Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40043 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. As such, this 

action does not entail special 

considerations of environmental justice 

related issues as delineated by 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 168 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Advertising, Exports, Labeling, 

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 3, 2014. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 168—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 168 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y. 

■ 2. Revise the heading for subpart D to 

part 168 to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Procedures for Exporting 

Pesticides 

■ 3. Add § 168.65 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 168.65 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart describes the labeling 

requirements applicable to pesticide 

products and devices that are intended 

solely for export from the United States 

under the provisions of FIFRA section 

17(a). 

(b) This subpart applies to all export 

pesticide products and export pesticide 

devices that are exported for any 

purpose, including research. 

(c) Export pesticide products and 

export pesticide devices are also subject 

to requirements for pesticide production 

reporting, recordkeeping and 

inspection, and purchaser 

acknowledgement provisions that can 

be found in the following parts: 

(1) Pesticide production reporting 

requirements under FIFRA section 7 are 

located in part 167 of this chapter (as 

referenced in § 168.85(b)). 

(2) Recordkeeping and inspection 

requirements under FIFRA section 8 are 

located in part 169 of this chapter (as 

referenced in § 168.85(a)). 

(3) Purchaser acknowledgement 

statement provisions under FIFRA 

section 17(a) are located in § 168.75. 

■ 4. Revise § 168.66 to read as follows: 

§ 168.66 Labeling of pesticide products 

and devices for export. 

Any label and labeling information 

requirements in §§ 168.69, 168.70, and 

168.71 that are not met fully on the 

product label attached to the immediate 

product container may be met by 

collateral labeling that is either: 

(a) Attached to the immediate product 

(container label); or 

(b) Attached to or accompanies the 

shipping container of the export 

pesticide or export device at all times 

when it is shipped or held for shipment 

in the United States. 

§ 168.68 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 5. Remove and reserve § 168.68. 

■ 6. In § 168.69, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 168.69 Registered export pesticide 

products. 

(a) Each export pesticide product that 

is registered under FIFRA section 3 or 

FIFRA section 24(c) must bear labeling 

approved by EPA for its registration or 

collateral labeling in compliance with 

§ 168.66. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 168.70, revise the introductory 

text of paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 168.70 Unregistered export pesticide 

products. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each unregistered export pesticide 

product must bear labeling that 

complies with all requirements of this 

section or collateral labeling in 

compliance with § 168.66: 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 168.71, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 168.71 Export pesticide devices. 

(a) Each export pesticide device sold 

or distributed anywhere in the United 

States must bear labeling that complies 

with all requirements of this section or 

collateral labeling in compliance with 

§ 168.66. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–16274 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0194; FRL–9910–45] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Amitraz, Carfentrazone-ethyl, 

Ethephon, Malathion, Mancozeb, et al.; 

Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the fungicides 

spiroxamine and triflumizole, the 

herbicides carfentrazone-ethyl and 

quizalofop ethyl; the insecticides 

amitraz, oxamyl, propetamphos, and 

spinosad; and the plant growth 

regulators ethephon and mepiquat. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to revoke the 

tolerance on rice straw for multiple 

active ingredients. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the fungicides mancozeb, thiram, 

and triflumizole; and the insecticide 

malathion. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to establish new tolerances 

for the fungicide mancozeb. Also, in 

accordance with current Agency 

practice, EPA is proposing to make 

minor revisions to the tolerance 

expression for malathion, mepiquat, and 

thiram. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0194, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

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), (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.html. 

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: 

Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–8037; email address: 

nevola.joseph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

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. 

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 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (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 

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 fungicides mancozeb, 

spiroxamine, thiram, and triflumizole; 

the herbicides carfentrazone-ethyl and 

quizalofop ethyl; the insecticides 

amitraz, malathion, oxamyl, 

propetamphos, and spinosad; and the 

plant growth regulators ethephon and 

mepiquat in or on commodities listed in 

the regulatory text. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances on 

rice straw for multiple active 

ingredients because it is no longer 

considered by the Agency to be a 

significant feed item. 

Also, EPA is proposing to make minor 

revisions to the tolerance expressions 

for malathion, mepiquat, and thiram in 

accordance with current Agency 

practice to describe more clearly the 

measurement of residues for tolerances 

and coverage of metabolites and 

degradates of a pesticide by the 

tolerances. The revisions to the 

tolerance expressions do not 

substantively change the tolerance or, in 

any way, modify the permissible level of 

residues permitted by the tolerances. 

EPA is proposing to revoke certain 

tolerances because they are no longer 

needed or are associated with food uses 

that are no longer registered under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

The proposed tolerance actions for 

mancozeb and malathion are consistent 

with the recommendations in their 

Reregistration Eligibility Decisions 

(REDs) of 2005 and 2009, respectively. 

As part of the tolerance reassessment 

process, 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 RED. REDs 

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 

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 

http://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 http://www.ntis.gov. 

Electronic copies are available on the 

Internet for the malathion and 

mancozeb REDs in dockets EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2004–0348 and EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2005–0176, respectively, at http://

www.regulations.gov and at http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/

status.htm. 

In REDs, Chapter IV on risk 

management, reregistration, and 

tolerance reassessment typically 

describes the regulatory position, 

cumulative safety determination, 

determination of safety for U.S. general 

population, and safety for infants and 

children. In particular, the human 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40045 

health risk assessment document which 

supports the RED describes risk 

exposure estimates and whether the 

Agency has concerns. 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 document and in more 

detail in the Residue Chemistry Chapter 

document which supports the RED. 

Copies of the Residue Chemistry 

Chapter documents are found in the 

Administrative Record and electronic 

copies for malathion and mancozeb can 

be found under their respective docket 

ID numbers, identified in Unit II.A. 

Electronic copies of other support 

documents (including explanations for 

proposed modifications in triflumizole 

tolerances) are available through EPA’s 

electronic docket and comment system, 

regulations.gov at http://

www.regulations.gov. You may search 

for this proposed rule under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0194, then 

click on that docket ID number to view 

its contents. 

EPA had determined at the time of the 

RED 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 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. The 

references are available for inspection as 

described in this document under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

In addition, 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. 

EPA is proposing to revoke specific 

tolerances for residues of mepiquat and 

triflumizole because the Agency has 

concluded that there is no reasonable 

expectation of finite residues in or on 

the commodities associated with the 

tolerances, and therefore these 

tolerances are no longer needed. 

The determinations that there are no 

reasonable expectations of finite 

residues for the tolerances listed in this 

document were made based on feeding 

studies submitted since the time that the 

tolerances were originally established. 

These feeding studies used exaggerated 

amounts of the compound and did not 

show measurable residues of the 

pesticide active ingredient tested. The 

Agency made the determination that 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

finite residues for the pesticides active 

ingredient/commodity combinations 

listed in this proposal in memoranda of 

July 30, 2001 for mepiquat and October 

1, 2008 for triflumizole. Copies of these 

memoranda can be found in the docket 

for this proposed rule. Because EPA 

determined that there is no reasonable 

expectation of finite residues, under 40 

CFR 180.6 the tolerances are no longer 

needed under FFDCA and can be 

proposed for revocation. 

1. Multiple active ingredients. EPA 

has determined that rice straw is no 

longer a significant feed item in the 

United States, and therefore the 

tolerance is no longer needed and 

should be revoked. (The document 

entitled ‘‘OPPTS Test Guideline 

860.1000 Supplement: Guidance on 

Constructing Maximum Reasonably 

Balanced Diets (MRBD)’’ is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2009–0155). Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances for 

rice, straw in 40 CFR 180.142(a) for 2,4– 

D; 180.169(a)(1) for carbaryl; 180.205(a) 

for paraquat; 180.274(a) for propanil; 

180.288(a) for 2- 

(thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole; 

180.293(a)(1) for endothall; 180.301(a) 

for carboxin; 180.355(a)(1) for bentazon; 

180.361(a) for pendimethalin; 

180.377(a)(2) for diflubenzuron; 

180.383(a) for sodium salt of acifluorfen; 

180.399(a)(1) for iprodione; 180.401(a) 

for thiobencarb; 180.417(a)(1) for 

triclopyr; 180.418(a)(2) for zetacypermethrin; 180.425(a) for clomazone; 

180.434(a) for propiconazole; 

180.438(a)(1) for lambda-cyhalothrin; 

180.438(a)(2) for gamma-cyhalothrin 

and its epimer; 180.439(a) for 

thifensulfuron methyl; 180.445(a) for 

bensulfuron methyl; 180.447(a)(2) for 

imazethapyr; 180.451(a) for tribenuron 

methyl; 180.463(a)(1) for quinclorac; 

180.473(a) for glufosinate ammonium; 

180.479(a)(2) for halosulfuron-methyl; 

180.484(a) for flutolanil; 180.507(a)(1) 

for azoxystrobin; 180.517(a) for fipronil; 

180.555(a) for trifloxystrobin; 

180.570(a)(2) for isoxadifen-ethyl; 

180.577(a) for bispyribac-sodium; 

180.605(a) for penoxsulam; and 

180.625(a) for orthosulfamuron. 

2. Amitraz. There have been no active 

U.S. registrations for use of amitraz on 

cotton since May 3, 2006 and the 

manufacturer, Arysta Life Sciences, 

notified EPA in July 2011 that it no 

longer is interested in supporting the 

tolerance for amitraz use on cotton, 

undelinted seed for import purposes. 

The tolerance is no longer needed and 

therefore should be revoked. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerance for amitraz in 40 

CFR 180.287(a) on cotton, undelinted 

seed. 

3. Carfentrazone-ethyl. Because the 

first cotton processing study submitted 

by the registrant was conducted at 1.0x 

the seasonal application rate and 

resulted in residues less than the Limit 

of Quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm, EPA 

requested that a processing study be 

conducted at an application rate 

sufficient to generate residues in/on 

cottonseed and set tolerances for cotton 

hulls, meal, and oil using theoretical 

processing factors and the highest 

average cottonseed field trial residue. 

Based on an available second processing 

study conducted at 2.0x the seasonal 

application rate, which showed that 

carfentrazone-ethyl residues of concern 

in or on cottonseed were detected (Limit 

of Detection 0.015–0.020 ppm) but were 

less than the LOQ of 0.05 ppm, EPA 

determined that the tolerances for 

carfentrazone-ethyl residues of concern 

are no longer needed on cottonseed 

hull, meal, and oil and therefore should 

be revoked. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances for 

carfentrazone-ethyl in 40 CFR 

180.515(a) on cotton, hulls; cotton, 

meal; and cotton, refined oil. 

Because uses supported by the 

carfentrazone-ethyl tolerance for 

caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.1 ppm are 

covered by the tolerance for berry group 

13 at 0.10 ppm, there is no longer any 

need for the separate subgroup tolerance 

and therefore it should be revoked. In 

addition, because EPA no longer 

considers rice straw to be a significant 

feed item, the tolerance is no longer 

needed and should be revoked. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances for carfentrazoneethyl in 40 CFR 180.515(a) on caneberry 

subgroup 13A and rice, straw. 

4. Ethephon. Because the last product 

label amendment has been completed 

which limits the use of ethephon to 

cucumbers grown for seed production 

only and restricts the harvesting of 

treated cucumbers for human or animal 

consumption, a food tolerance for 

ethephon is no longer needed and 

therefore should be revoked. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerance for ethephon in 40 

CFR 180.300(a) on cucumber. 

5. Malathion. EPA is proposing to 

modify the plant tolerance commodity 

levels for certain existing malathion 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) based 

on available field trial data and product 

label changes. Currently, those 

tolerances are established for residues of 

malathion. However, as stated in the 

2009 amended RED for malathion, based 

on available plant metabolism data, EPA 

determined that the residues of concern 

in plants consist of malathion and its 

metabolite, malaoxon, and therefore the 

tolerance expression for plant 

commodities should be revised. Because 

EPA is not proposing to modify all of 

the plant commodity tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.111(a)(1) at this time, EPA is 

proposing that those specific tolerances 

which it is proposing to modify herein 

be redesignated from 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2), 

where tolerances are currently 

established for malathion and its 

metabolite malaoxon. Also, in 

accordance with current Agency 

practice to describe more clearly the 

measurement and scope or coverage of 

the tolerances, EPA is proposing to 

revise the introductory text containing 

the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2) to read as set out in the 

proposed regulatory text at the end of 

this document. 

Based on product label changes to 

their use patterns and available field 

trial data that showed malathion 

residues of concern in or on apricot as 

high as <0.65 ppm, avocado as high as 

<0.08 ppm, fig as high as <0.41 ppm, 

grape as high as 2.78 ppm, macadamia 

nut as high as <0.10 ppm, melon as high 

as <0.85 ppm, mushroom as high as 

<0.10 ppm, okra as high as <2.23 ppm, 

bulb onion as high as <0.60 ppm, green 

onion as high as 4.88 ppm, peach as 

high as <3.64 ppm, pear as high as 2.23 

ppm, peppermint and spearmint tops as 

high as 1.43 ppm, EPA determined that 

the tolerances should be decreased from 

8 to 1.0 ppm, 8 to 0.2 ppm, 8 to 1.0 

ppm, 8 to 4.0, 1 to 0.2 ppm, 8 to 1.0 

ppm, 8 to 0.2 ppm, 8 to 3.0 ppm, 8 to 

1.0, 8 to 6.0, 8 to 6.0 ppm, 8 to 3.0 ppm, 

8 to 2.0 ppm, and 8 to 2.0 ppm, 

respectively. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for apricot, fig, 

melon, and onion, bulb to 1.0 ppm, 

avocado, mushroom, and nut, 

macadamia to 0.2 ppm, grape to 4.0 

ppm, okra and pear to 3.0 ppm, onion, 

green and peach to 6.0 ppm, 

peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops to 

2.0 ppm, and redesignate them to 40 

CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Available residue data may be 

translated by the Agency from one 

commodity to another related 

commodity where appropriate (e.g., 

have similar use patterns). Based on 

their use patterns and the translation of 

apricot data to nectarine, bulb onion 

data to garlic, and green onion data to 

leek and shallot (data previously 

mentioned herein), EPA determined that 

the tolerances for nectarine, bulb garlic, 

leek, and bulb shallot should be 

decreased from 8 to 1.0 ppm, 8 to 1.0 

ppm, 8 to 6 ppm, and 8 to 6 ppm, 

respectively. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for nectarine and 

garlic, bulb to 1.0 ppm, and leek and 

shallot, bulb to 6.0 ppm, and 

redesignate them to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and the 

translation of melon data (data 

previously mentioned herein) to 

pumpkin and winter squash, EPA 

determined that the tolerances for 

pumpkin and winter squash should 

each be decreased from 8 to 1.0 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) 

for pumpkin; and squash, winter; each 

to 1.0 ppm, and redesignate them to 40 

CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on its use pattern and available 

field trial data that showed malathion 

residues of concern in or on asparagus 

were as high as 1.38 ppm, EPA 

determined that the tolerance should be 

decreased from 8 to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to decrease the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for 

asparagus to 2.0 ppm, and redesignate it 

to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

available field trial data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

blackberry as high as 3.99 ppm and 

raspberry as high as 4.96 ppm, EPA 

determined that the tolerances should 

be decreased from 8 to 6 ppm and 8 to 

6 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for blackberry and 

raspberry to 6 ppm, and redesignate 

them to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and the 

translation of blackberry and/or 

raspberry data (data previously 

mentioned herein) to boysenberry, 

dewberry, gooseberry, and loganberry, 

EPA determined that the tolerances for 

boysenberry, dewberry, gooseberry, and 

loganberry should each be decreased 

from 8 to 6 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for boysenberry, 

dewberry, gooseberry, and loganberry, 

each to 6 ppm, and redesignate them to 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

available field trial data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

turnip greens as high as 3.40 ppm and 

turnip roots as high as <0.18 ppm, EPA 

determined that the tolerances should 

be decreased from 8 to 4.0 ppm and 8 

to 0.5 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to decrease the tolerances 

in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for turnip, 

greens to 4.0 ppm and turnip, roots to 

0.5 ppm, and redesignate them to 40 

CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and the 

translation of turnip greens data (data 

previously mentioned herein) to garden 

beet tops and salsify tops, EPA 

determined that the tolerances for beet, 

garden, tops and salsify, tops; should 

each be decreased from 8 to 4.0 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) 

for beet, garden, tops; and salsify, tops; 

each to 4.0 ppm, and redesignate them 

to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and the 

translation of the turnip root data (data 

previously mentioned herein) to garden 

beet roots, horseradish, parsnip, radish, 

rutabaga, and salsify roots, EPA 

determined that the tolerances for beet, 

garden, roots; horseradish; parsnip; 

radish; rutabaga; and salsify, roots; 

should each be decreased from 8 to 0.5 

ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(1) for beet, garden, roots, 

horseradish; parsnip; radish; rutabaga; 

and salsify, roots; each to 0.5 ppm, and 

redesignate them to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

available field trial data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

potatoes as high as 0.05 ppm, and 

translation of that data to chayote roots 

and sweet potato roots, EPA determined 

that the tolerances should be decreased 

from 8 to 0.1 ppm for potato; chayote, 

roots; and sweet potato, roots. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) 

for potato; chayote, roots; and sweet 

potato, roots; each to 0.1 ppm, and 

redesignate them to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

cucumber data which showed 

malathion residues of concern as high as 

<0.11 ppm, and translation of that data 

to chayote fruit and summer squash, 

EPA determined that the tolerances for 

chayote fruit and summer squash 

should be decreased from 8 to 0.2 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) 

for chayote, fruit; and squash, summer; 

each to 0.2 ppm, and redesignate them 

to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40047 

Based on their use patterns and 

tomato data, which showed malathion 

residues of concern as high as 1.54 ppm, 

and translation of that data to eggplant, 

EPA determined that the tolerance for 

eggplant should be decreased from 8 to 

2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(1) for eggplant to 2.0 ppm, 

and redesignate it to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

available field trial data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

alfalfa and clover forage as high as 

110.12 ppm and 120.14 ppm, 

respectively, and translation of that data 

to trefoil forage, EPA determined that 

the tolerances should be decreased from 

135 to 125 ppm for alfalfa, clover, and 

trefoil forage. Also, based on its use 

pattern and available field trial data that 

showed malathion residues of concern 

in or on clover hay as high as 120.50 

ppm, EPA determined that the tolerance 

should be decreased from 135 to 125 

ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(1) for alfalfa, forage; clover, 

forage; trefoil, forage; and clover, hay; 

each to 125 ppm; and redesignate them 

to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on its use pattern and available 

storage stability data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

carrots were as high as 0.54 ppm, EPA 

determined that the tolerance should be 

decreased from 8 to 1 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to decrease the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for 

carrot, roots to 1 ppm, and redesignate 

it to 40 CFR 180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

available field trial data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

mango were as high as <0.12 ppm, 

passionfruit were as high as <0.12 ppm, 

pineapple were as high as 0.17 ppm, 

and walnuts were non-detectable (<0.10 

ppm), EPA determined that the 

tolerances should each be decreased 

from 8 to 0.2 ppm. Also, based on their 

use patterns and the translation of 

walnut data to pecan, EPA determined 

that the pecan tolerance should be 

decreased from 8 to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to decrease the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for 

mango, passionfruit, pecan, pineapple, 

and walnut, each to 0.2 ppm, and 

redesignate them to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and 

available field trial data that showed 

malathion residues of concern in or on 

oranges as high as 1.91 ppm, and 

translation of that data to grapefruit, 

kumquat, lemon, lime, and tangerine, 

EPA determined that the tolerances 

should be decreased from 8 to 4.0 ppm 

for orange, grapefruit, kumquat, lemon, 

lime, and tangerine. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for orange, 

grapefruit, kumquat, lemon, lime, and 

tangerine; each to 4.0 ppm, and 

redesignate them to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on their use patterns and dry 

bean data, which showed malathion 

residues of concern as high as 0.74 ppm, 

and translation of that data to lupin 

seed, EPA determined that the tolerance 

for lupin seed should be decreased from 

8 to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for lupin, seed to 

2.0 ppm, and redesignate it to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

Based on its use pattern and available 

field trial data that showed malathion 

residues of concern in or on peppers as 

high as 0.09 ppm, EPA determined that 

the tolerance should be decreased from 

8 to 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) for pepper to 0.5 

ppm, and redesignate it to 40 CFR 

180.111(a)(2). 

6. Mancozeb. Based on label revisions 

and available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

0.738 ppm in or on wheat grain and 27.1 

ppm in or on wheat straw, the Agency 

determined that the tolerances should 

be set at 1 ppm for wheat grain and 30 

ppm for wheat straw, which when 

converted to carbon disulfide 

equivalents using a rounded conversion 

factor of 0.6X (based on relative 

molecular weights) is calculated as 0.6 

ppm for grain and 18 ppm for straw. 

The Agency determined that data for 

wheat should be translated to barley, 

oat, and rye because of similar use 

patterns. In order to harmonize with 

Codex, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) to decrease the tolerances on 

barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain; and 

wheat, grain; each to 1 ppm and to 

maintain the tolerance for wheat, straw 

at 25 ppm (as recommended in the RED) 

and therefore, also maintain the straw 

tolerances at 25 ppm for barley, oat, and 

rye. 

Based on available processing data 

that showed mancozeb residues 

concentrated 2X in flour and 4X in 

wheat bran and shorts, and a highest 

average field trial (HAFT) of <0.748 

ppm on the raw agricultural commodity 

(RAC), the Agency expected residues as 

high as 1.5 ppm for flour and 2.99 ppm 

for bran, and the Agency determined 

that the tolerances should be set at 2.0 

ppm for flour and 3.0 ppm for bran and 

shorts, which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents using a rounded 

conversion factor of 0.6X is calculated 

as 1.2 ppm for flour and 2 ppm for bran 

and shorts. The Agency determined that 

data for wheat should be translated to 

barley, oat, and rye because of similar 

use patterns. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.176(a) to 

decrease the tolerances on wheat, flour; 

barley, flour; and oat, flour; each to 1.2 

ppm and also to establish a tolerance on 

rye, flour at 1.2 ppm; and decrease the 

tolerances on wheat, bran; barley, bran; 

rye, bran; and wheat, shorts; each to 2 

ppm. 

Based on sufficient data for wheat 

hay, where the field trial data showed 

mancozeb residues as high as 46.4 ppm, 

the Agency determined that the 

tolerance, in carbon disulfide 

equivalents, should be set at 30 ppm. No 

additional data for wheat hay have been 

received since the RED that would 

change that conclusion. (Although the 

Mancozeb RED stated that additional 

data for wheat hay were needed to 

establish a tolerance value, the Agency 

had received sufficient data prior to the 

RED to establish a tolerance value and 

no additional data are needed). The 

Agency determined that data for wheat 

hay should be translated to barley and 

oats because of similar use patterns. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.176(a) on 

wheat, hay; barley hay; and oat, hay at 

30 ppm. 

Based on label revision and available 

field trial data that showed mancozeb 

residues were as high as 12.6 ppm in or 

on papaya, the Agency determined that 

the tolerance should be set at 15 ppm, 

which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents using a rounded 

conversion factor of 0.6X is calculated 

as 9 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on papaya to 9 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues were not 

detectable (<0.05 ppm) in or on field 

corn grain, the Agency determined that 

the tolerance should be set at 0.1 ppm, 

which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents using a rounded 

conversion factor of 0.6X is calculated 

as 0.06 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) on corn, field, grain 

to 0.06 ppm. 

7. Mepiquat. Based on available data 

at an exaggerated feeding level of 7X the 

Maximum Theoretical Dietary Burden 

(MTDB) which showed mepiquat 

residues of concern in cattle meat, fat, 

and milk were below the limit of 

detection (<0.05 ppm), EPA determined 

that there is no reasonable expectation 

of finite mepiquat residues of concern in 

livestock meat and fat. The tolerances 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

are no longer needed under 40 CFR 

180.6(a)(3) and therefore should be 

revoked. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances for 

mepiquat chloride in 40 CFR 

180.384(a)(2) on cattle, fat; cattle, meat; 

goat, fat; goat, meat; hog, fat; hog, meat; 

horse, fat; horse, meat; sheep, fat; and 

sheep, meat. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

combine the tolerance expressions for 

mepiquat in 40 CFR 180.384(a)(1) and 

mepiquat chloride in 40 CFR 

180.384(a)(2) by measuring only 

mepiquat in newly designated 40 CFR 

180.384(a). Also, in order to describe 

more clearly the measurement of 

residues for tolerances and coverage of 

metabolites and degradates of a 

pesticide by the tolerances, EPA is 

proposing to revise the introductory text 

in newly designated 40 CFR 180.384(a) 

to read as set out in the proposed 

regulatory text at the end of this 

document. 

8. Oxamyl. In the Federal Register of 

January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1684) (FRL– 

9328–2), EPA announced its receipt of 

voluntary requests by registrants to 

amend certain pesticide registrations, 

including amendments to terminate the 

last oxamyl registrations for soybean 

use. In the Federal Register of April 11, 

2012 (77 FR 21767) (FRL–9342–2), EPA 

published a cancellation order in 

follow-up to the January 11, 2012 notice 

and granted the requested amendments 

to terminate use of oxamyl on soybeans. 

Because the soybean use has not been 

included on oxamyl product labels 

since 2006, no existing stocks period is 

needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerance for oxamyl in 40 

CFR 180.303(a) on soybean, seed. 

9. Propetamphos. In the Federal 

Register of August 18, 2010 (75 FR 

51053) (FRL–8840–3), EPA announced 

its receipt of voluntary requests by the 

registrant to cancel certain 

propetamphos registrations, which 

would terminate the last propetamphos 

products registered for use in the United 

States. In the Federal Register of 

December 30, 2010 (75 FR 82387) (FRL– 

8854–8), EPA published a cancellation 

order in follow-up to the August 18, 

2010 notice which granted the requested 

product cancellations and prohibited 

the registrant from selling or 

distributing its propetamphos technical 

product after March 30, 2012 and enduse product until stocks are exhausted 

as described. Persons other than the 

registrant are allowed to sell, distribute, 

and use existing stocks of the end-use 

product until supplies are exhausted. 

EPA believes that existing stocks have 

been exhausted. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the sole tolerance 

for propetamphos in 40 CFR 180.541, on 

food and feed commodities, and remove 

that section in its entirety. 

10. Quizalofop ethyl. Because EPA no 

longer considers soybean soapstock to 

be a significant livestock feed item, the 

tolerance for quizalofop ethyl residues 

of concern is no longer needed and 

therefore should be revoked. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerance for quizalofop ethyl 

in 40 CFR 180.441(a)(1) on soybean, 

soapstock. 

11. Spinosad. The existing tolerance 

for spinosad on coriander leaves was 

translated from the tolerance for 

vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 

at 8.0 ppm. The 2009 Calendar Year 

Pesticide Data Program (PDP) summary, 

available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/science, reported that 

spinosad residues were detected in two 

cilantro samples out of 184 samples. 

Residues ranged from 0.016 to 0.030 

ppm. Because fresh coriander leaves are 

included in herb subgroup 19A, fresh 

and residues on coriander leaves do not 

exceed the herb subgroup 19A, fresh 

tolerance of 3.0 ppm, there is no longer 

any need for the separate tolerance on 

coriander leaves at 8.0 and therefore it 

should be revoked. Consequently, EPA 

is proposing to revoke the tolerance for 

spinosad in 40 CFR 180.495(a) on 

coriander, leaves. 

12. Spiroxamine. In the Federal 

Register of September 7, 2011 (76 FR 

55385) (FRL–8887–1), EPA announced 

its receipt of voluntary requests by 

registrants to cancel certain pesticide 

registrations, including the last 

registrations for use of spiroxamine on 

hops. In the Federal Register of May 23, 

2012 (77 FR 30526) (FRL–9347–3), EPA 

published a cancellation order in 

follow-up to the September 7, 2011 

notice and granted the requested 

product cancellations, including ones 

which terminated use of spiroxamine on 

hops. The cancellation order allowed 

registrants to sell and distribute existing 

stocks until May 23, 2013. EPA believes 

that existing stocks (with hops use) will 

be exhausted 1 year after May 23, 2013; 

i.e., by May 23, 2014. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerance for 

spiroxamine in 40 CFR 180.602(a) on 

hop, dried cones. 

13. Thiram. Currently, tolerances for 

thiram are established in 40 CFR 

180.132(a) for residues of the fungicide 

thiram (tetramethyl thiuram disulfide). 

Thiram is a member of the class of 

dithiocarbamates, whose decomposition 

releases a common moiety, carbon 

disulfide. In order to allow 

harmonization of U.S. tolerances with 

Codex MRLs, the Agency determined 

that for the purpose of tolerance 

enforcement, residues of thiram should 

be calculated as carbon disulfide. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise 

the introductory text containing the 

tolerance expression in 40 CFR 

180.132(a) to thiram residues 

convertible to and expressed in terms of 

the degradate carbon disulfide and also 

revise the tolerance expression in 

accordance with current Agency 

practice to describe more clearly the 

measurement and scope or coverage of 

the tolerances, to read as set out in the 

proposed regulatory text at the end of 

this document. Based on the revising of 

the tolerance expression to carbon 

disulfide, EPA determined that the 

thiram tolerances for apple and 

strawberry should be decreased from 7.0 

to 5 ppm and 20 to 13 ppm, 

respectively, and the tolerance for 

banana should be increased from 0.80 to 

2.0 ppm in order to harmonize with 

Codex. Also, in order to harmonize with 

Codex, EPA is maintaining the tolerance 

for peach at 7.0 ppm. (The Agency’s 

determination is available in the docket 

of this proposed rule). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.132(a) to 

decrease the tolerances for apple to 5 

ppm and strawberry to 13 ppm, and 

increase the tolerance for banana to 2.0 

ppm. The Agency determined that the 

increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is 

a reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. 

14. Triflumizole. Because EPA no 

longer considers dry apple pomace, 

grape pomace, and grape raisin waste to 

be significant livestock feed items, the 

associated tolerances for triflumizole 

residues of concern are no longer 

needed and therefore should be 

revoked. Also, based on apple 

processing data that showed 

triflumizole residues of concern do not 

concentrate in wet apple pomace, the 

tolerance is no longer needed and 

should be revoked. Consequently, EPA 

is proposing to revoke the tolerances for 

triflumizole in 40 CFR 180.476(a)(1) on 

apple, dry pomace; apple, wet pomace; 

grape, dried pomace; grape, raisin, 

waste; and grape, wet pomace. 

Also, because there are no longer any 

registered triflumizole uses associated 

with feed items for poultry and swine, 

tolerances for triflumizole residues of 

concern on swine and poultry are no 

longer needed and therefore should be 

revoked. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances for 

triflumizole in 40 CFR 180.476(a)(2) on 

hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat 

byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; 

poultry, meat byproducts; and egg. 

Based on available data at an 

exaggerated feeding level of 6X the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40049 

MTDB which showed triflumizole 

residues of concern to be below the 

limit of quantitation (<0.05 ppm) and 

projected residues at 1X the MTDB in 

cattle meat and milk to be well below 

the limit of quantitation (<0.05 ppm), 

EPA determined that there is no 

reasonable expectation of finite 

triflumizole residues of concern in 

livestock meat and milk. These 

tolerances are no longer needed under 

40 CFR 180.6(a)(3) and therefore should 

be revoked. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances for 

triflumizole in 40 CFR 180.476(a)(2) on 

cattle, meat; goat, meat; horse, meat; 

sheep, meat; and milk. 

In addition, based on available data at 

an exaggerated feeding level at 6X the 

MTDB which projected residues at 1X 

the MTDB in cattle fat, kidney, and liver 

to be <0.05 ppm, <0.10 ppm, and <0.10 

ppm, respectively, EPA determined that 

the existing tolerances should be 

decreased. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances for 

triflumizole in 40 CFR 180.476(a)(2) 

from 0.5 to 0.10 ppm on cattle, fat; goat, 

fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat; and from 

0.5 to 0.20 ppm on cattle, meat 

byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; 

horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, 

meat byproducts. 

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, 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 FFDCA 

section 402(a), 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 

under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Fooduse 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 certain specific 

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 is 

discussed in detail in each RED for the 

active ingredient. REDs 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 are 

available as provided in Unit II.A. 

EPA has issued REDs for malathion 

and mancozeb. REDs 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 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 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 FFDCA 

section 408, a tolerance may only be 

established or maintained if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is safe 

based on a number of factors, including 

an assessment of the aggregate exposure 

to the pesticide and an assessment of 

the cumulative effects of such pesticide 

and other substances that have a 

common mechanism of toxicity. In 

doing so, EPA must consider potential 

contributions to such exposure from all 

tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such 

that the tolerances in aggregate are not 

safe, then every one of these tolerances 

is potentially vulnerable to revocation. 

Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are 

included in the aggregate and 

cumulative risk assessments, the 

estimated exposure to the pesticide 

would be inflated. Consequently, it may 

be more difficult for others to obtain 

needed tolerances or to register needed 

new uses. To avoid potential trade 

restrictions, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke tolerances for residues on crops 

uses for which FIFRA registrations no 

longer exist, unless someone expresses 

a need for such tolerances. Through this 

proposed rule, the Agency is inviting 

individuals who need these import 

tolerances to identify themselves and 

the tolerances that are needed to cover 

imported commodities. 

Parties interested in retention of the 

tolerances should be aware that 

additional data may be needed to 

support retention. These parties should 

be aware that, under FFDCA section 

408(f), if the Agency determines that 

additional information is reasonably 

required to support the continuation of 

a tolerance, EPA may require that 

parties interested in maintaining the 

tolerances provide the necessary 

information. If the requisite information 

is not submitted, EPA may issue an 

order revoking the tolerance at issue. 

When EPA establishes tolerances for 

pesticide residues in or on raw 

agricultural commodities, consideration 

must be given to the possible residues 

of those chemicals in meat, milk, 

poultry, and/or eggs produced by 

animals that are fed agricultural 

products (for example, grain or hay) 

containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 

180.6). When considering this 

possibility, EPA can conclude that: 

1. Finite residues will exist in meat, 

milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 

2. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will exist. 

3. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will not exist. If 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

finite pesticide residues in or on meat, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 actions 

herein become effective 6 months after 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. EPA is 

proposing this effective date for these 

actions to allow a reasonable interval for 

producers in exporting members of the 

World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) 

Measures Agreement to adapt to the 

requirements of a final rule. EPA 

believes that treated commodities will 

have sufficient time for passage through 

the channels of trade. 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 the Food Quality Protection Act 

(FQPA). Under this unit, any residues of 

these pesticides in or on such food shall 

not render the food adulterated so long 

as it is shown to the satisfaction of the 

Food and Drug Administration that: 

1. The residue is present as the result 

of an application or use of the pesticide 

at a time and in a manner that was 

lawful under FIFRA, and 

2. The residue does not exceed the 

level that was authorized at the time of 

the application or use to be present on 

the food under a tolerance or exemption 

from tolerance. Evidence to show that 

food was lawfully treated may include 

records that verify the dates when the 

pesticide was applied to such food. 

III. International Residue Limits 

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 Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations 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. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for carfentrazone-ethyl, mepiquat, 

propetamphos, quizalofop ethyl, 

spiroxamine, triflumizole, ethephon in 

or on cucumber, oxamyl in or on 

soybean seed, spinosad in or on 

coriander leaves, or total 

dithiocarbamates in or on barley bran, 

barley flour, field corn grain, oat flour, 

oat grain, rye bran, rye grain, wheat 

bran, wheat flour, and wheat, shorts. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on various 

commodities, including barley and 

wheat, each at 1 milligrams/kilogram 

(mg/kg). These MRLs are the same as the 

tolerances proposed for mancozeb in the 

United States. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on various 

commodities, including papaya at 5 mg/ 

kg. This MRL is covered by a proposed 

U.S. tolerance at a higher level than the 

MRL. The MRL is different than the 

proposed U.S. tolerance for mancozeb in 

the United States because of differences 

in residue definition, use patterns, and/ 

or good agricultural practices. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

malathion in or on various 

commodities, including onion, bulb at 1 

milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). This MRL 

is the same as the tolerance proposed for 

malathion in the United States. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

malathion in or on various 

commodities, including asparagus at 1 

mg/kg and peppers at 0.1 mg/kg. These 

MRLs are covered by proposed U.S. 

tolerances at higher levels than the 

MRLs. These MRLs are different than 

the tolerances established for malathion 

in the United States because of 

differences in residue definition, use 

patterns, and/or good agricultural 

practices. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

malathion in or on citrus fruits at 7 mg/ 

kg, grapes at 5 mg/kg, and turnip greens 

at 5 mg/kg. These MRLs are different 

than the tolerances proposed for 

malathion in the United States because 

of differences in residue definition, use 

patterns, and/or good agricultural 

practices. 

The Codex has established a MRL for 

amitraz in or on various commodities, 

including cotton seed at 0.5 mg/kg. This 

MRL is covered by the current U.S. 

tolerance at a higher level than the MRL, 

but would no longer be covered due to 

the proposed revocation of the U.S. 

tolerance. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on various 

commodities, including banana at 2 mg/ 

kg, peach at 7 mg/kg, and strawberry at 

5 mg/kg. The MRLs for banana and 

peach are the same as the U.S. 

tolerances proposed for thiram in the 

United States. The MRL for strawberry 

is covered by a proposed U.S. tolerance 

at a higher level than the MRL. The 

MRL for strawberry is different than the 

tolerance proposed for thiram in the 

United States because of differences in 

use patterns, and/or good agricultural 

practices. 

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, 

entitled ‘‘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) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40051 

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) (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 the 

EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments 

about the Agency’s determination 

should be submitted to the 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 

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 

9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that 

have tribal implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

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: June 24, 2014. 

Jack Housenger, 

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. In § 180.111, revise the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) and revise paragraph 

(a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 180.111 Malathion; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Alfalfa, hay .............................. 135 

Almond, hulls .......................... 50 

Almond, postharvest ............... 8 

Apple ....................................... 8 

Barley, grain, postharvest ....... 8 

Bean, dry, seed ...................... 8 

Bean, succulent ...................... 8 

Beet, sugar, roots ................... 1 

Beet, sugar, tops .................... 8 

Blueberry ................................ 8 

Cherry ..................................... 8 

Chestnut ................................. 1 

Corn, field, forage ................... 8 

Corn, field, grain, postharvest 8 

Corn, pop, grain, postharvest 8 

Corn, sweet, forage ................ 8 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed ............ 2 

Cowpea, forage ...................... 135 

Cowpea, hay ........................... 135 

Cranberry ................................ 8 

Cucumber ............................... 8 

Currant .................................... 8 

Date, dried fruit ....................... 8 

Flax, seed ............................... 0 .1 

Guava ..................................... 8 

Hazelnut .................................. 1 

Hop, dried cones .................... 1 

Lentil, seed ............................. 8 

Lespedeza, hay ...................... 135 

Oat, grain, postharvest ........... 8 

Papaya .................................... 1 

Pea ......................................... 8 

Pea, field, hay ......................... 8 

Pea, field, vines ...................... 8 

Peanut, hay ............................ 135 

Peanut, postharvest ................ 8 

Plum ........................................ 8 

Plum, prune ............................ 8 

Quince .................................... 8 

Rice, grain, postharvest .......... 8 

Rice, wild ................................ 8 

Rye, grain, postharvest .......... 8 

Safflower, seed ....................... 0 .2 

Sorghum, grain, forage ........... 8 

Sorghum, grain, grain, 

postharvest .......................... 8 

Soybean, forage ..................... 135 

Soybean, hay .......................... 135 

Soybean, seed ........................ 8 

Soybean, vegetable, succulent 8 

Strawberry .............................. 8 

Sunflower, seed, postharvest 8 

Tomato .................................... 8 

Trefoil, hay .............................. 135 

Vegetable, brassica, leafy, 

group 5 ................................ 8 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 ....................... 8 

Vetch, hay ............................... 135 

Wheat, grain, postharvest ...... 8 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of the insecticide malathion, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the table in this paragraph. Compliance 

with the tolerance levels specified in 

this paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only the sum of malathion 

(O,O-dimethyl dithiophosphate of 

diethyl mercaptosuccinate), and its 

metabolite malaoxon (O,O-dimethyl 

thiophosphate of diethyl 

mercaptosuccinate), in or on the 

commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Alfalfa, forage ......................... 125 

Apricot ..................................... 1 .0 

Asparagus ............................... 2 .0 

Avocado .................................. 0 .2 

Barley, straw ........................... 50 

Beet, garden, roots ................. 0 .5 

Beet, garden, tops .................. 4 .0 

Blackberry ............................... 6 

Boysenberry ............................ 6 

Carrot, roots ............................ 1 

Chayote, fruit .......................... 0 .2 

Chayote, roots ........................ 0 .1 

Clover, forage ......................... 125 

Clover, hay ............................. 125 

Corn, field, stover ................... 30 .0 

Cotton, undelinted seed ......... 20 .0 

Dewberry ................................ 6 

Eggplant .................................. 2 .0 

Fig ........................................... 1 .0 

Garlic, bulb ............................. 1 .0 

Gooseberry ............................. 6 

Grape ...................................... 4 .0 

Grapefruit ................................ 4 .0 

Grass, forage .......................... 200 

Grass, hay .............................. 270 

Horseradish ............................ 0 .5 

Kumquat ................................. 4 .0 

Leek ........................................ 6 .0 

Lemon ..................................... 4 .0 

Lime ........................................ 4 .0 

Loganberry .............................. 6 

Lupin, seed ............................. 2 .0 

Mango ..................................... 0 .2 

Melon ...................................... 1 .0 

Mushroom ............................... 0 .2 

Nectarine ................................ 1 .0 

Nut, macadamia ..................... 0 .2 

Oat, forage .............................. 4 .0 

Oat, straw ............................... 50 

Okra ........................................ 3 .0 

Onion, bulb ............................. 1 .0 

Onion, green ........................... 6 .0 

Orange .................................... 4 .0 

Parsnip .................................... 0 .5 

Passionfruit ............................. 0 .2 

Peach ...................................... 6 .0 

Pear ........................................ 3 .0 

Pecan ...................................... 0 .2 

Pepper .................................... 0 .5 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Peppermint, tops .................... 2 .0 

Pineapple ................................ 0 .2 

Potato ..................................... 0 .1 

Pumpkin .................................. 1 .0 

Radish ..................................... 0 .5 

Raspberry ............................... 6 

Rutabaga ................................ 0 .5 

Rye, forage ............................. 4 .0 

Rye, straw ............................... 50 

Salsify, roots ........................... 0 .5 

Salsify, tops ............................ 4 .0 

Shallot, bulb ............................ 6 .0 

Spearmint, tops ...................... 2 .0 

Squash, summer .................... 0 .2 

Squash, winter ........................ 1 .0 

Sweet potato, roots ................ 0 .1 

Tangerine ................................ 4 .0 

Trefoil, forage ......................... 125 

Turnip, greens ........................ 4 .0 

Turnip, roots ........................... 0 .5 

Walnut ..................................... 0 .2 

Watercress .............................. 0 .2 

Wheat, forage ......................... 4 .0 

Wheat, straw ........................... 50 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 180.132, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the fungicide 

thiram, tetramethyl thiuram disulfide, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the table in this paragraph. Compliance 

with the tolerance levels specified in 

this paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only those thiram residues 

convertible to and expressed in terms of 

the degradate carbon disulfide, in or on 

the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Apple ................. 5 None 

Banana 1 ........... 2.0 3/31/15 

Peach ................ 7.0 None 

Strawberry ........ 13 None 

1There are no U.S. registrations as of September 23, 2009. 

* * * * * 

§ 180.142 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 180.142, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.169 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 180.169, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

■ 6. In § 180.176, revise the table in 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.176 Mancozeb; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond .................................... 0 .1 

Almond, hulls .......................... 4 

Apple ....................................... 0 .6 

Asparagus ............................... 0 .1 

Atemoya .................................. 3 .0 

Banana ................................... 2 

Barley, bran ............................ 2 

Barley, flour ............................ 1 .2 

Barley, grain ........................... 1 

Barley, hay .............................. 30 

Barley, pearled barley ............ 20 

Barley, straw ........................... 25 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ........... 3 .0 

Beet, sugar, roots ................... 1 .2 

Beet, sugar, tops .................... 60 

Broccoli ................................... 7 

Cabbage ................................. 9 

Canistel ................................... 15 .0 

Cattle, kidney .......................... 0 .5 

Cattle, liver .............................. 0 .5 

Cherimoya .............................. 3 .0 

Corn, field, forage ................... 40 

Corn, field, grain ..................... 0 .06 

Corn, field, stover ................... 15 

Corn, pop, grain ...................... 0 .1 

Corn, pop, stover .................... 40 

Corn, sweet, forage ................ 70 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed ............ 0 .1 

Corn, sweet, stover ................ 40 

Cotton, undelinted seed ......... 0 .5 

Crabapple ............................... 0 .6 

Cranberry ................................ 5 

Custard apple ......................... 3 .0 

Fennel ..................................... 2 .5 

Flax, seed ............................... 0 .15 

Ginseng .................................. 1 .2 

Goat, kidney ........................... 0 .5 

Goat, liver ............................... 0 .5 

Grape ...................................... 1 .5 

Hog, kidney ............................. 0 .5 

Hog, liver ................................ 0 .5 

Horse, kidney .......................... 0 .5 

Horse, liver ............................. 0 .5 

Lettuce, head .......................... 3 .5 

Lettuce, leaf ............................ 18 

Mango ..................................... 15 .0 

Oat, flour ................................. 1 .2 

Oat, grain ................................ 1 

Oat, groats/rolled oats ............ 20 

Oat, hay .................................. 30 

Oat, straw ............................... 25 

Onion, bulb ............................. 1 .5 

Papaya .................................... 9 

Peanut .................................... 0 .1 

Peanut, hay ............................ 65 

Pear ........................................ 0 .6 

Pepper .................................... 12 

Potato ..................................... 0 .2 

Poultry, kidney ........................ 0 .5 

Poultry, liver ............................ 0 .5 

Quince .................................... 0 .6 

Rice, grain .............................. 0 .06 

Rye, bran ................................ 2 

Rye, flour ................................ 1 .2 

Rye, grain ............................... 1 

Rye, straw ............................... 25 

Sapodilla ................................. 15 .0 

Sapote, mamey ...................... 15 .0 

Sapote, white .......................... 15 .0 

Sheep, kidney ......................... 0 .5 

Sheep, liver ............................. 0 .5 

Sorghum, grain, forage ........... 0 .15 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 40053 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............. 0 .25 

Sorghum, grain, stover ........... 0 .15 

Star apple ............................... 15 .0 

Sugar apple ............................ 3 .0 

Tangerine 1 ............................. 10 

Tomato .................................... 2 .5 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 .. 2 .0 

Walnut ..................................... 0 .70 

Wheat, bran ............................ 2 

Wheat, flour ............................ 1 .2 

Wheat, germ ........................... 20 

Wheat, grain ........................... 1 

Wheat, hay ............................. 30 

Wheat, middlings .................... 20 

Wheat, shorts ......................... 2 

Wheat, straw ........................... 25 

1There are no U.S. registrations for use of 

mancozeb on tangerine. 

* * * * * 

§ 180.205 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 180.205, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.274 [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 180.274, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.287 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 180.287, remove the entry for 

‘‘Cotton, undelinted seed 1’’ and the 

footnote from the table in paragraph (a). 

§ 180.288 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 180.288, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.293 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 180.293, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.300 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 180.300, remove the entry for 

‘‘Cucumber’’ from the table in paragraph 

(a). 

§ 180.301 [Amended] 

■ 13. In § 180.301, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.303 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 180.303, remove the entry for 

‘‘Soybean, seed’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.355 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 180.355, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.361 [Amended] 

■ 16. In § 180.361, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.377 [Amended] 

■ 17. In § 180.377, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 180.383 [Amended] 

■ 18. In § 180.383, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

■ 19. In § 180.384, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 180.384 Mepiquat (N,Ndimethylpiperidinium); tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the plant 

growth regulator mepiquat, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodities in the table in this 

paragraph. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified in this 

paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only mepiquat, N,Ndimethylpiperidinium, in or on the 

commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Cattle, meat byproducts ........... 0.1 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............. 6.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 2.0 

Goat, meat byproducts ............. 0.1 

Grape ........................................ 1.0 

Grape, raisin ............................. 5.0 

Hog, meat byproducts .............. 0.1 

Horse, meat byproducts ........... 0.1 

Sheep, meat byproducts .......... 0.1 

* * * * * 

§ 180.399 [Amended] 

■ 20. In § 180.399, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.401 [Amended] 

■ 21. In § 180.401, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.417 [Amended] 

■ 22. In § 180.417, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.418 [Amended] 

■ 23. In § 180.418, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 180.425 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 180.425, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.434 [Amended] 

■ 25. In § 180.434, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.438 [Amended] 

■ 26. In § 180.438, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) and from the table in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 180.439 [Amended] 

■ 27. In § 180.439, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.441 [Amended] 

■ 28. In § 180.441, remove the entry for 

‘‘Soybean, soapstock’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.445 [Amended] 

■ 29. In § 180.445, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.447 [Amended] 

■ 30. In § 180.447, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 180.451 [Amended] 

■ 31. In § 180.451, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.463 [Amended] 

■ 32. In § 180.463, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.473 [Amended] 

■ 33. In § 180.473, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

■ 34. In § 180.476, revise the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) and revise the table in 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 180.476 Triflumizole; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Berry, low growing, subgroup 

13–07G, except cranberry .. 2 .0 

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ............................. 8 .0 

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B ............................. 40 

Canistel ................................... 2 .5 

Cherry, sweet ......................... 1 .5 

Cherry, tart .............................. 1 .5 

Cilantro, leaves ....................... 35 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ....... 0 .50 

Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F ...................... 2 .5 

Hazelnut .................................. 0 .05 

Hop, dried cones .................... 50 

Leafy greens subgroup 4A, 

except spinach .................... 35 

Mango ..................................... 2 .5 

Papaya .................................... 2 .5 

Pineapple ................................ 4 .0 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40054 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Sapodilla ................................. 2 .5 

Sapote, black .......................... 2 .5 

Sapote, mamey ...................... 2 .5 

Star apple ............................... 2 .5 

Swiss chard ............................ 18 

Tomato .................................... 1 .5 

Turnip, greens ........................ 40 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 .. 0 .5 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Cattle, fat ................................ 0 .10 

Cattle, meat byproducts ......... 0 .20 

Goat, fat .................................. 0 .10 

Goat, meat byproducts ........... 0 .20 

Horse, fat ................................ 0 .10 

Horse, meat byproducts ......... 0 .20 

Sheep, fat ............................... 0 .10 

Sheep, meat byproducts ........ 0 .20 

* * * * * 

§ 180.479 [Amended] 

■ 35. In § 180.479, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 180.484 [Amended] 

■ 36. In § 180.484, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.495 [Amended] 

■ 37. In § 180.495, remove the entry for 

‘‘Coriander, leaves’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.507 [Amended] 

■ 38. In § 180.507, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.515 [Amended] 

■ 39. In § 180.515, remove the entries 

for ‘‘Caneberry subgroup 13A,’’ ‘‘Cotton, 

hulls,’’ ‘‘Cotton, meal,’’ ‘‘Cotton, refined 

oil’’ and ‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.517 [Amended] 

■ 40. In § 180.517, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.541 [Removed] 

■ 41. Remove § 180.541. 

§ 180.555 [Amended] 

■ 42. In § 180.555, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.570 [Amended] 

■ 43. In § 180.570, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 180.577 [Amended] 

■ 44. In § 180.577, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.602 [Amended] 

■ 45. In § 180.602, remove the entry for 

‘‘Hop, dried cones’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.605 [Amended] 

■ 46. In § 180.605, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

§ 180.625 [Amended] 

■ 47. In § 180.625, remove the entry for 

‘‘Rice, straw’’ from the table in 

paragraph (a). 

[FR Doc. 2014–16063 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

RIN 0648–XD267 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To 

Identify the Central North Pacific 

Population of Humpback Whale as a 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and 

Delist the DPS Under the Endangered 

Species Act; Extension of Public 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 

extension of the public comment period 

on our June 26, 2014, 90-day finding on 

a petition to designate the Central North 

Pacific population of humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) as a Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) and delist 

the DPS under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). As part of that finding, we 

solicited scientific and commercial 

information about the status of this 

population and announced a 30-day 

comment period to end on July 28, 

2014. Today, we extend the public 

comment period to August 27, 2014. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted, as they will be fully 

considered in the agency’s final 

determination. 

DATES: The deadline for receipt of 

comments is extended from July 28, 

2014 until August 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by FDMS 

Docket Number NOAA–NMFS–2014– 

0051, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

NOAA-NMFS-2014-0051, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Address written comments to 

Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen 

Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

Interested persons may obtain a copy 

of the petition online at the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site: http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protected

resources/whales/humpback/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aleria Jensen, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 586–7248 or Jon Kurland, NMFS 

Alaska Region, (907) 586–7638. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 26, 2014 we published a 

proposed rule (79 FR 36281) 

announcing a positive 90-day finding on 

a petition to designate the Central North 

Pacific population of humpback whale 

as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 

and delist the DPS under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). In that 

notice we also solicited comments and 

information from the public to inform 

the continued development of our 

humpback whale status review to 

determine whether the Central North 

Pacific humpback whale population 

constitutes a DPS under the ESA, and if 

so, the risk of extinction to this DPS. 

We have received requests to extend 

the public comment period by 30 days 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS