27164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0171; FRL–9345–2] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Butylate, Clethodim, Dichlorvos, 

Dicofol, Isopropyl Carbanilate, et al.; 

Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing, in followup to canceled uses or where a 

commodity is no longer a significant 

feed item, to revoke certain tolerances 

for butylate, clethodim, dichlorvos, 

dicofol, isopropyl carbanilate, 

methanearsonic acid, methomyl, naled, 

primisulfuron-methyl, tralomethrin, and 

ziram, and tolerance exemptions for 

rotenone, derris, cube roots, and pine 

oil. Also, EPA is proposing to make 

minor revisions to the tolerance 

expressions for dicofol, methanearsonic 

acid, methomyl, and tralomethrin, 

revise the nomenclature of specific 

tolerances for butylate, methomyl, and 

tralomethrin, and remove expired 

tolerances for certain pesticide active 

ingredients, in accordance with current 

EPA practice. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to reinstate popcorn 

tolerances for metolachlor to remedy an 

inadvertent omission and cover existing 

registrations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0171, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0171. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

email. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http://www.

regulations.gov, or, if only available in 

hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket in Rm. S–4400, One Potomac 

Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 

Arlington, VA. The hours of operation 

of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

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. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

Unit II.A. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through regulations.

gov or 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 27165 

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 or tolerance exemption 

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 certain 

tolerances and to promulgate other 

tolerances with expiration dates, for the 

fungicide ziram, the herbicides butylate, 

clethodim, isopropyl carbanilate, 

methanearsonic acid, and 

primisulfuron-methyl; the insecticides 

dichlorvos, dicofol, methomyl, naled, 

and tralomethrin, and tolerance 

exemptions for the pesticides rotenone, 

derris, cube roots, and pine oil. 

Section 321 of FFDCA defines a 

pesticide residue as including 

metabolites and degradates of the 

pesticide. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to make minor revisions to the tolerance 

expressions for dicofol, methanearsonic 

acid, methomyl, and tralomethrin, 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 tolerance. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise the nomenclature of specific 

tolerances for butylate, methomyl, and 

tralomethrin, and remove expired 

tolerances for arsanilic acid, cyhexatin, 

ethion, fenthion, fonofos, lindane, 

orthoarsenic acid, phosphamidon, and 

triazamate. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to reinstate popcorn 

tolerances for metolachlor. 

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 

revocations for dichlorvos, naled, and 

pine oil are consistent with the 

recommendations in the dichlorvos, 

naled, and pine oil Reregistration 

Eligibility Decisions (REDs) of 2006. 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 dichlorvos, naled, and 

pine oil REDs 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 

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. 

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. 

Certain tolerances pertaining to the 

pesticides subject to this proposal have 

expired due to previous EPA regulation 

setting expiration dates. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to remove the expired 

tolerances from the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This rule only corrects the 

Code of Federal Regulations to conform 

with the fact that the tolerances already 

expired, and therefore EPA is not 

accepting comments regarding the 

expiration itself. 

1. Arsanilic acid. Because the sole 

tolerance for the plant growth regulator 

arsanilic acid expired on February 28, 

2001, EPA is proposing to remove it 

from 40 CFR 180.550, and remove that 

section in its entirety. 

2. Butylate. In the Federal Register 

notice of July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44240) 

(FRL–8835–2), EPA published a notice 

of cancellation of pesticides for nonpayment of year 2010 registration 

maintenance fees, which included the 

announcement of cancellations for both 

an end-use product registration and last 

technical chemical registration for 

butylate. The cancellation orders 

permitted the registrant to sell and 

distribute existing stocks of affected 

products until January 15, 2011, one 

year after the date on which the fee was 

due. Persons other than registrant are 

permitted to sell, distribute, and/or use 

existing stocks of products whose labels 

include the deleted uses until supplies 

are exhausted, provided that the use 

complies with the EPA approved label 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and labeling of the affected products. In 

the Federal Register notice of January 

26, 2011 (76 FR 4692) (FRL–8856–9), 

EPA published a notice of receipt of 

voluntary requests by registrants to 

cancel certain pesticide registrations, 

including an end-use registration for 

butylate, the last butylate product 

registered for use in the United States. 

In the Federal Register notice of March 

23, 2011 (76 FR 16417) (FRL–8867–8), 

EPA issued a cancellation order which 

granted the requested cancellation for 

the last butylate registration and 

permitted the registrant to sell and 

distribute existing stocks of the affected 

product containing butylate for 1 year 

after the date of publication of the 

cancellation order in the Federal 

Register; i.e., until March 23, 2012. 

Persons other than registrant are 

permitted to sell, distribute, and/or use 

existing stocks of products whose labels 

include the deleted uses until supplies 

are exhausted, provided that the use 

complies with the EPA approved label 

and labeling of the affected products. 

EPA believes that existing stocks are 

likely to be exhausted by March 23, 

2013. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances for butylate in 40 

CFR 180.232(a) on corn, field, forage; 

corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; 

corn, pop, forage; corn, pop, grain; corn, 

sweet, forage; and corn, sweet, kernel 

plus cob with husks removed; each with 

an expiration/revocation date of March 

23, 2013. 

Also, in order to conform to current 

Agency practice, EPA is proposing in 40 

CFR 180.232(a) to revise the commodity 

terminology for ‘‘corn, pop, forage’’ to 

‘‘corn, pop, stover.’’ 

3. Clethodim. The commodity 

‘‘soybean soapstock’’ is no longer 

considered by the Agency to be a 

significant animal feed item and 

therefore the tolerance is no longer 

needed. Consequently, EPA is proposing 

to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.458(a) on soybean, soapstock. 

4. Cyhexatin. Because the sole 

tolerance for the insecticide cyhexatin 

expired on June 13, 2009, EPA is 

proposing to remove it from 40 CFR 

180.144, and remove that section in its 

entirety. 

5. Dichlorvos. On February 5, 1998 

(63 FR 5907) (FRL–5743–9), EPA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register concerning a number 

of pesticide active ingredients and 

proposed tolerance actions, including 

the proposed revocation of the tomato 

tolerance for dichlorvos in 40 CFR 

180.235 because there were no active 

registrations for use of dichlorvos on 

tomatoes in the United States, and 

therefore the tolerance was no longer 

needed. However, during the public 

comment period and as described in the 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 

57067) (FRL–6035–6), EPA received 

comment from the Canadian 

Horticultural Council (CHC). 

Consequently, EPA did not revoke the 

dichlorvos tolerance on tomato at that 

time. The CHC stated that revocation of 

the tomato tolerance would create a 

barrier to Canadian exports and 

requested that tolerances be maintained 

until pesticide alternatives were 

available to producers in Canada. EPA 

believes that there is no longer a need 

for the dichlorvos tolerance on tomato. 

Possible alternative insecticides such as 

fenpropathrin, deltamethrin, 

chlorantraniliprole, spinetoram, 

spinosad, permethrin, acetamiprid, 

imidacloprid, and lambda-cyhalothrin 

have both Canadian MRLs and U.S. 

tolerances on tomato or vegetable, 

fruiting, group 8, where a U.S. tolerance 

is at or exceeds the level of the 

corresponding Canadian MRL for the 

pesticide. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to revoke the dichlorvos tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.235(a)(1) on tomato, 

postharvest (residues expressed as 

naled). 

6. Dicofol. As a result of on an 

agreement in principle signed by the 

EPA and the technical registrants of 

dicofol on May 17, 2011, registrants 

requested voluntary product 

cancellation and amendment. The 

cancellations included the last products 

containing dicofol registered for use in 

the United States. Dicofol registrants 

agreed to cease all production of dicofol 

as of May 17, 2011, cease all sales and 

distribution of dicofol end-use products 

by October 31, 2013, and amend enduse products to add a condition of 

registration that as of August 31, 2011, 

registrants will not sell or distribute 

dicofol end-use products that do not 

bear a prominent sticker prior to sale or 

distribution by the dicifol registrants 

that declares: ‘‘It is unlawful to use this 

product after October 31, 2016.’’ 

In the Federal Register of June 22, 

2011 (76 FR 36535) (FRL–8875–7), EPA 

announced its receipt of the requests 

from registrants to voluntarily cancel 

the last product registrations for use of 

dicofol in the United States. In the 

Federal Register of December 14, 2011 

(76 FR 77824) (FRL–9326–5), EPA 

published a cancellation order in 

follow-up to the June 22, 2011 Notice of 

Receipt of Requests. The cancellation 

order allowed registrants of dicofol enduse products to sell and distribute 

existing stocks until October 31, 2013, 

persons other than the registrants to sell 

and distribute existing stocks until 

December 31, 2013, and use of existing 

stocks of any of the dicofol end-use 

products until October 31, 2016. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 

the dicofol tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.163(a)(1) on apple, wet pomace; 

bean, dry, seed; bean, succulent; 

butternut; caneberry subgroup 13A; 

chestnut; citrus, dried pulp; citrus oil; 

cotton, refined oil; cotton, undelinted 

seed; fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, 

group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape; 

grape, raisin; hazelnut; hop, dried 

cones; nut, hickory; nut, macadamia; 

pecan; peppermint, oil; peppermint, 

tops; spearmint, oil; spearmint, tops; 

strawberry; tea, dried; tea, plucked 

leaves; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; 

vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and walnut; 

each with an expiration/revocation date 

of October 31, 2016. 

Also, EPA is proposing to revoke the 

dicofol tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.163(a)(2) on cattle, fat; cattle, liver; 

cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts, 

except liver; egg; goat, fat; goat, liver; 

goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts, 

except liver; hog, fat; hog, liver; hog, 

meat; hog, meat byproducts, except 

liver; horse, fat; horse, liver; horse, 

meat; horse, meat byproducts, except 

liver; milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm in 

whole milk); poultry, fat; poultry, meat; 

poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; 

sheep, liver; sheep, meat; and sheep, 

meat byproducts, except liver; each with 

an expiration/revocation date of October 

31, 2016. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise the section heading in 40 CFR 

180.163 from ‘‘1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)- 

2,2,2-trichloroethanol’’ to ‘‘dicofol.’’ 

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 tolerance expressions for dicofol in 

40 CFR 180.163(a)(1) and (a)(2) to read 

as set out in the proposed regulatory 

text at the end of this document. 

7. Ethion. Because all the tolerances 

for the insecticide ethion expired on 

October 1, 2008, EPA is proposing to 

remove them from 40 CFR 180.173, and 

remove that section in its entirety. 

8. Fenthion. Because all the tolerances 

for the insecticide fenthion expired, 

some on April 1, 2006 and some on 

April 1, 2003, EPA is proposing to 

remove them from 40 CFR 180.214, and 

remove that section in its entirety. 

9. Fonofos. Because all the tolerances 

for the insecticide O-ethyl S-phenyl 

ethylphosphonodithioate, also known as 

fonofos, expired on December 31, 2002, 

EPA is proposing to remove them from 

40 CFR 180.221, and remove that 

section in its entirety. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 27167 

10. Isopropyl carbanilate. Because 

there have been no active registrations 

in the United States for isopropyl 

carbanilate (also called propham) since 

1991, the interim tolerances are no 

longer needed and therefore should be 

revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the interim tolerances for 

isopropyl carbanilate in 40 CFR 180.319 

on alfalfa, hay; clover, hay; grass, hay; 

alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; grass, 

forage; flax, seed; lentil; lettuce, head; 

lettuce, leaf; pea; safflower, seed; 

spinach; beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, 

tops; egg; cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, 

meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; 

goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, 

meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; 

horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; 

milk; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, 

meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, 

meat; and poultry, meat byproducts. 

11. Lindane. Because all the 

tolerances for the insecticide lindane 

expired on October 2, 2009, EPA is 

proposing to remove them from 40 CFR 

180.133, and remove that section in its 

entirety. 

12. Methanearsonic acid. As a result 

of an agreement in principle signed by 

the EPA and the technical registrants of 

the organic arsenicals on January 16 and 

February 5, 2009, registrants requested 

voluntary product cancellation and 

amendment. Some of the cancellations 

included the last products containing 

disodium methanearsonate (DSMA) 

registered for use in the United States, 

and cancellation and amendment of 

products for monosodium 

methanearsonate (MSMA) which would 

terminate its citrus, bearing and nonbearing, uses. In the Federal Register of 

July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32596) (FRL–8422– 

6), EPA announced its receipt of the 

requests and provided a public 

comment period. In the Federal Register 

of September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50187) 

(FRL–8437–7), EPA published a 

cancellation order in follow-up to the 

July 8, 2009, Notice of Receipt of 

Requests. The cancellation order 

prohibited registrants from selling or 

distributing existing stocks (with citrus 

uses) after December 31, 2009, and 

persons other than the registrants from 

selling or distributing existing stocks 

after December 31, 2010, but allowed 

their use until exhaustion. EPA believes 

that existing stocks (with citrus use) will 

be exhausted 2 years after December 31, 

2010; i.e., by December 31, 2012. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 

the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.289(a) for 

methanearsonic acid, from application 

of DSMA and MSMA, in or on fruit, 

citrus with an expiration/revocation 

date of December 31, 2012. 

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 tolerance expression for 

methanearsonic acid in 40 CFR 

180.289(a) to read as set out in the 

proposed regulatory text at the end of 

this document. 

13. Methomyl. In the Federal Register 

notice of October 24, 2007 (72 FR 

60364) (FRL–8153–3), EPA published a 

notice of receipt of voluntary requests 

for amendments by registrants to delete 

the grape use in methomyl registrations. 

In the Federal Register notice of 

December 8, 2010 (75 FR 76456) (FRL– 

8855–6), EPA issued a cancellation 

order granting the requested 

amendments to terminate use and 

permitted the registrant to sell and 

distribute existing stocks of the affected 

products containing methomyl for 18 

months after the date of the cancellation 

order; i.e., until June 8, 2012. Persons 

other than the registrant are permitted to 

sell, distribute, and/or use existing 

stocks of products whose labels include 

the deleted uses until supplies are 

exhausted, provided that the use 

complies with the EPA approved label 

and labeling of the affected products. 

EPA believes that existing stocks will 

be exhausted by June 8, 2013. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance 

for methomyl in 40 CFR 180.253(a) on 

grape with an expiration/revocation 

date of June 8, 2013. 

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 tolerance expressions for methomyl 

in 40 CFR 180.253(a) and (c) to read as 

set out in the proposed regulatory text 

at the end of this document. 

Also, in order to conform to current 

Agency practice, EPA is proposing in 40 

CFR 180.253(a) to revise the commodity 

terminology for ‘‘cucurbits’’ to 

‘‘vegetable, cucurbit, group 9;’’ ‘‘orange, 

sweet’’ to ‘‘orange;’’ ‘‘pepper’’ to 

‘‘pepper, bell’’ and ‘‘pepper, nonbell;’’ 

‘‘sorghum, forage’’ to ‘‘sorghum, grain, 

forage;’’ ‘‘sorghum, grain’’ to ‘‘sorghum, 

grain, grain;’’ ‘‘soybean’’ to ‘‘soybean, 

seed;’’ ‘‘vegetable, fruiting’’ to 

‘‘vegetable, fruiting, group 8;’’ and 

‘‘vegetable, root’’ to ‘‘vegetable, root and 

tuber, group 1;’’ and to remove the ‘‘(N)’’ 

designation, which means negligible 

residues, wherever it appears in 40 CFR 

180.253(a). 

14. Metolachlor. In the Federal 

Register of September 17, 2008 (73 FR 

53732) (FRL–8375–2), EPA finalized 

tolerance actions for specific active 

ingredients including metolachlor, for 

which the Agency completed a number 

of actions, including decreasing 

tolerance levels in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) 

on corn fodder and forage to 6.0 parts 

per million (ppm) and revising the 

commodity terminology of the 

tolerances on corn, grain to corn, field, 

grain; and corn, fodder to corn, field, 

stover and corn, sweet, stover. However, 

the Agency inadvertently omitted corn, 

pop, grain (previously covered by corn, 

grain) and corn, pop, stover (previously 

covered by corn, fodder) as part of the 

commodity terminology revisions for 

metolachlor in the final rule. Nor did 

the Agency include the popcorn 

tolerances for metolachlor in the 

Federal Register of August 8, 2007 (72 

FR 44439) (FRL–8138–8) for the 

proposed rule. To remedy this 

inadvertent error and to cover existing 

popcorn registrations for metolachlor, 

the Agency proposes to correct the 

revisions and reinstate the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) for corn, pop, 

grain at 0.10 ppm and corn, pop, stover 

at 6.0 ppm. 

15. Naled. On February 5, 1998 (63 FR 

5907)(FRL–5743–9), EPA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

concerning a number of pesticide active 

ingredients and proposed tolerance 

actions, including the proposed 

revocation of the lettuce tolerance for 

naled in 40 CFR 180.215 because there 

were no active registrations for use of 

naled on lettuce in the United States, 

and therefore the tolerance was no 

longer needed. However, during the 

public comment period and as 

described in the final rule published in 

the Federal Register on October 26, 

1998 (63 FR 57067) (FRL–6035–6), EPA 

received comment from Valent USA 

Corporation, on behalf of Amvac 

Chemical Corporation, and the 

Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC). 

Consequently, EPA did not revoke the 

naled tolerance on lettuce at that time. 

Amvac requested that the lettuce 

tolerance be retained for import 

purposes and that it would support that 

import tolerance. However, recently, 

Amvac notified the Agency that it was 

no longer interested in supporting the 

lettuce tolerance for import purposes. 

The CHC stated that revocation of the 

lettuce tolerance would create a barrier 

to Canadian exports and requested that 

tolerances be maintained until pesticide 

alternatives were available to producers 

in Canada. EPA believes that there is no 

longer a need for the naled tolerance on 

lettuce. Possible alternative insecticides 

such as chlorantraniliprole, spinetoram, 

spinosad, permethrin, acetamiprid, 

imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27168 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

tebufenozide, and thiamethoxam have 

both Canadian MRLs and U.S. 

tolerances on lettuce, crop subgroup 4A 

(including lettuce), or vegetable, leafy, 

except brassica, group 4, where a U.S. 

tolerance is at or exceeds the level of the 

corresponding Canadian MRL for the 

pesticide. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to revoke the naled tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.215(a)(1) on lettuce. 

16. Orthoarsenic acid. Because the 

sole tolerance for the defoliant 

orthoarsenic acid expired on July 1, 

1995, EPA is proposing to remove it 

from 40 CFR 180.180, and remove that 

section in its entirety. 

17. Phosphamidon. Because the sole 

tolerance for the insecticide 

phosphamidon expired on December 31, 

2002, EPA is proposing to remove it 

from 40 CFR 180.239, and remove that 

section in its entirety. 

18. Pine oil. Because there have been 

no active registrations in the United 

States for more than 10 years regarding 

the use of pine oil in honey and 

honeycomb, the exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for pine oil 

(also known as 1-methyl-4-isopropyl-1- 

cyclo-hexen-8-ol) residues in or on 

honey and honeycomb, when present as 

a result of its use as a deodorant at no 

more than 12 percent in formulation 

with the bee repellent butanoic 

anhydride applied in an absorbent pad 

over the hive, is no longer needed and 

therefore should be revoked. The 

revocation of the tolerance exemption is 

consistent with the recommendation in 

the pine oil RED of 2006. Consequently, 

EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance 

exemption for pine oil in 40 CFR 

180.1035 on honey and honeycomb. 

19. Primisulfuron-methyl. Because 

there have been no active registrations 

for use of primisulfuron-methyl on 

sweet corn for more than 10 years and, 

for at least 10 years, active registrations 

have shown a label prohibition of its use 

on sweet corn, the tolerances on sweet 

corn are no longer needed. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to revoke the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.452 on corn, 

sweet, forage and corn, sweet, stover. 

20. Rotenone. In the Federal Register 

of July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44256) (FRL– 

8831–7), February 3, 2010 (75 FR 5643) 

(FRL–8807–6) and January 26, 2010 (75 

FR 4072) (FRL–8808–2), EPA 

announced its receipt of requests for 

voluntary cancellation of certain 

pesticide registrations, including ones 

for rotenone (and other associated cube 

root resins) with agricultural uses, and 

provided public comment periods. In 

the Federal Register of March 23, 2011 

(76 FR 16415) (FRL–8865–9), August 11, 

2010 (75 FR 48669) (FRL–8839–9) and 

May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26227) (FRL–8822– 

4), EPA published cancellation orders in 

follow-up to the July 28, 2010, January 

26, 2010 and February 3, 2010 Notice of 

Receipt of Requests, respectively. The 

cancellation order of March 23, 2010 

allowed registrants to sell and distribute 

existing stocks until May 2011 and 

persons other than the registrants to sell, 

distribute, or use existing stocks until 

May 2011. The cancellation order of 

August 11, 2010 allowed registrants to 

sell and distribute existing stocks until 

August 11, 2011 and persons other than 

the registrants to sell, distribute, or use 

existing stocks until exhaustion. The 

cancellation order of May 11, 2010 

allowed registrants to sell and distribute 

existing stocks until May 11, 2011 and 

persons other than the registrants to sell, 

distribute, or use existing stocks until 

exhaustion. EPA believes that existing 

stocks will be exhausted by August 11, 

2012. Therefore, in 40 CFR 180.905, 

EPA is proposing to redesignate existing 

paragraph (b) as new paragraph (c) and 

recodify the tolerance exemptions for 

rotenone or derris or cube roots from 

existing paragraph (a) into newly 

designated paragraph (b) with 

expiration/revocation dates of August 

11, 2012. 

21. Tralomethrin. In the Federal 

Register of May 4, 2011 (76 FR 25334) 

(FRL–8870–5), November 17, 2010 (75 

FR 70256) (FRL–8850–1), and November 

10, 2010 (75 FR 69073) (FRL–8851–5), 

EPA announced its receipt of requests 

for voluntary cancellation of certain 

pesticide registrations, including ones 

for tralomethrin associated with 

agricultural and food/feed handling 

establishment uses, and provided public 

comment periods. In the Federal 

Register of July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40359) 

(FRL–8878–7) and February 25, 2011 

(76 FR 10587) (FRL–8863–4), EPA 

published cancellation orders in followup to the May 4, 2011, and the 

November 17, 2010 and November 10, 

2010 Notice of Receipt of Requests, 

respectively. The cancellation order of 

February 25, 2011 allowed registrants to 

sell and distribute existing stocks until 

February 25, 2012 and persons other 

than the registrants to sell, distribute, or 

use existing stocks until exhaustion. 

The cancellation order of July 8, 2011 

allowed registrants to sell and distribute 

existing stocks until July 9, 2012 and 

persons other than the registrants to sell, 

distribute, or use existing stocks until 

exhaustion. EPA believes that existing 

stocks will be exhausted by July 9, 2013. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 

tralomethrin tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.422(a)(1) on broccoli; cotton, 

undelinted seed; cotton, oil; lettuce, 

head; lettuce, leaf; soybean; and 

sunflower, seed; each with an 

expiration/revocation date of July 9, 

2013. Also, in order to conform to 

current Agency practice, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.422(a)(1) to 

revise the commodity terminology for 

‘‘soybean’’ to read ‘‘soybean, seed.’’ 

Also, EPA is proposing to revoke the 

tralomethrin tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.422(a)(2) on food commodities 

(other than those covered by a higher 

tolerance as a result of use on growing 

crops) in food-handling establishments 

at 0.02 ppm with an expiration/ 

revocation date of July 9, 2013. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tralomethrin tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.422(a)(3) on feed commodities 

(other than those covered by a higher 

tolerance as a result of use on growing 

crops) in feed-handling establishments 

at 0.02 ppm with an expiration/ 

revocation date of July 9, 2013. 

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 tolerance expressions for 

tralomethrin in 40 CFR 180.422(a)(1), 

(a)(2), and (a)(3) to read as set out in the 

proposed regulatory text at the end of 

this document. 

22. Triazamate. Because the sole 

tolerance for triazamate expired on 

December 31, 2001, EPA is proposing to 

remove it from 40 CFR 180.536, and 

remove that section in its entirety. 

23. Ziram. In the Federal Register 

notice of December 1, 2010 (75 FR 

74714) (FRL–8854–3), EPA published a 

notice of receipt of voluntary requests 

for amendments by registrants to delete 

certain uses, including the last 

blackberry uses in ziram registrations. In 

the Federal Register notice of May 11, 

2011 (76 FR 27317) (FRL–8871–2), EPA 

issued a cancellation order, which 

included granting the requested 

amendments to terminate the last ziram 

registrations for blackberry use and 

permitted the registrant to sell and 

distribute existing stocks of the affected 

products containing ziram for 12 

months after the date of the cancellation 

order; i.e., until May 11, 2012. Persons 

other than the registrants are permitted 

to sell, distribute, and/or use existing 

stocks of products whose labels include 

the deleted uses until supplies are 

exhausted, provided that the use 

complies with the EPA approved label 

and labeling of the affected products. 

EPA believes that existing stocks are 

likely to be exhausted by May 11, 2013. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 

the tolerance for ziram in 40 CFR 

180.116(a) on blackberry with an 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 27169 

expiration/revocation date of May 11, 

2013. 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the 

maximum level for residues of pesticide 

chemicals legally allowed in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a, as amended by FQPA of 1996, 

Public Law 104–170, authorizes the 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerance requirements, 

modifications in tolerances, and 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Without a tolerance or 

exemption, food containing pesticide 

residues is considered to be unsafe and 

therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under 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.). 

Food-use pesticides not registered in the 

United States must have tolerances in 

order for commodities treated with 

those pesticides to be imported into the 

United States. 

EPA’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 

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. 

C. When do these actions become 

effective? 

EPA proposes that these regulations 

become effective on the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. With the exception of 

certain tolerances for butylate, dicofol, 

methanearsonic acid (and salts), 

methomyl, tralomethrin, and ziram, and 

tolerance exemptions for rotenone, 

derris, and cube roots for which EPA is 

proposing specific expiration/revocation 

dates, the Agency is proposing that 

these tolerance revocations and 

reinstatements, and revisions of 

tolerance nomenclatures and tolerance 

expressions become final on the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. With the exception of 

the specific tolerances for which EPA is 

proposing expiration/revocation dates, 

the Agency believes that existing stocks 

of pesticide products labeled for the 

uses associated with the tolerances 

proposed for revocation have been 

completely exhausted and that treated 

commodities have cleared the channels 

of trade. EPA is proposing an 

expiration/revocation date of March 23, 

2013 for all of the tolerances for 

butylate, October 31, 2016 for all of the 

tolerances for dicofol, December 31, 

2012 for the methanearsonic acid 

tolerance on fruit, citrus, June 8, 2013 

for the methomyl tolerance on grape, 

July 9, 2013 for all of the tolerances for 

tralomethrin, May 11, 2013 for the ziram 

tolerance on blackberry, and August 11, 

2012 for the tolerance exemptions for 

rotenone (or derris or cube roots). The 

Agency believes that these revocation 

dates allow users to exhaust stocks and 

allows sufficient time for passage of 

treated commodities through the 

channels of trade. However, if EPA is 

presented with information that existing 

stocks would still be available and that 

information is verified, the Agency will 

consider extending the expiration date 

of the tolerance. If you have comments 

regarding existing stocks and whether 

the effective date allows sufficient time 

for treated commodities to clear the 

channels of trade, please submit 

comments as described under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Any commodities listed in this 

proposal treated with the pesticides 

subject to this proposal, and in the 

channels of trade following the 

tolerance revocations, shall be subject to 

FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established 

by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27170 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 butylate, isopropyl carbanilate (also 

called propham), methanearsonic acid 

(and salts), metolachlor, naled, pine oil, 

primisulfuron-methyl, rotenone (or 

derris or cube roots), tralomethrin, 

clethodim in or on soybean soapstock, 

or for dichlorvos on tomato. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for ziram per se, but has MRLs for total 

dithiocarbamates (which includes the 

dithiocarbamate ziram), determined as 

carbon disulfide. However, there is no 

MRL for total dithiocarbamates in or on 

blackberry. 

The Codex has established a MRL for 

methomyl in or on grapes at 5 

milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). This MRL 

is the same as the tolerance established 

for methomyl on grapes in the United 

States. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

dicofol in or on cattle meat at 3 mg/kg, 

eggs at 0.05 mg/kg, poultry meat and 

cottonseed at 0.1 mg/kg, and cherries at 

5 mg/kg. These MRLs and some others 

are the same as the tolerances 

established for dicofol in the United 

States. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

dicofol in or on various other 

commodities, including beans, dry at 

0.1 mg/kg, citrus fruits at 5 mg/kg, hops, 

dry at 50 mg/kg, melons, except 

watermelon at 0.2 mg/kg, pecans and 

walnuts at 0.01 mg/kg, and peppers, 

summer squash, and tomato at 1 mg/kg. 

These MRLs are all covered by U.S. 

tolerances at higher levels. These MRLs 

are different than the tolerances 

established for dicofol 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 revoke specific tolerances 

established under FFDCA section 408. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this type of action 

(e.g., 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) (Pub. L. 

104–4). Nor does it require any special 

considerations as required by Executive 

Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any other 

Agency action under Executive Order 

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997). This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency 

previously assessed whether revocations 

of tolerances 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. This analysis 

was published on December 17, 1997 

(62 FR 66020) (FRL–5753–1), and was 

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 

pesticides 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 27171 

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: April 27, 2012. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

2. Section 180.116 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.116 Ziram; tolerances for residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Almond ................ 1 0.1 None 

Apple ................... 1 7.0 None 

Apricot ................. 1 7.0 None 

Blackberry ........... 1 7.0 5/11/13 

Blueberry ............ 1 7.0 None 

Cherry, sweet ..... 1 7.0 None 

Cherry, tart .......... 1 7.0 None 

Grape .................. 7.0 None 

Huckleberry ......... 7.0 None 

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

Pear .................... 1 7.0 None 

Pecan .................. 0.1 None 

Quince ................ 1 7.0 None 

Strawberry .......... 7.0 None 

Tomato ................ 1 7.0 None 

* * * * * 

§§ 180.133 and 180.144 [Removed] 

3. Sections 180.133 and 180.144 are 

removed. 

4. Section 180.163 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.163 Dicofol; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide dicofol, 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 dicofol as the sum of its 

p,p-dicofol and o,p-dicofol isomers: 4- 

chloro-a-(4-chlorophenyl)-a- 

(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol and 

2-chloro-a-(4-chlorophenyl)-a- 

(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, in 

or on the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Apple, wet pomace .................. 38.0 10/31/16 

Bean, dry, seed .. 0.5 10/31/16 

Bean, succulent .. 3.0 10/31/16 

Butternut ............. 0.1 10/31/16 

Caneberry subgroup 13A ....... 5.0 10/31/16 

Chestnut ............. 0.1 10/31/16 

Citrus, dried pulp 12.0 10/31/16 

Citrus oil .............. 200.0 10/31/16 

Cotton, refined oil 0.5 10/31/16 

Cotton, undelinted 

seed ................ 0.1 10/31/16 

Fruit, citrus, group 

10 .................... 6.0 10/31/16 

Fruit, pome, 

group 11 .......... 10.0 10/31/16 

Fruit, stone, 

group 12 .......... 5.0 10/31/16 

Grape .................. 5.0 10/31/16 

Grape, raisin ....... 20.0 10/31/16 

Hazelnut .............. 0.1 10/31/16 

Hop, dried cones 65.0 10/31/16 

Nut, hickory ......... 0.1 10/31/16 

Nut, macadamia 0.1 10/31/16 

Pecan .................. 0.1 10/31/16 

Peppermint, oil .... 30.0 10/31/16 

Peppermint, tops 25.0 10/31/16 

Spearmint, oil ...... 30.0 10/31/16 

Spearmint, tops .. 25.0 10/31/16 

Strawberry .......... 10.0 10/31/16 

Tea, dried ........... 50.0 10/31/16 

Tea, plucked 

leaves .............. 30.0 10/31/16 

Vegetable, 

cucurbit, group 

9 ...................... 2.0 10/31/16 

Vegetable, 

fruiting, group 8 2.0 10/31/16 

Walnut ................. 0.1 10/31/16 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of the insecticide dicofol, 

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 p,p-dicofol, 

4-chloro-a-(4-chlorophenyl)-a- 

(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, its 

isomer o,p-dicofol, 2-chloro-a-(4- 

chlorophenyl)-a- 

(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, and 

its metabolites 4-chloro-a-(4- 

chlorophenyl)-a- 

(dichloromethyl)benzenemethanol and 

2-chloro-a-(4-chlorophenyl)-a- 

(dichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of p,p-dicofol, 4-chloro-a-(4- 

chlorophenyl)-a- 

(trichloromethyl)benzenemethanol, in 

or on the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Cattle, fat ............ 50 .0 10/31/16 

Cattle, liver .......... 5 .0 10/31/16 

Cattle, meat ........ 3 .0 10/31/16 

Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver .......... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Egg ..................... 0 .05 10/31/16 

Goat, fat .............. 50 .0 10/31/16 

Goat, liver ........... 5 .0 10/31/16 

Goat, meat .......... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Goat, meat byproducts, except liver .......... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Hog, fat ............... 50 .0 10/31/16 

Hog, liver ............ 5 .0 10/31/16 

Hog, meat ........... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Hog, meat byproducts, except liver .......... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Horse, fat ............ 50 .0 10/31/16 

Horse, liver ......... 5 .0 10/31/16 

Horse, meat ........ 3 .0 10/31/16 

Horse, meat byproducts, except liver .......... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Milk, fat (reflecting 0.75 ppm in 

whole milk) ...... 22 .0 10/31/16 

Poultry, fat .......... 0 .1 10/31/16 

Poultry, meat ...... 0 .1 10/31/16 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 0 .1 10/31/16 

Sheep, fat ........... 50 .0 10/31/16 

Sheep, liver ......... 5 .0 10/31/16 

Sheep, meat ....... 3 .0 10/31/16 

Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver .......... 3 .0 10/31/16 

* * * * * 

§§ 180.173, 180.180, and 180.214 

[Removed] 

5. Sections 180.173, 180.180, and 

180.214 are removed. 

§ 180.215 [Amended] 

6. Section 180.215 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘lettuce’’ from 

the table in paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 180.221 [Removed] 

7. Section 180.221 is removed. 

8. Section 180.232 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.232 Butylate; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Corn, field, forage 0.1 3/23/13 

Corn, field, grain 0.1 3/23/13 

Corn, field, stover 0.1 3/23/13 

Corn, pop, grain .. 0.1 3/23/13 

Corn, pop, stover 0.1 3/23/13 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 0.1 3/23/13 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed ............. 0.1 3/23/13 

* * * * * 

§ 180.235 [Amended] 

9. Section 180.235 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘tomato, 

postharvest (residues expressed as 

naled)’’ from the table in paragraph 

(a)(1). 

§ 180.239 [Removed] 

10. Section 180.239 is removed. 

11. Section 180.253 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.253 Methomyl; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide methomyl, 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 methomyl, methyl N-[[

(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]ethanimido

thioate, in or on the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Alfalfa, forage ... 10 None 

Alfalfa, hay ........ 10 None 

Apple ................. 1 None 

Asparagus ......... 2 None 

Avocado ............ 2 None 

Barley, grain ..... 1 None 

Barley, hay ........ 10 None 

Barley, straw ..... 10 None 

Bean, dry, seed 0 .1 None 

Bean, forage ..... 10 None 

Bean, succulent 2 None 

Beet, garden, 

tops ............... 6 None 

Bermudagrass, 

forage ............ 10 None 

Bermudagrass, 

hay ................ 40 None 

Blueberry .......... 6 None 

Broccoli ............. 3 None 

Brussels sprouts 2 None 

Cabbage ........... 5 None 

Cabbage, Chinese, bok 

choy ............... 5 None 

Cabbage, Chinese, napa .... 5 None 

Cauliflower ........ 2 None 

Celery ............... 3 None 

Collards ............. 6 None 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Corn, field, forage ................ 10 None 

Corn, field, grain 0 .1 None 

Corn, field, stover ................. 10 None 

Corn, pop, grain 0 .1 None 

Corn, pop, stover ................. 10 None 

Corn, sweet, forage ................ 10 None 

Corn, sweet, 

kernel plus 

cob with 

husks removed ........... 0 .1 None 

Corn, sweet, 

stover ............ 10 None 

Cotton, 

undelinted 

seed .............. 0 .1 None 

Dandelion, 

leaves ............ 6 None 

Endive ............... 5 None 

Grape ................ 5 6/8/13 

Grapefruit .......... 2 None 

Hop, dried 

cones 1 .......... 12 None 

Kale ................... 6 None 

Lemon ............... 2 None 

Lentil, seed ....... 0 .1 None 

Lettuce .............. 5 None 

Mustard greens 6 None 

Nectarine .......... 5 None 

Oat, forage ........ 10 None 

Oat, grain .......... 1 None 

Oat, hay ............ 10 None 

Oat, straw ......... 10 None 

Onion, green ..... 3 None 

Orange .............. 2 None 

Parsley, leaves 6 None 

Pea ................... 5 None 

Pea, field, vines 10 None 

Peach ................ 5 None 

Peanut .............. 0 .1 None 

Pecan ................ 0 .1 None 

Pepper, bell ...... 2 None 

Pepper, nonbell 2 None 

Peppermint, tops 2 None 

Pomegranate .... 0 .2 None 

Rye, forage ....... 10 None 

Rye, grain ......... 1 None 

Rye, straw ......... 10 None 

Sorghum, grain, 

forage ............ 1 None 

Sorghum, grain, 

grain .............. 0 .2 None 

Soybean, forage 10 None 

Soybean, seed .. 0 .2 None 

Spearmint, tops 2 None 

Spinach ............. 6 None 

Swiss chard ...... 6 None 

Tangerine .......... 2 None 

Tomato .............. 1 None 

Turnip, greens .. 6 None 

Vegetable, brassica, leafy, 

group 5 .......... 6 .0 None 

Vegetable, 

cucurbit, 

group 9 .......... 0 .2 None 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Vegetable, 

fruiting, group 

8 .................... 0 .2 None 

Vegetables, 

leafy 1 ............ 0 .2 None 

Vegetable, root 

and tuber, 

group 1 .......... 0 .2 None 

Wheat, forage ... 10 None 

Wheat, grain ..... 1 None 

Wheat, hay ....... 10 None 

Wheat, straw ..... 10 None 

1 [exc. Beet (tops), broccoli, Brussels 

sprouts, cabbage, cabbage, Chinese, cauliflower, celery, collards, dandelions, endive 

(escarole), kale, lettuce, mustard greens, parsley, spinach, Swiss chard, turnip, greens 

(tops), and watercress]. 2There are no U.S. registrations for use of 

methomyl on hop, dried cone, as of February 

14, 1990. 

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. A tolerance with regional 

registration, as defined in § 180.1(l), is 

established for residues of the 

insecticide methomyl, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodity in the table in this 

paragraph. Compliance with the 

tolerance level specified in this 

paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only methomyl, methyl 

N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]

oxy]ethanimidothioate, in or on the 

commodity. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 180.289 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.289 Methanearsonic acid; 

tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the herbicide 

methanearsonic acid, 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 methanearsonic acid, 

from application of the disodium and 

monosodium salts of methanearsonic 

acid, calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of As2O3, in or on the 

commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Cotton, 

undelinted 

seed .............. 0 .7 None 

Cotton, hulls ...... 0 .9 None 

Fruit, citrus ........ 0 .35 12/31/12 

* * * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 27173 

13. Section 180.319 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.319 Interim tolerances. 

(a) General. While petitions for 

tolerances for negligible residues are 

pending and until action is completed 

on these petitions, interim tolerances 

are established for residues of the listed 

pesticide chemicals in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities: 

Substances Uses Tolerance in 

parts per million 

Raw agricultural 

commodity 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Coordination product of zinc ion and maneb ........................................... Fungicide .......... 1.0 (Calculated 

as zinc ethylene-bisdithiocarbamate).

Potato ............... None 

Endothall (7-oxabicyclo-(2,2,1)heptane 2,3-dicarboxylic acid .................. Herbicide .......... 0.2 .................... Beet, sugar ....... None 

Methyl parathion ....................................................................................... Herbicide .......... 0.5 .................... Rye ................... 12/31/13 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

14. Section 180.368 is amended by 

alphabetically adding the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Corn, pop, grain .......................... 0 .10 

Corn, pop, stover ........................ 6 .0 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

15. Section 180.422 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.422 Tralomethrin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide tralomethrin, 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 tralomethrin, 

(S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 

(1R,3S)-2,2-dimethyl-3-(1,2,2,2- 

tetrabromoethyl)cyclopropane

carboxylate, and its metabolites (S)- 

cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 

(1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and 

(S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 

(1S,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of tralomethrin, in or on the 

commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

revocation 

date 

Broccoli ............. 0 .5 7/9/13 

Cotton, 

undelinted 

seed .............. 0 .02 7/9/13 

Cotton, oil ......... 0 .20 7/9/13 

Lettuce, head .... 1 .00 7/9/13 

Lettuce, leaf ...... 3 .00 7/9/13 

Soybean, seed .. 0 .05 7/9/13 

Sunflower, seed 0 .05 7/9/13 

(2) A tolerance of 0.02 part per 

million with an expiration/revocation 

date of July 9, 2013 is established for 

residues of the insecticide tralomethrin, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on food commodities 

(other than those covered by a higher 

tolerance as a result of use on growing 

crops) in food-handling establishments. 

Compliance with the tolerance level 

specified in this paragraph is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of tralomethrin, (S)-cyano(3-

phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3S)-2,2-

dimethyl-3-(1,2,2,2- 

tetrabromoethyl)cyclopropane

carboxylate, and its metabolites (S)- 

cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 

(1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and 

(S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 

(1S,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of tralomethrin, in or on the 

commodity. 

(i) The insecticide may be present as 

a residue from application of 

tralomethrin in food-handling 

establishments, including food service, 

manufacturing, and processing 

establishments, such as restaurants, 

cafeterias, supermarkets, bakeries, 

breweries, dairies, meat slaughtering 

and packing plants, and canneries. 

(ii) The application shall be made in 

accordance with the following 

prescribed conditions: Application shall 

be limited to a general surface and spot 

and/or crack and crevice treatment in 

food-handling establishments where 

food and food products are held, 

processed, prepared, and served. 

General surface application may be used 

only when the facility is not in 

operation provided exposed food has 

been covered or removed from the area 

being treated. All food-contact surfaces 

and equipment must be thoroughly 

cleaned after general surface 

applications. Spot and/or crack and 

crevice application may be used while 

the facility is in operation provided 

exposed food is covered or removed 

from the area being treated prior to 

application. Spray concentration shall 

be limited to a maximum of 0.06 percent 

active ingredient. Contamination of food 

and food-contact surfaces shall be 

avoided. 

(3) A tolerance of 0.02 part per 

million with an expiration/revocation 

date of July 9, 2013 is established for 

residues of the insecticide tralomethrin, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on feed commodities 

(other than those covered by a higher 

tolerance as a result of use on growing 

crops) in feed-handling establishments. 

Compliance with the tolerance level 

specified in this paragraph is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of tralomethrin, (S)-cyano(3- 

phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3S)-2,2- 

dimethyl-3-(1,2,2,2- 

tetrabromoethyl) 

cyclopropanecarboxylate, and its 

metabolites (S)-cyano(3- 

phenoxyphenyl)methyl (1R,3R)-3-(2,2- 

dibromoethenyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and 

(S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 

(1S,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of tralomethrin, in or on the 

commodity. 

(i) The insecticide may be present as 

a residue from application of 

tralomethrin in feed-handling 

establishments, including feed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturing and processing 

establishments. 

(ii) The application shall be made in 

accordance with the following 

prescribed conditions: Application shall 

be limited to a general surface and spot 

and/or crack and crevice treatment in 

feed-handling establishments where 

feed and feed products are held or 

processed. General surface application 

may be used only when the facility is 

not in operation provided exposed feed 

has been covered or removed from the 

area being treated. All feed-contact 

surfaces and equipment must be 

thoroughly cleaned after general surface 

applications. Spot and/or crack and 

crevice application may be used while 

the facility is in operation provided 

exposed feed is covered or removed 

from the area being treated prior to 

application. Spray concentration shall 

be limited to a maximum of 0.06 percent 

active ingredient. Contamination of feed 

and feed-contact surfaces shall be 

avoided. 

* * * * * 

§ 180.452 [Amended] 

16. Section 180.452 is amended by 

removing the entries for ‘‘corn, sweet, 

forage’’ and ‘‘corn, sweet, stover’’ from 

the table in paragraph (a). 

§ 180.458 [Amended] 

17. Section 180.458 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘soybean, 

soapstock’’ from the table in paragraph 

(a). 

§§ 180.536 and 180.550 [Removed] 

18. Sections 180.536 and 180.550 are 

removed. 

19. Section 180.905 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.905 Pesticide chemicals; 

exemptions from the requirement of a 

tolerance. 

(a) When applied to growing crops, in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practice, the following pesticide 

chemicals are exempt from the 

requirement of a tolerance: 

(1) Petroleum oils. 

(2) Piperonyl butoxide. 

(3) Pyrethrins. 

(4) Sabadilla. 

(b) When applied to growing crops, in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practice, the pesticides rotenone or 

derris or cube roots are exempt from the 

requirement of a tolerance until their 

tolerance exemptions expire on August 

11, 2012. 

(c) These pesticides are not exempted 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

when applied to a crop at the time of or 

after harvest. 

§ 180.1035 [Removed] 

20. Section 180.1035 is removed. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11063 Filed 5–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Parts 13 and 22 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0054; 

FF09M21200–123–FXMB123209EAGL0L2] 

RIN 1018–AX91 

Eagle Permits; Changes in the 

Regulations Governing Eagle 

Permitting 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We announce the extension of 

the public comment period for our April 

13, 2012, proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for permits for 

nonpurposeful take of golden eagles 

(Aquila chrysaetos) and bald eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) where the 

take is associated with, but not the 

purpose of, an activity. In that proposed 

rule, we propose to increase the 

maximum term for programmatic 

permits to 30 years and to increase 

permit application processing fees for 

such long-term permits. We are 

extending the public comment period to 

allow all interested parties an additional 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed rule. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

we will fully consider them when 

preparing a final determination. 

DATES: Electronic comments on the 

proposal published at 77 FR 22267, 

April 13, 2012, must be submitted via 

http://www.regulations.gov by 11:59 

p.m. Eastern time on July 12, 2012. 

Comments submitted by mail must be 

postmarked no later than July 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following two methods. 

Please do not submit comments by both. 

• Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011– 

0054. 

• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attention: FWS– 

R9–MB–2011–0054; Division of Policy 

and Directives Management; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 

22203–1610. 

We will not accept email or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:/ 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information that you provide. See the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, at 703–358–1714. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 13, 2012, we proposed 

revisions to the regulations governing 

permits for take of golden eagles (Aquila 

chrysaetos) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), where the take is 

associated with, but not the purpose of, 

an activity (see 77 FR 22267, April 13, 

2012). We proposed to extend the 

maximum term for a programmatic 

permit from 5 to 30 years, if the permit 

incorporates conditions requiring 

implementation of additional measures 

to ensure the preservation of eagles, if 

needed. This change would facilitate the 

responsible development of renewable 

energy and other projects that will be in 

operation for many decades while being 

consistent with statutory mandates 

protecting eagles. 

The proposed rule would amend the 

schedule of permit fees set forth at 50 

CFR 13.11 to substantially increase the 

fees charged for processing 

programmatic permit applications for 

such long-term permits. The permit 

application processing fee is proposed 

to be $36,000. In addition, the 

regulations propose an ‘‘administration 

fee’’ based on the duration of the 

permits to recover our costs for 

monitoring and working with the 

permittees over the lives of the permits. 

The proposed administration fee ranges 

from $2,600 for permits with tenures of 

5 years or less to $15,600 for 30-year 

permits. The regulations propose a 

reduced application processing fee of 

$5,000 for permit applications for small 

wind projects and other activities not 

expected to have significant effects on 

eagles. 

The proposed rule also contains 

provisions that would allow permits to 

be transferred from one party to another 

and to clarify that programmatic permits 

issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668–668d) to 

Federal, State, tribal, or local 

governmental entities provide take 

authorization for persons acting under 

the jurisdiction of the permitted 

government agency under certain 

circumstances. 

We are now extending the public 

comment period for the proposed rule to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS