in 

or on food commodities. Further 

information on the petition may be 

obtained through the petition summary 

referenced in this unit. 

New Tolerances 

1. PP 2E7988. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0204). Interregional Research Project 

Number 4 (IR–4), 500 College Road East, 

Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, 

requests to establish tolerances in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

insecticide imidacloprid (1-[6-chloro-3- 

pyridinyl) methyl]-N-nitro-2- 

imidazolidinimine) and its metabolites 

containing the 6-chloropyridinyl 

moiety, in or on fish at 0.05 parts per 

million (ppm) and fish-shellfish, 

mollusk at 0.05 ppm. Adequate 

enforcement methodologies, Bayer gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry 

(GC/MS) method 00200 and Bayer GC/ 

MS method 00191, is available to 

enforce the tolerance expression. 

Contact: Sidney Jackson, (703) 305– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30483 

7610, email address: 

jackson.sidney@epa.gov. 

2. PP 0F7690. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0234). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis 

Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 

for the insecticide for the combined 

residues of alpha-cypermethrin and 

cypermethrin including zetacypermethrin (S)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropane-carboxylate and 

(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1S,3S)-3- 

(2,2-dichlorovinyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropane-carboxylate, in 

or on tree nuts (group 14); dried shelled 

pea and bean, except soybean (subgroup 

6C); corn, grain; corn, corn, sweet; 

soybeans; and sugar beet roots at 0.05 

ppm; succulent shelled pea and bean 

(subgroup 6B); and root and tuber 

vegetables (group 1) at 0.1 ppm; 

cucurbit vegetables (group 9); fruiting 

vegetables (group 8); sugar beet, tops; 

and wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm; citrus fruit 

(group 10) at 0.35 ppm; cottonseed, 

legume, edible podded vegetable 

(subgroup 6A); and sorghum, grain at 

0.5 ppm; rice, grain at 1.5 ppm; citrus, 

dried pulp at 1.8 ppm; Brassica, head 

and stem (subgroup 5A) at 2.0 ppm; 

citrus, oil at 4.0 ppm; leafy vegetable, 

except Brassica (group 4) at 10 ppm; 

and alfalfa, hay at 15 ppm. 

Cypermethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide 

consisting of three asymmetric carbon 

atoms, and therefore, 8 stereo-isomeric 

mixtures. Cypermethrin is also 

characterized as consisting of cis- and 

trans-configured diastereo-isomeric 

components based on orientation 

around its cyclopropane ring. Zetacypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin 

are optimized stereo-isomeric mixtures 

of cypermethrin, each consisting of 4 

major components. These zetacypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin 

components are the enriched trans- 

(alpha-S) and cis (cis2-R) isomeric 

orientations of cypermethrin, 

respectively. There is a practical 

analytical method for detecting and 

measuring levels of cypermethrin in or 

on food with a limit of detection (LOD) 

that allows monitoring of food with 

residues at or above the levels set in 

these tolerances GC with electron 

capture detection (GC/ECD) and liquid 

chromatography with tandem mass 

spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) methods are 

available. Contact: Bewanda Alexander, 

(703) 305–7460, email address: 

alexander.bewanda@epa.gov. 

3. PP 1F7894. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011– 

0668). E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 

Company (‘‘DuPont’’), 1007 Market 

Street, Wilmington, DE 19898, requests 

to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 

180 for residues of the insecticide 

cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2- 

pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6- 

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on 

almond hulls at 30 ppm; berries and 

small fruits, bushberries (crop subgroup 

13–07B) at 4 ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy 

vegetables, head and stem Brassica 

(crop subgroup 5A) at 2 ppm; Brassica 

(cole) leafy vegetables, leafy Brassica 

greens (crop subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm; 

bulb vegetables, onion, bulb (crop 

subgroup 3–07A) at 0.04 ppm; bulb 

vegetables, onion, green (crop subgroup 

3–07B) at 8 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; 

cattle, liver at 0.04 ppm; cattle, meat at 

0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, 

except liver at 0.01 ppm; cherries at 6 

ppm; citrus fruits (crop group 10–10) at 

0.7 ppm; cotton gin byproduct at 10 

ppm; cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9) 

at 0.3 ppm; fruiting vegetables (crop 

group 8–10) at 2 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 

ppm; goat, liver at 0.04 ppm; goat, meat 

at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts, 

except liver at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 

ppm; hog, liver at 0.04 ppm; hog, meat 

at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, 

except liver at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 

0.01 ppm; horse, liver at 0.04 ppm; 

horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat 

byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm; 

leafy vegetables (except Brassica 

vegetables) (crop group 4) at 15 ppm; 

milk at 0.01 ppm; milk, fat at 0.04 ppm; 

oilseeds, except cotton gin byproduct 

(crop group 20) at 1 ppm; pome fruits 

(crop group 11–10) at 0.8 ppm; root and 

tuber vegetables, tuberous and corm 

vegetables (crop subgroup 1C) at 0.15 

ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, liver 

at 0.04 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; 

sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at 

0.01 ppm; stone fruits, except cherries 

(crop group 12) at 1.5 ppm; tree nuts, 

except almond hulls (crop group 14) at 

0.06 ppm; citrus, oil at 6 ppm; citrus, 

raw peel at 2 ppm; and potato, wet peel 

at 0.3 ppm. In addition, DuPont is 

proposing pursuant to section 408 (d) of 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a (d), to amend 40 

CFR part 180 to establish indirect or 

inadvertent tolerances for residues of 

cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2- 

pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6- 

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

following commodities: Foliage of 

legume vegetables (crop group 7), forage 

at 0.15 ppm, hay at 0.6 ppm; forage, 

fodder and straw of cereal grains (crop 

group 16), forage at 0.06 ppm, hay and 

straw at 0.15 ppm; grass forage, fodder, 

and hay (crop group 17), forage at 0.06 

ppm, hay at 0.15 ppm; leaves of root 

and tuber vegetables (human food or 

animal feed) (crop group 2) at 0.04 ppm; 

nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, 

straw, and hay) (crop group 18), forage 

at 0.06 ppm, hay at 0.15 ppm; peanut 

hay at 0.03 ppm; and root and tuber 

vegetables, root vegetables (crop 

subgroup 1A) at 0.03 ppm. Adequate 

analytical methodology, high-pressure 

liquid chromatography with (HPLC) 

electrospray tandem mass spectrometry 

(ESI–MS/MS) detection, is available for 

enforcement purposes. Contact: Thomas 

Harris, (703) 308–9423, email address: 

harris.thomas@epa.gov. 

4. PP 1F7953. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0060). Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., c/o 

Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box 

5126, Valdosta, GA 31603, requests to 

establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 

for residues of the insecticide 

dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3- 

(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine 

and its major metabolites DN, 1-methyl3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine, 

and UF, 1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3- 

furylmethyl)-urea, in or on rice, grain at 

10 ppm. Practical analytical 

methodology for detecting and 

measuring levels of dinotefuran and its 

metabolites, UF and DN, in or on raw 

agricultural commodities has been 

conducted. Dinotefuran and its 

metabolites in the plant matrix extracts 

were analyzed by HPLC and thin layer 

chromatography (TLC) to determine the 

number of metabolites and their relative 

distribution in the samples. The HPLC 

method was validated for determination 

of dinotefuran, DN and UF in or on 

tomatoes and peppers, cucurbits, 

Brassica, grapes, potatoes, mustard 

greens, rice, and lettuce for raw 

agricultural commodity matrices and in 

or on tomato paste and puree, grape 

juice and raisins and potato chips, 

granules, and wet peel, rice grain, hulls, 

and bran for processed commodity 

matrices. After extraction with a water/ 

acetonitrile mixture and clean up with 

hexane and extraction columns, 

concentrations of dinotefuran and its 

metabolites were quantified after HPLC 

separation by MS/MS detection. 

Contact: Rita Kumar, (703) 308–8291, 

email address: kumar.rita@epa.gov. 

5. PP 1F7956. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0177). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419– 

8300, requests to establish tolerances in 

40 CFR part 180 for residues of the 

fungicide cyproconazole, in or on 

peanut, nutmeat at 0.03 ppm; peanut, 

hay at 6 ppm; peanut, meal at 0.03 ppm; 

peanut, butter at 0.03 ppm; and peanut, 

refined oil at 0.03 ppm. An adequate 

analytical method for cyproconazole, 

AM–0842–0790–0, is available for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30484 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

enforcement purposes. Determination 

and quantitation for cyproconazole are 

conducted using GC employing mass 

selective detection (MSD). A method for 

analysis of triazole metabolites is 

available using Morse Labs Analytical 

Method No. Meth-160, Revision #2. 

Residues are quantified by GC equipped 

with a nitrogen-phosphorous detector 

(NPD). The limit of quantitation (LOQ) 

is 0.01 ppm for cyproconazole parent. 

The analytical method, AM–0842– 

0790–0, is available in the Pesticide 

Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM II). 

Contact: Shaunta Hill, (703) 347–8961, 

email address: hill.shaunta@epa.gov. 

6. PP 1F7967. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0092). BASF Corporation, c/o Landis 

International, Inc., P.O. Box 5126, 3185 

Madison Highway, Valdosta, GA 31603, 

requests to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

insecticide dinotefuran, (RS)-1-methyl2-nitro-3-(tetrahydro-3- 

furylmethyl)guanidine, in or on all 

food/feed items (other than those 

already covered by a higher tolerance as 

a result of use on growing crops) in 

food/feed handling establishments 

where food products are held, processed 

or prepared at 0.01 ppm. Practical 

analytical methodology for detecting the 

magnitude of residues that accumulate 

in/on perishable food matrices (butter, 

processed meat, lettuce, bread, milk, 

peaches and pie), on non-perishable 

food matrices ((candy M&Ms), rice, 

crackers, potatoes and flour) and on bare 

surfaces (dinner plates, aluminum foil 

and table knives) following a spot and 

crack and crevice treatment of 

dinotefuran in a simulated food 

handling establishment has been 

conducted. The analytical method 

included sample extraction with 

acetonitrile or acetonitrile/water in 

conjunction with a solid-phase 

extraction/clean-up of extracts prior to 

analysis. Quantitation of dinotefuran in 

extracts was performed using LC/MS/ 

MS. Contact: Rita Kumar, (703) 308– 

8291, email address: 

kumar.rita@epa.gov. 

7. PP 2F7973. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0269). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 

13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709, requests to establish tolerances 

in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the 

insecticide cyflumetofen, in or on 

almond, hulls at 4.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, 

group 10 at 0.3 ppm; citrus, oil at 16 

ppm; grape at 0.6 ppm; grape, raisin at 

0.9 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.3 

ppm; strawberry at 0.6 ppm; tomato at 

0.2 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 

ppm. The analytical method D1003, 

‘‘Method for Determination of Residues 

of Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and its 

Metabolites in Plant Matrices using LC– 

MS/MS’’ was validated successfully for 

the analysis of cyflumetofen and its 

metabolites (B–1, AB–6, and AB–7) in 

tomato (high water), soybean seed (high 

oil), rice grain (high starch), dry bean 

(high protein), orange (high acid), 

raisins (process fraction), orange oil 

(process fraction), orange juice (process 

fraction), and rice straw (feed). Contact: 

Driss Benmhend, (703) 308–9525, email 

address: benmhend.driss@epa.gov. 

8. PP 2F7976. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0282). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to establish tolerances in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

fungicide azoxystrobin (methyl (E)-2-(2- 

[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4- 

yloxy]phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) and 

the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl 

(Z)-2-(2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin4-yloxy] phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate), in 

or on oat, forage at 4 ppm; oat, hay at 

7 ppm; oat, straw at 3 ppm; oat, grain 

at 1 ppm; rye, forage at 4 ppm; rye, 

straw at 0.8 ppm and rye, grain at 0.07 

ppm and in or on the animal 

commodities poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm; 

poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver 

at 0.2 ppm; egg at 0.1 ppm; cattle, liver 

at 0.5 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.1 ppm; 

hog, liver at 0.2 ppm and hog, kidney 

at 0.03 ppm. An adequate analytical 

method, GC–NPD or in mobile phase by 

HPLC with ultra-violet (UV) detection 

(HPLC–UV), is available for enforcement 

purposes with a LOD that allows 

monitoring of food with residues at or 

above the levels set in these tolerances. 

The Analytical Chemistry section of the 

EPA concluded that the method(s) are 

adequate for enforcement. Analytical 

methods are also available for analyzing 

meat, milk, poultry and eggs which also 

underwent successful independent 

laboratory validations. Contact: Erin 

Malone, (703) 347–0253, email address: 

malone.erin@epa.gov. 

9. PP 2F7984. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0283). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

fungicide azoxystrobin (methyl (E)-2-(2- 

[6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4- 

yloxy]phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) and 

the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl 

(Z)-2-(-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4- 

yloxy] phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate), in or 

on the animal commodities poultry, 

meat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.01 

ppm; poultry, liver at 0.2 ppm; egg at 

0.1 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.5 ppm; cattle, 

kidney at 0.1 ppm; hog, liver at 0.2 ppm 

and hog, kidney at 0.03 ppm. An 

adequate analytical method, GC–NPD or 

in mobile phase by HPLC with ultraviolet (UV) detection (HPLC–UV), is 

available for enforcement purposes with 

a LOD that allows monitoring of food 

with residues at or above the levels set 

in these tolerances. The Analytical 

Chemistry section of the EPA concluded 

that the method(s) are adequate for 

enforcement. Analytical methods are 

also available for analyzing meat, milk, 

poultry and eggs which also underwent 

successful independent laboratory 

validations. Contact: Erin Malone, (703) 

347–0253, email address: 

malone.erin@epa.gov. 

10. PP 2F7997. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0262). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 

13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709, requests to establish a tolerance 

in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the 

herbicide topramezone, 3-(4,5-dihydro3-isoxazolyl)-2-methyl-4- 

(methylsulfonyl)phenyl](5-hydroxy-1- 

methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanone, in 

or on fish at 0.05 ppm and shellfish at 

0.05 ppm. Suitable independently 

validated analytical methods (for animal 

matrices), LC/MS/MS, are submitted for 

detecting and measuring topramezone 

levels in or on food with an application 

LOD that is satisfactory for enforcing the 

requested tolerances. Contact: Bethany 

Benbow, (703) 347–8072, email address: 

benbow.bethany@epa.gov. 

11. PP 2F8005. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0308). K–I Chemical U.S.A., Inc., c/o 

Landis International, Inc., 3185 Madison 

Highway, P.O. Box 5126,Valdosta, GA 

31603–5126, requests to establish 

tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for 

residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone 

(3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its 

metabolites M–3 (5-difluoromethoxy-1- 

methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- 

carboxylic acid), M–25 (5- 

difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1Hpyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic acid and 

M–28 (3-[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5- 

dihydroisoxazol-3-ylthio)ethylamino]-3- 

oxopropanoic acid) calculated as the 

stoichiometric equivalent of 

pyroxasulfone, in or on soybean, seed at 

0.07 ppm; and pyroxasulfone (3-[(5- 

(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its 

metabolites M–1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1- 

methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- 

ylmethanesulfonic acid), M–3 (5- 

difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3- 

trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic 

acid), and M–25 (5-difluoromethoxy-3- 

trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- 

yl)methanesulfonic acid) calculated as 

the stoichiometric equivalent of 

pyroxasulfone in or on soybean, forage 

at 1.5 ppm and soybean, hay at 2.0 ppm. 

EPA has approved an analytical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30485 

enforcement methodology including LC/ 

MS/MS to enforce the tolerance 

expression for pyroxasulfone. Contact: 

Michael Walsh, (703) 308–2972, email 

address: walsh.michael@epa.gov. 

Amended Tolerances 

1. PP 2E7993. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0241). Interregional Research Project 

Number 4 (IR–4), 500 College Road East, 

Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, 

requests to amend the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.300 by increasing the tolerance 

for residues of the plant regulator 

ethephon, in or on tomato from 2.0 ppm 

to 3.5 ppm. The increased tolerance is 

required to accommodate tomatoes of 

less than one inch in diameter grown in 

the greenhouse. Adequate methods for 

purposes of enforcement of ethephon 

tolerances in plant commodities, 

ruminant tissues and milk are available. 

The FDA (PAM Vol. I Appendix, 8/93) 

indicates that ethephon is not recovered 

through any of the Multiresidue 

Protocols. Contact: Andrew Ertman, 

(703) 308–9367, email address: 

ertman.andrew@epa.gov. 

2. PP 2F7975. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0246). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to amend the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.434 for residues of the 

fungicide propiconazole, 1H-1,2,4- 

Triazole, 1-([2-(4-dichlorophenyl)-4- 

propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl)-, and 

its metabolites determined as 2,4- 

dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as 

parent compound, in or on barley, hay 

from 1.4 ppm to 30 ppm; barley, straw 

from 10 ppm to 20 ppm; barley, grain 

from 0.3 ppm to 3 ppm; oat, forage from 

1.7 ppm to 4 ppm; oat, hay from 1.4 

ppm to 15 ppm; oat, grain from 0.3 ppm 

to 3 ppm; rye, forage from 1.7 ppm to 

9 ppm; rye, straw from 10 ppm to 9 

ppm; wheat, forage from 1.7 ppm to 15 

ppm; wheat, hay from 1.4 ppm to 30 

ppm; wheat, straw from 10 ppm to 20 

ppm; and grain, aspirated fraction from 

30 ppm to 108 ppm. Analytical methods 

adequate to determine parent 

propiconazole, total propiconazole as 

2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid, and the 

triazole metabolites (1,2,4-Triazole, 

Triazole Alanine, and Triazole Acetic 

Acid) are available for enforcement 

purposes with LOD that allow 

monitoring of food with residues at or 

above the levels set in this tolerance. 

Contact: Heather Garvie, (703) 308– 

0034, email address: 

garvie.heather@epa.gov. 

3. PP 2F7976. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0282). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to amend the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.507 for residues of the 

fungicide azoxystrobin (methyl (E)-2-(2- 

[6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4- 

yloxy]phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) and 

the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl 

(Z)-2-(2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin4-yloxy] phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate), in 

or on animal commodities cattle, fat 

from 0.03 ppm to 0.3 ppm; hog, fat from 

0.010 ppm to 0.1 ppm and hog, meat 

from 0.01 to 0.02 ppm. An adequate 

analytical method, GC–NPD or in 

mobile phase by HPLC with ultra-violet 

(UV) detection (HPLC–UV), is available 

for enforcement purposes with a LOD 

that allows monitoring of food with 

residues at or above the levels set in 

these tolerances. The Analytical 

Chemistry section of the EPA concluded 

that the method(s) are adequate for 

enforcement. Analytical methods are 

also available for analyzing meat, milk, 

poultry and eggs which also underwent 

successful independent laboratory 

validations. Contact: Erin Malone, (703) 

347–0253, email address: 

malone.erin@epa.gov. 

4. PP 2F7981. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2007– 

0099). Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New 

Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, 

Wilmington, DE 19808, has requested 

that the established tolerances listed in 

40 CFR 180.639 for residues of the 

insecticide flubendiamide per se, (N2

-[1,1-dimethyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)ethyl]- 

3-iodo-N1-[2-methyl-4-[1,2,2,2- 

tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl) 

ethyl]phenyl]-1,2- 

benzenedicarboxamide), in or on apple, 

wet pomace be increased from 2.0 ppm 

to 5.0 ppm; and fruit, pome, group 11 

be increased from 0.70 ppm to 1.5 ppm. 

Adequate enforcement methodology, 

LC/MS/MS detection (Methods 00816/ 

M002 and 00912), is available to enforce 

the tolerance expression. Contact: 

Carmen Rodia, (703) 306–0327, email 

address: rodia.carmen@epa.gov. 

5. PP 2F7984. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0283). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to amend the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.507 for residues of the 

fungicide azoxystrobin (methyl (E)-2-(2- 

[6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4- 

yloxy]phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) and 

the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl 

(Z)-2-(2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin4-yloxy] phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate), in 

or on barley, hay from 15 ppm to 7 ppm; 

barley, straw from 7 ppm to 8 ppm; 

barley, grain from 3 ppm to 2 ppm; 

wheat, forage from 25 ppm to 10 ppm; 

wheat, hay from 15 ppm to 20 ppm; 

wheat, straw from 4 ppm to 6 ppm and 

grain, aspirated fraction from 420 ppm 

to 460 ppm and in or on the animal 

commodities cattle, fat from 0.03 ppm to 

0.3 ppm; hog, fat from 0.010 ppm to 0.1 

ppm and hog, meat from 0.01 to 0.02 

ppm. An adequate analytical method, 

GC–NPD or in mobile phase by HPLC 

with ultra-violet (UV) detection (HPLC– 

UV), is available for enforcement 

purposes with a LOD that allows 

monitoring of food with residues at or 

above the levels set in these tolerances. 

The Analytical Chemistry section of the 

EPA concluded that the method(s) are 

adequate for enforcement. Analytical 

methods are also available for analyzing 

meat, milk, poultry and eggs which also 

underwent successful independent 

laboratory validations. Contact: Erin 

Malone, (703) 347–0253, email address: 

malone.erin@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 9, 2012. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12126 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[MB Docket No. 11–154; Report No. 2951] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, Petitions 

for Reconsideration (Petitions) have 

been filed in the Commission’s 

Rulemaking proceeding by the 

Consumer Electronics Association, 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc., et al., and 

TVGuardian, LLC. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed by June 7, 2012. Replies to an 

opposition must be filed June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Sokolow, Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov 

mailto: Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, 202–418–2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 2951, released May 17, 2012. 

The full text of this document is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS